Author: Steven Edwards
Date: 05:27:16 11/19/03
Let's say tthat you had US$200,000 available for computer chess and two options: 1. Sponsor a one time, four game event with a US$200,000 prize fund and only two players. 2. Sponsor an annual tournament event with two dozen program entrants with no prize fund, but with at least partial coverage of travel and lodging expenses. Both options cost the same. Both options have plenty of publicity benefits. But only the second option has a good promise of actually advancing the state of the art and encouraging newcomers into the field. After several decades of watching the CC area, it seems to me that there is an inverse relationship between commercial CC financial income vs contributions to open research. Some commercal interests have made a good chunk of money (not bad in itself) by taking advantage of open research (papers, test data, game collections, etc.) but have done little or nothing in return. On the other hand, there are those researchers who have made little, if any money from their work, yet who continue to advance the field with ideas, data, and mentoring. I remain wholly unimpressed with one shot publicity stunts that do next to nothing to help with our Art.
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.