Author: Amir Ban
Date: 11:23:10 11/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2003 at 08:59:25, Matthew Hull wrote: >On November 20, 2003 at 06:57:30, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On November 19, 2003 at 18:12:12, Matthew Hull wrote: >> >>>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. >>> >> >>There's nothing to be fed up with, since the dominance is long gone. > >Yes, the ICGA have seen to that by keeping the WCCC out of North America and >making inconvenient for North Americans to participate. Nicely done, IMO. > >>Hong Kong >>1995 was the swansong. There were 4 of them there, but losing to Fritz, and even >>before that, in 1992, to Schroeder, underscored that they have lost their >>advantage and so their reason in life. > > >That is a not entirely unreasonable opinion, though still incorrect, IMO. Bob >addressed the competitive issue in another thread here. There are American >programs suited to high performance hardware which would have a definite >advantage, even over your project. Yes? > Sure. There are tens if not hundreds of Americans who would make me look silly with multi-million $ projects and $10 million hardware. The only thing holding them back is that they can't afford to go to Europe. It has been tested once in a Rebel vs. Crafty match where Crafty was given a 100 to 1 time advantage. The match was aborted after Rebel won the first game. >But that's not good for business, ist it? It looks to me that the status quo >favors your interests. > So it's the money motive working here ? This would be an object lesson on how to bring industry giants and ivy-league colleges to their knees: make them travel, or make them get a $50,000 sponsor. Amir >Matt > > >> >>To remind you, the current world champion is not European. >> >>Amir
This page took 0.01 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.