Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:46:54 05/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2004 at 13:23:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 19, 2004 at 12:49:57, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>On May 19, 2004 at 12:32:44, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>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. >>> >>>I hope that you can promise that if the rules change this time Falcon is not >>>going to participate. >>>I also hope that Amir can also promise that Junior is not going to participate >>>in that case. >> >>I verfied this issue once more just to be sure. A programmer can send an >>operator on his behalf (even though we'd love to see him in person). The only >>change is that if the programmer doesn't attend in person, the entry fee is >>doubled (from €25 to €50 for amateur). > >What exactly is the justification for that? IE do you want to keep the event at >10 participants? > >As I said in another thread, I will do my best to make arrangements if (a) the >rules will not change later to make this impossible; and (b) there is no >nonsensical penalties for doing so. > >What is the incentive for me to pay twice as much? If I understand correctly Dan Honeycutt offered up to 300$ to support Crafty's participation in case that you agree to play. see http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?365220 300$ is clearly more than the registration fee for Crafty. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.