Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 09:27:09 02/09/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 1999 at 12:16:20, KarinsDad wrote: [snip] >Maybe a distinction of: > >Amateur >Professional >Commercial > >Although the line between Commercial and the others is fairly clear, the >distinction between Amateur and Professional is fairly unclear. > >Thoughts on this? > >I prefer a system similar to the rating system. Then, tournaments could be based >on ability and not on some esoteric determinations (such as does the programmer >make money on it, does the program use tablesbases, does the program use SMP, >etc.). Such a distinction is even more arbitrary than Amateur/Professional. It seems as though we are really trying to break things down like this: 0. Author of Deep Blue 1. Good enough at writing chess programs to get paid for it 2. Competent at writing chess programs 3. Amateurish and clumsy at writing chess programs 4. First try at writing any sort of program was chess. Should have stuck with "Hello, world!" 5. Bumbling, incompetent dimwit 6. Whinging, moronic twit ;-) What is the point at these subclasses? Isn't that the point of the contest in the first place -- to figure out what slot the programmer belongs in? Hopefully, only 0, 1, and 2 get invited in the first place.
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.