Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 13:49:00 12/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 06, 2003 at 14:17:22, Amir Ban wrote: >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. Define organizers. The ones that do the work are effectively the organizers, and if the chess organization (ICGA) isn't the supposed to do the organizing then I don't know what an organization is supposed to do. >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. You are dodging the issue being raised, namely why isn't ICGA responsible for finding the location and sponsors, and why don't they move it around. What is the role of ICGA in this context, help me see it, please. >>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. I don't think anyone can make claim to such a title if there isn't support for it in the community at large. The ICGA is only empowered by our support, without that they are nothing. I agree it is best for the computer chess to have an officially sanctioned world title, so I think we should try to agree on some format that would please everybody. >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. Just what is it that they _do_, you don't even want them to organize the event, so how can that take up half a lifetime?? >>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. I don't think there currently is a proper world championship, we have few big tournaments here and there, CCT being the biggest, but no one thing everyone can agree upon. >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. Kasparov is good at reaching the media, hasn't got squad to do with the WCCC though. >WCCC's get covered by local media, at least. Perhaps, but is that enough? >CCT's are not covered by anyone. It gets broadcasted on the internet, you can follow GM commentary, kibitzed PVs, scores and NPS, you can chat with the programmers no matter where you live in this world, and all this is LIVE and very cost efficient. As a spectator, I certainly know what I would prefer. Therefore, IMO, it has 100 times the potential of the in person events. >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. In case you haven't noticed interest is dropping quite fast already. It needs a rebirth to spawn renewed interest and the internet is the obvious place to do it. -S. >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.