Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:56:12 05/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2004 at 09:33:22, Amir Ban wrote: I guess the great decline is caused by the big progress from chess engines and the hard fact that there is near to nothing to earn with an engine in itself and that you could rewrite your search 100 times in 100 different ways but it won't bring more points. I had in 2003 some good chats with Jonathan Schaeffer and he more or less said there: "computerchess is not so exciting, it's always the same few who you see each year who make a chance to win and the rest just has zero chances". If a few progress really a lot then that is discouraging for the rest. Basically what happens now is that a few who really love it join (Rudolf Huber, Gerd Isenberg) and those who progressed really a lot or are real strong. Added to that programs who live close by (movei). From those who are considered strong it is no surprise that they are all parallel. I am personally pretty amazed that so many commercial programs didn't get parallel yet. >On May 19, 2004 at 02:02:37, Gerd Isenberg wrote: > >>On May 18, 2004 at 20:04:28, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On May 18, 2004 at 15:14:13, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >>> >>>>Cheers, >>>>Gerd >>> >>>Okay, I see you are hooked :) >>> >>>I guess in a way it is better for 10 people to have a really great time, than >>>for 100 people to have a moderately good time. >> >>95-97 there were more than 30 paticipants iirc. >> >>> >>>I just wonder if these 10 people couldn't get together for some other tournament >>>some other day, and then let the 100 people play at the world championship. >>> >>>A world championship seems a bit "wasted" on so few people, it really ought to >>>be a major event, something that was widely recognized with a solid support in >>>community, something everyone looked forward too and not just a handful of the >>>same usual suspects. >>> >> >>yes, that was the common spirit until 97. For some reason, the number of >>participants decreased from year to year. I guess ICGA's policy has something to >>do with that, swapping between America and Europe, ICGA's focus on other >>computer games and so on. >> > >Paris 1997 had 34 participants, but there was a selection process. Another 10-20 >programs were refused. > >Hong Kong 1995 had 24, and there was a selection process, in which many were >refused. At that time, IIRC, it was suggested that a WCCC should have no more >than 24. > >What happened between then and now is a great decline in sponsorship and the >readiness of authors to play. > >In Maastricht and Graz several strong programs right next door didn't bother to >show up. > >The professionals Hiarcs, The King, Rebel and Tiger stopped participating. > >Sponsorship all over the world declined. In North America sponsors completely >disappeared. There were strong US professionals in 1995. Now there are none. > >And now we get this attitude of "you want me to play WCCC, you have to bring it >to my living room". This would be ridiculous in the mid-90's. You don't want to >come ? 10 others will take your place. > >Amir
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.