Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 16:03:55 07/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 16, 2002 at 18:27:24, Kevin Strickland wrote: >On July 16, 2002 at 18:11:01, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>A few thoughts about this: >> >>1) If you make this an open tournament, and you get the kind of response you >>want to get, you've basically just said "commercials only", almost, since there >>are a lot of commercials and they are strong. Almost all of the commercials are >>European. So you've just created a tournament in North America, from which >>North American amateurs would be squeezed out. > >That is not what I am trying to do. Can you imagine all the commercials and >_all_ the amateur programs attending. That would be close to 200 participants. Yes, I can imagine it, but this might be hard to get. Also, there will be space considerations unless you hold this in a gymnasium, which would be alright with me, frankly. >This is not what _is_ going to happen, I am simply looking for feedback. > > >>So you need to have way way more than 12 entrants. >> >>2) With this in mind, having multiple qualification tournaments doesn't make a >>lot of sense. What you really really want to do is invite everyone. I'd hope >>that you'd have room for everyone, but if you don't, you should invite as many >>as you can. > >Want to help me compile a list of programmer email addresses to that I can cc >the email to 200 people at once? I would be more than happy to have 200 programs >here. Can you imagine the response? It would be incredible and more than likely >the biggest computer chess tournament in history. Not now, I'm going in sane. But I'll tell you how to do it. Go here: http://www.winboardengines.de/html/winboard-update-list.html ... and extract as much information as you can. Also, you can probably get someone else to collect this stuff or send this info to you. But that list is an excellent start. You can also post here and on r.g.c.c., asking for participants, when the time is a little more right, if it's not now. >>More is better. Weaker programs are not a problem. Weaker program plus >>interesting event equals motivated programmer equals stronger program. > >I do not care the strength of the programs attending. In fact some of my >favorite programs are not in the top 20 amateurs or commercials. > >> >>EVERYONE should be there, as long as your program can castle and handle the >>en-passant rule, no problem, in my opinion. > >I agree.. Good. >>3) It is alright to be angry at the ICCA for not having a tournament in North >>America in recorded memory, but your event will likely fail if it is going to be >>held almost exactly the same time as the ICCA event. I can't afford the time >>and money to go to more than one. Probably a lot of people are in the same >>situation, so you have to take into account their schedule. > >I agree that taking participants schedules into account is important. It is the >basic reasoning that I am posting details of what I would like to do to see >_exactly_ what everyone would like to see happen. > >If you don't ask or show your hand how can anything be successful. Fair enough. >>4) Details such as time controls and opening book rules should be hashed out by >>the participants. If the organizer is spending a lot of time on this, that's >>bad. You should be spending time getting a big venue, sponsors, places for >>people to stay, and beer in the tournament hall. > >That is why I removed the book rule. I would like to stick with the tournament >time control if possible. I think it makes for more interesting chess. Although >a shorter time control would allow for more rounds which in itself is >interesting. You do need to figure out how to listen to, because this bunch can get crazy very rapidly. This is another reason not to alienate those who go to the ICCA tournaments -- they've been to a lot of these and have and idea of what works and what could use improvement. The idea of shorter time controls has been discussed often. The trend is not exactly toward them, but I think it might make sense to shorten things up a bit if that allows for more rounds in less time. People are always screaming about having the longest time controls possible, but this year's standard is next year's active anyway. >>5) There is no need for a prize fund. If you have excess cash, subsidize the >>beer. > >Now finally we can agree on something. Lower cost beer is something I dream >about daily. > >> >>6) "World Champion" is not a necessary title here. There is less obvious >>animosity toward the Europeans if you call this a North American Open >>Championship, which is what it is. If the Europeans want to call their event >>the World Championship, there is some history backing that up, and it doesn't >>matter anyway. >> >>Don't piss them off too much and it's possible that more good can come of this. > >I am not trying to piss anyone off. I am trying to make the best event possible >in North America. Good. You don't have to call it a world championship. If you are going to call it a world championship, you may need to invent a federation, and unless that is just a shell, that's a whole other pain in the butt. North American Open is good enough. bruce
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.