Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 05:46:35 11/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2003 at 04:59:59, Daniel Clausen wrote: >Hi > >I've read the thread concerning the WCCC2003 in Graz and I think both sides have >good points. (I just wish they'd listened more to each other ;) > >I have some questions/remarks though: > >(1) >Would you guys (esp. from the US) prefer it if the WCCC event would be held over >the internet in general or once in the US, once in Europe or something like >that? > >(2) >In case such events would be held over the internet, how would you make sure >that cheating is not likely to happen? I think Russell suggested little 'hubs' >around the world (like in Europe, US, Asia, Australia, etc) so that everyone can >participate in the event but there would be some sort of control. I think that's >a very interesting idea, although it seems to be very hard to actually do it >since it requires a lot of organization and costs money. > >While I think the measurements against cheating in the upcoming CCT-event are >reasonable, it seems obvious to me, that one has to do more than that if the >'importance' of the event is higher. > >(3) >I believe there is enough interest in CC-tournaments in the US. But I have to >ask the simple question: Why aren't there any? I mean, in Europe it's noth just >WCCC, it's also Leiden, it's Paderborn, and maybe some others too. What >tournament is held in the US? There has to be a reason for it. It's not lack of >interest, it's not lack of sponsors, so what is it? (this is not meant as a >flame, but as a serious question :) > >Sargon Very strong computer chess projects used to be rare and expensive -- the domain of expensive research facilities and universities -- which made such meetings in the US all the more fascinating and worthwhile. Now, strong chess projects can be the domain of one person in his home working alone (Ruffian, for example). Strong computer chess now belongs as much or more to the masses as it does to the lab or university. It's like the early eighties when personal computers began to be ubiquitous, and software development could be done by anyone. Now strong, cheap hardware for chess is ubiquitous. In Europe, there is still great enthusiasm for the low-tech physical computer chess events. This seems to be a cultural thing. I don't think Americans care that much about the gregarious potentials. For us, network contests are "where its at" because it is so handy and cost effective. Sure you don't get to meet people and make friends, but Americans are not intrigued by that aspect as much, I guess. Bottom line is that entree into top-level computer chess research is much cheaper and as far as hi-tech research entities are concerned, it has been done-to-death. It is this dilution that is responsible for the absence of interesting US entries, which tended to be leading edge projects (Belle, Hitech, DT/DB, etc.). Also, getting back to the cultural aspect, Americans think Europeans are nuts for continuing the '70s and '80s style physical events. It's like, why don't you leverage technology for this kind of thing. ICC has made your modus operendi obsolete. Move on! MH
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.