Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 09:24:23 05/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2004 at 12:03:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 19, 2004 at 09:01:37, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>On May 19, 2004 at 08:48:54, Matthew Hull wrote: >> >>>On May 19, 2004 at 03:38:52, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>> >>>>On May 18, 2004 at 13:56:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 18, 2004 at 13:46:02, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>I hope that makes it clear why _I_ have not said much about playing this year. >>>>>>>Who knows _what_ rule(s) the ICCA will use this time around. >>>>>> >>>>>>I know. And I have told you many times. >>>>> >>>>>That is _really_ convincing. You guys don't even want to produce a list of who >>>>>is playing??? >>>> >>>>Check the WCCC page today. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Last time I looked _you_ didn't speak for the ICCA any more than the organizers >>>>>of the WCCC I tried to enter a couple of years back spoke for it. >>>> >>>>I don't know when or where you looked, or what happened in Paris or Jakarta that >>>>you frequently mention. What I know is about WCCC 2004, and I am telling you in >>>>the clearest possible way what will be the case here. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>At the CCT we manage to have an _open_ discussion about the rules _before_ the >>>>>event, and then we go by those rules. The ICCA might try that at some point in >>>>>time, perhaps??? >>>>> >>>>>I'd love to play remotely. Once it becomes obvious that doing so is "OK". >>>> >>>>We don't provide operators here. But if you send someone to operate Crafty on >>>>your behalf, that is OK. >>> >>> >>>Since you have internet access at the event, just log Crafty's opponents onto >>>ICC and play. That will save the enourmous cost of sending a human to play >>>moves manually on a physical board. >> >>We would very much like to have Crafty here, but I don't think Crafty is more >>important than Shredder, Junior, Fritz, Diep, Deep Sjeng, ParSOS, IsiChess, etc, >>to deserve a special treatment. > >I've never asked for "special treatment". I have only asked for "the same >treatment". I've already given in another response to you exactly how I was >_not_ treated the same as a commercial entry (the commercials paid a higher >entry fee so I presume that was the driving force to get them there no matter >what). > >All I want is "clear and consistent" treatment. 3-4 years ago non-author >operators were ok (I entered 4 such events if I recall since 1996). The next >year with no announcement, they were not. After I gave up on attending, with >absolutely no public announcement, the ICCA then decided to let a commercial >program (I don't recall which one, Bruce will probably remember as I believe he >attended) use a non-author operator. > >"fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." I'm trying to avoid >getting fooled a second time... > >> >>Bob repeats the "I don't know, you don't know" thing over and over. But I have >>all along said clearly how the tournament will be held here, and just repeated >>it. If he comes here, or sends someone on his behalf to operate Crafty, then >>Crafty will participate. Otherwise it won't. > >See above. The ICCA can (and has) changed the rules a week before the event. I >doubt you can prevent that. The rules won't change. If you have an operator here, there won't be any problem. > > >> >> >>>That is such a no-brainer. But alas, there are no brains running this event. >> >>Thank you for your compliments. If instead of attacking us so much you have >>tried to organize next year's WCCC somewhere in the US, we might have all been >>enlightened by your brains and wisdom...
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.