Author: Johan de Koning
Date: 23:46:34 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 2003 at 01:36:30, Matthew Hull wrote: Since I don't see the connection with my posting I'll take the liberty to treat your "reply" as Matt's summary sofar. >I'm not an engine programmer (except in my dreams), Some of us are engine programmers, and sometimes also in our dreams. Believe me, those aren't our finest dreams. > but if I were, I think I'd >be very keen to compete. But I personally don't like being a part of something >I believe is being mangaged in an inexcusably wrong way. I really don't like >being a part of something that is vastly sub-optimal, hide-bound and retrograde. Since you're not part of it, consider yourself happy. > For me, the abscense of auto-playing is mind-bogglingly stupid. And the >intransigence of commercial programmers in not writing to open standards like >xboard and ICS is perfectly blithering, IMO. It is simply against networking >progress. It is like some kind of ludditism. History is the keyword. Computer chess is the oldest branch in Artificial Sport, and it suffers from its success. It's not an ideal situation, but it can't be undone. Technicalities *could* be simple and well defined, but they would be the equivalent of laws in a brave new world. > Add to all this the complete >non-sensical 11 round swiss for 16 entries at one round per day for most of the >event, stretching out the time wasted, raising the cost for the participants, >coupled with execrable tournament directing, and what do you have? Bloody >barking madness, that's what you have. The advantage of 11 rounds is that it stretches out the time wasted. Ask anyone who was there about the wasted time and they'll answer: a) there was very little time to waste, or b) very little time was wasted, or c) lots of wasted time and I loved every minute of it. ... Johan
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.