Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:20:35 05/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2004 at 12:19:05, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On May 19, 2004 at 11:56:37, Robert Hyatt 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. >> >> >>I'll run through this once more. Slowly. >> >>In Jakarta, there was _no_ outside communication. No game results. No nothing. >> Dead silence. >> >>In Paris, same deal. No internet access. No nothing. I believe this was the >>event where Thorsten was getting results out at his own expense via cell. >> >>Two of the first two WMCCC's I ever participated in. While at every ACM and >>WCCC event past 1980 we had outside world access. >> >>Then For one of the more recent events, and no, now I don't even remember which >>because I no longer care, I made arrangements to get a pretty good box (8-way >>from Dell) and when they finally worked out the details for me, I tried to enter >>and was told "We have a new rule that says that a programmer _must_ attend." >>Bruce Moreland went to this event and can confirm all of this as he and I talked >>about it multiple times. I then "undid" my machine arrangements, a bit >>embarassing after having asked and having had some folks at Dell go out of the >>way to help. Later Bruce tells me that a commercial entry could not get the >>programmer there and the ICCA decided to drop the rule. >> >>Doesn't that do wonders for my wanting to participate _again_?? Doesn't that >>make me take what you say on behalf of the ICCA at something less than true face >>value, since the rules get changed on a whim??? >> >>That is my problem. Later they _again_ modified this rule so that it became >>possible to have a non-programmer operator, but at double the normal entry fee. >>What is _that_ about? This is an organization that wants to promote computer >>chess or throttle it? Is it all about the money going in to the ICCA? Or is >>it about the computer chess competition and interest in same? >> >>Looks _bad_ from my perspective. And when the last CCT had what appears to be >>over 5x the entries of the current WCCC event, and there is no cost, and there >>are no changing entry rules, and so forth, what is the incentive to go to a WCCC >>rather than the next CCT event? >> >>Hopefully you get my drift. >> >>I don't believe _any_ of this has put the ICCA in a particularly favorable >>light. I guess those of us that originally formed this organization can just >>carry on feeling embarassed about how the tournaments have been handled the past >>few years. The journal is a good thing. But the tournament (which was >>originally the 'flagship' of the ICCA) has gone steadily downhill. >> >>How would _you_ react to such utter nonsense??? >> > >It seems that indeed some points where unclear in some of the previous WCCCs. >But again, I am only responsible for the current WCCC. And I am doing my best to >clarify the things as much as possible. Yes you are. But as I mentioned _YOU_ are not the ICGA. Through at least 1992 or so, "we programmers" had a strong voice in what happened. Somewhere around 1992-1995 things started to change however. > > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>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. >> >>I have a volunteer that would do well. I'll investigate hardware one more time. >> But I can guarantee you that if the rules change this time, it will be my >>absolute last time to try this... > >If you send an operator here, there will be no problem.
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.