Author: Amir Ban
Date: 11:17:22 12/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 05, 2003 at 21:51:20, Sune Fischer wrote: >On December 05, 2003 at 20:16:49, Amir Ban wrote: >>The charter could also have said "every chess programmer will be happy, rich and >>live to 105." It's not enforceable. Of course the USA/Europe alternation clause >>meant "when possible". >> >>For the ICCA to even start talking to anyone, there needs to be someone who >>wants to organize the event. The sponsors come later, and it's usually the >>organizers who go out and find them. >> >>You are wasting your time complaining here. Go and convince someone to organize >>the event. Find a mayor or a university dean and convince him that he wants the >>event to come to him. Mayors are often particularly good at raising, often from >>people who don't even know how a chessboard look like, but will open their >>wallets if the mayor says it's important. If possible, look for places where a >>budget already exists for such cultural events (as in Graz. >> >>Good luck. > >So basicly, you want some of the participants themselves to _be_ the organizers >that finds the sponsors that pays the ICGA to "sanction" the WCCC? :) > No, I said find an organizer. You are confusing between organizers and sponsors. But anyway, that's the way it has usually worked: Donninger (Brutus) was behind the event in Graz, Omid (Falcon) played a part in getting the event to Bar-Ilan, Virtual Chess was the reason for Paris 1997, and I think P.Conners was the reason for Paderborn 1999. In years that organizers did not materialize, ICGA officials used their home ground, i.e. v.d. Herik in Maastrict 2001, 2002, Levy in London 2000. >That's a lot of money just to "sanction" something while leaving the hard work >to be done by others, don't you think? > The ICGA has something no one else can give: a world title established for 3 decades. To the organizer/sponsor, that's a big deal. But anyway, we are discussing here 3-4 individuals who are dedicating half a lifetime to this. For them to be called do-nothing parasites by some who will not invest even 2 weeks a decade is sheer chutzpah. >IMO it would be more logical if ICGA _were_ the organizers that found the >sponsors and attracted the participants, e.g. with prize founds or other >goodies. >I'm pretty sure USA is a good market for finding sponsors, from what I hear the >bucks are bigger over there, it's easier to find people willing to take >financial risks. > >Nah, on second though, I don't want to advocate along that line at all. > >I think the way of the future for the WCCC is to hold it on the Internet. >To give it a world wide audience and participation. > >Until now I think the main counter-argument has been that it would be harder to >eliminate cheaters on the internet, but given the recent List ordeal (cheater or >not I have no idea) it seems that such problems/accusations will always be there >in one form or another. > >Currently the CCT tournament is the closet we have to an internet world >championship. >Maybe it would be possible to arrange a match between the internet champion and >the ICGA champion, to merge the waters so to speak? > CCT is not a world championship even in the eyes of this forum, not to mention the outside world, who's never heard of it. For a sponsor, the value of an event is in the media exposure. The Kasparov-DJ match was covered by the BBC, CNN, ESPN, Discovery channel, to name just a few. WCCC's get covered by local media, at least. CCT's are not covered by anyone. To suggest that CCT should be the WCCC is to admit that the world has lost all interest in computer chess. This may be already true in the USA, but not quite elsewhere. Amir >Tha t is, unless Fritz wins them both of course. > >-S. > >>Amir >>
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.