Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:32:44 06/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 1999 at 17:23:45, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On June 28, 1999 at 16:54:05, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>But where is the content? Even if the charges were fully true, where is the >>benefit for the readers of the message? > >There was a championship and the organisers (i do not include Ulf or Rainer >here! They were there) were not much interested in the outcome >of the tournament, it was just not that much important like the banquet. >Thats the information vincent presents and vincent is upset about. >This should be a legal contribution in a computerchess-club because >it is about the computer-chess-championships. And it is NOT against >a person. it is against organisation. Believe it or not, I don't think it matters if the sponsors give a hoot or not. Personally, I have no idea how interested they were in the final game. I think that a contest belongs to the audience and it belongs to the participants most of all. Do you imagine that Nike actually cares about the athletic events that they sponsor? Only if it sells shoes, I believe. And so what? I still get to watch the ball game and enjoy it. Now, if I am wrong and Nike loves the players and wants to benefit them in their heart of hearts, so much the better. But either way, sponsors are a benefit if they foot the bill. We get the fun and the thrills and the spills while they are the ones who are paying the bills. If the ICCA really secretly hates computer chess I don't care as long as they continue to sponsor the chess articles and contests. Somehow, I think that some people in ICCA really do like computer chess. [snip]
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.