Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 13:05:40 05/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2004 at 14:35:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: <snip> >>>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... > I agree, a matter of principle. Probably a typical case where the initial intension fires back. May be it makes sense for professionals ;-) In Jakarta there was the problem with Schach3.0 operator Monika Meyer iirc. She was so kind to operate for her employer, one of the indispensable authors. Unfortunately she was no chess player and had some difficulties looking for board coordinates and was not very familiar with the cryptic Schach3.0 asscii-interface. So in average each round there was a takeback few moves after a wrong one. Therefore Jaap had really a lot of stress with Schach3.0 which encouraged him to double the entry fee ;-) >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 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.