Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:22:14 05/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2004 at 17:42:35, Dan Honeycutt wrote: >On May 19, 2004 at 14:35:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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... > > >My offer stands but it's no help if the obstacle is principle rather than money. > Omid's explanation that the higher fee is to encourage authors to attend is not >entirely unreasonable. IF that had always been the rule and IF there had been >no flip-flopping then I could see a discussion of whether the rule made sense, >but I wouldn't think the rule would be a deal breaker. Hope it's not the deal >breaker here. Many of us want to see Crafty participate. > >Dan H. It hasn't always been the rule. It was a relatively recent addition. IE I don't remember paying this but once. Not in jakarta or paris although I could be mistaken. But entry fees for the WCCC itself is a new idea. For the first 20 years there was no such thing...
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.