Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 13:37:27 05/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2004 at 16:22:09, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On May 19, 2004 at 16:09:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 19, 2004 at 14:48:16, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>On May 19, 2004 at 13:20:35, Robert Hyatt 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. >>>> >>>>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. >>>> >>> >>>As long as it was about providing information, I replied to everything you >>>asked. If it is about flamewars, I'm too busy to take part, sorry. >> >>I see no flame war from my end. I pointed out a _big_ ICCA problem. I ran into >>it _personally_. And I have seen _nothing_ to date that is any sort of >>guarantee that it won't happen again... >> >>IE, again, and you have not answered this, why double the entry fee for someone >>that can't possibly attend any other way than with a remote operator? > >It is an old rule and the source of it might be as Gerd mentioned: >http://talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?366100 >The logic behind this rule is very clear: to encourage the programmers to attend >in person (after all, it is a programmers event). > >If your operator must fly to Israel, then he will receive $500 grant for >covering the ticket costs (assuming you register soon, as the grant is for the >first 12 amateurs only). And you start complaining about 25 Euros? [sigh...] > >The wording says $500 for "programmers", not operators. So not only no $500, but a doubling of entry fee. > > >>What is >>the justification, the logic, the common sense, that would cause such an idea to >>even be considered, much less put into place??? >> >>Did you know that I attended almost every ACM event from 1976 to 1994? Did you >>know that my program played in the WCCC in 1977, 1983, 1986, and 1989? Do you >>know what I had to pay in entry fees for all those events? Not one thin dime. >>An entry fee is _pointless_ and only becomes an obstacle in an already expensive >>operation. The ACM even paid all remote telephone costs in the pre-internet >>days... All we had to do was arrange for our machine, and get ourselves to the >>event. Sometimes the ACM even helped everyone with travel... >> >>Look at where we are today in contrast... >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>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.