Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:09:16 12/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 14, 2003 at 02:39:21, Johan de Koning wrote: >If you don't mind me repeating: there is no primary goal. Of course it has. The main goal is the propagation of computerchess as a field in Computer Sciences as an academic discipline. Period. >The event can be experienced on many different levels, by many >people. True. >The WCCC cross table might be the primary *motivation* >for a handful of contenders. No, this is the main purpose for the science perspective and nothing else. Another aspect is certainly that not all participents can share the experience. Then they might enjoy the other existing aspects. But it is false to deny the priority of the leading aspects. >But a 5-round 2-day event would >challenge the motivation of the other 100 persons, and probably >even of the contenders. This depends. If the truely academic persons [who really are still [!] working in Computer Sciences and have a program of chess; BTW _these_ persons, young students at the time, were the founding fathers of the tradition of tournaments in computerchess and _not_ business people with economic interests] have no other occasion for their participation, then this is the only way to have them all united. What we see now is the extension of the event to the sole benifit of the commercially interested. Of course it is still enough money left for the excitement of the organizing board to tolerate such a long event of appr. 10 days. The loss of the true academics _seems_ to be a negligeable entity... > >> Instead, it seems to us that they are balanced by only >>considering the needs of Europeans (and relatively near nieghbors) who have >>loads of liesure time to burn. > >Well, of course there is the optimal balance, as a function of the >expected (or desired!) crowd. Even Europens would be freaked out by >a 4-week event. :-) Just to give a thought, imagine that the playchess.com server would get thousands of € from the watching and enjoying crowd on the internet your 4-weeks wouldn't be the unimaginable joke. ;-) >But considering the actual event days are only >half of the time wasted, 9 days is fair, 7 days is more fair, and 3 >days is not fair. Remember that to "us" it seems that USans typically >waste 50 weeks at the office, rendering the complaints about a few >too many days of quality time a bit silly. :-) I hope that this kind of bashing of whole parts of a Nation is not in mutual confirmation with the charta of this forum. If Bob Hyatt spoke of his days being in office or attending classes it is his specific duty as an academic in favour of the education of his students, the students of his university. It is good to know that the interests of students are _not_ object to money talks of other people who have too much 'leisure time to burn' (MH) and who are trying to excude as much money as possible out of their hobby profession. In fact some have made a peofession out of their hobby. Can they really define the reality in computerchess against the interests of the few remaining true academics? I don't think so. BTW I would be interested how the many programmers, who participated in Graz, viewed the decision of the TD which was _against_ existing rules, namely the passivity of an operator when his program claims a 3-fold rep, when a player decided against his program that he wanted [sic] better to lose a drawn game than to draw it in a 3-fold repetition, which is by definition and all known rules in chess and - more important - computerchess too. It is also beyond reasonable thoughts IMO that someone could refuse to appeal against this false decision, if he was and still _is_ certain that the decision of the TD in Graz was wrong indeed. Of course sometimes you are in a double bind, but the rules can't be denied either. Further I can't understand why some people try to challenge the legal basis of Bob Hyatt's position in this case which enforced a single solution to the contrary of the decision by the attending TD in Graz. It would be still possible to reverse the illegal decision of the TD. The Wch would then be FRITZ, the program of Frans Morsch that was playing under the Dutch label QUEST. Congratulations to Frans Morsch and also M. Feist and the whole ChessBase team. Rolf > >... Johan
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.