Author: J. C. Boco
Date: 05:37:50 11/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
It should come as no surprise that I will pick #2. But I would also allow some weaker players to come and play the dedicated units. It's been a long time since the dedicateds were referenced to human players. On November 19, 2003 at 08:27:16, Steven Edwards wrote: >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.