Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 15:12:12 11/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2003 at 17:30:36, Amir Ban wrote: >On November 19, 2003 at 12:02:56, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>On November 19, 2003 at 11:51:59, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>On November 19, 2003 at 11:34:17, Matthew Hull wrote: >>> >>>>On November 19, 2003 at 11:30:37, martin fierz wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 19, 2003 at 11:06:21, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 19, 2003 at 10:55:26, martin fierz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On November 19, 2003 at 10:31:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>here. Makes a _lot_ of sense. And it shows just how "world" aware the >>>>>>>>ICCA actually is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>i don't really want to be involved in this thread, but i can't resist this >>>>>>>one... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>disclaimer: of course it would be much more sensible to have the championship in >>>>>>>the US from time to time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>cheapo: so the ICCA does something which is not good for *one* country >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>That's one cheapo that doesn't work. It would be like 2000 years ago holding >>>>>>gladiator events that discommode only one country, Rome. >>>>>> >>>>>>MH >>>>> >>>>>of course it works, and you just invite the next follow up cheapo ;-) >>>>> >>>>>2000 years ago the romans were perhaps not aware that there was much more to the >>>>>world than rome. sometimes one gets the feeling that the US citizens are no >>>>>different in this respect... >>>> >>>> >>>>Ok, how about holding a world chess championship that only inconviences >>>>Russians. >>>> >>>>I think you get the idea. :) >>>> >>>>MH >>> >>>of course i get the idea! i put a disclaimer on my first post stating clearly >>>that IMO the championship should be held in the US from time to time, and i >>>labelled my posts as cheapos :-) >>>i thought that made it clear enough... >>> >>>going back to your comparison with the russians: exactly how many american >>>programs are in the top 10 of the SSDF list? >> >> >>The SSDF list only uses consumer-grade technology to test programs. Programs >>tuned to that limited technology will always top that list. That is why the >>list is of limited importance. A real WCCC is going to attract high performance >>projects, not just consumer oriented projects. This is what the New World has >>always offered. But, Old Worlders have a problem with that I guess. >> > >Do any such New World high performance projects exist ? Crafty can be such a project on practically a moment's notice (I believe). Other programs are similiarly suited. If the WCCC comes to North America, the projects will materialize. This was the benefit of limiting the event to every three years and making it a practical event, length-wise. It provided time for the husbanding of resources, planning, development and sponsorship along with a relative rarity that made the event that much more important and compelling (and thus an easier sell to the people with the expensive resources). The current cycle with it's awkward timing and extended length, along with it's persistent location in Europe (not to mention its archaic modus operendi) seems calculated to favor European commercial interests while excluding projects from North America. Perhaps it is the punishment Europeans are determined to mete out to us for the DB2 triumph, which seems to be universally reviled overseas. EU types are maybe fed up with the dominance of North American, high-end computer chess projects. MH > >Amir > > >>There, that's my cheapo. ;-) >> >>MH >> >> >> >>>hint: less than russians in the top >>>10 of the FIDE list! >>> >>>cheers >>> martin
This page took 0.02 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.