Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:35:02 05/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2004 at 13:46:54, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Someone has offered to attend and pay their own expenses, to operate Crafty. That's a generous offer also. But the double-fee is a _big_ issue in principle. What is the purpose of it? It will _obviously_ only limit participation. In short, it is a stupid idea, based on more stupid ideas, which are all _completely_ counter to the overall (supposed) goal of the ICCA... So the question to be answered is, "What is the point of raising the fee if someone is willing to try to make arrangements to participate under less than ideal circumstances already?" I don't believe there _is_ an answer. It was just a stupid idea someone had and it was implemented with absolutely no thought whatsoever...
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.