ICCA issues
Don Beal
A few rgcc contributors have posted several messages criticising the ICCA.
Some of it has been direct criticism - other messages have contained innuendo
and biased questions with veiled implications.
Here are a few factual statements.
The ICCA exists to create and support computer chess. It was founded
by people who had written their own chess programs and wanted a "club"
that would organise computer chess tournaments, and provide a forum for
exchange of news and ideas. That purpose remains the same today.
The ICCA runs a World Championship every 3 years; a world championship
restricted to microcomputers every two years; and publishes a Journal
(primarily an academic journal, but containing news too) quarterly. It
also does a few other things such as awarding prizes for notable
contributions to computer chess, and holding conferences on computer chess.
It has been able to do these things by finding various sponsors willing to
supply money to make these things happen.
The ICCA, then and now, is run by unpaid volunteers (although expenses
are covered by sponsorship money).
Sponsorship money is used to cover the costs of:
(1) playing halls - these are often provided directly, rather than as money
(2) local organisation and helpers - often some of this is provided by local
volunteers, eg universities and chess clubs, rather than as money
(3) expenses of ICCA-provided organisers and payment for a professional
and impartial Tournament Director
(4) at the 3-yearly world championship, we ask for sufficient sponsorship
money to pay expenses for as many non-commercial participants as we feel the
sponsors might be willing to support. Commercial participants have to pay an
entry fee.
(5) also at the 3-yearly world championship, the ICCA holds a formal meeting,
specified in its constitution, of all the programmers present, and ICCA
officers - we try to provide all 3 principal ICCA officers for that meeting.
(6) an ICCA charge for putting on the event - this is a lump sum that is
put towards the costs of publishing the ICCA Journal.
The money received by the ICCA is essentially (1) sponsorship money for
tournaments (2) members subscriptions. There is no other source of income.
The money is spent by the ICCA on (1) the expenses of running each tournament
(2) publishing a Journal. The money does not support any other activities
or result in any secret profit for ICCA committee members.
The subscription income pays only half the costs of the Journal - members get
the Journal at half production costs - the tournament sponsorship covers the
other half.
None of us on the ICCA committee do this for financial gain. We enjoy
being at computer chess events, and the work we put in gives us some
opportunities to do that without having to pay our own travel and
accommodation, but it's not a financial reward.
(I believe it would be perfectly proper if ICCA officers were paid. But
the fact is, no such payments are made, and it's a bit annoying to see people
posting innuendo about this. We don't get paid, above or below the table!)
Chris Whittington posted the following:
>Don Beal said there's an Honorarium at Hong Kong.
>Bob Hyatt said Honorarium is 'normal' to be paid to the TD
>ICCA says their officials are volunteers and don't get paid.
>
>I'm confused by these apparently conflicting 'facts'.
>
>Hopefully there's a totally reasonable explanation ........
The ICCA officers (President, Vice President, Secretary/Treasurer
and Journal Editor) are unpaid volunteers. We receive no salary
for holding these posts.
When a championship is held, at least one ICCA organiser has to be physically
present to organise and liaise with local organisers. There is no ICCA
payment for this. However, expenses (travel, lodging and food) are paid
out of the sponsorship money.
For many years, the ICCA enjoyed the services of Mike Valvo as Tournament
Director. He was highly respected by all participants, but was not an ICCA
volunteer, and we paid for his professional time to obtain his participation.
Payment for each tournament has been in the range $500-$1000, depending on
the number of days the tournament lasted, budgeted from the sponsorship
money for the tournament.
At some tournaments when Mike Valvo was not available, Prof v.d.Herik
accepted the job of TD, and similarly was paid for his professional time
for that specific job, using the sponsorship money budgeted for TD. We needed
someone independent of all commercial interests with specific experience
of computer chess events. Prof Herik fitted that requirement. He attended
those tournaments as TD, not as an ICCA organiser (although we hoped
he would still volunteer some of his time while he was there to help with
general organisation! - he received no pay for that!)
I must leave it to Chris Whittington to decide whether that is a
"reasonable" explanation from his standpoint.
Given that Chris Whittington has now posted several messages which criticise
or question the ICCA, I think r.g.c.c readers ought to know of the existence
of some background matters related to the ICCA and Chris Whittington.
Chris has felt seriously aggrieved in the past
(1) about a decision made by Prof Herik while acting as TD at one computer
chess event
(2) against Prof Herik acting as ICCA Journal editor (for allowing
something Chris considered libellous to appear in an ICCA article,
written by another participant at a computer chess event)
(3) by a decision to classify an entry by Chris as "commercial" at an
ICCA event.
The ICCA operates a distinction between "amateur" and "commercial" at the
championships. ICCA rules have always been that companies writing and
selling chess programs are "commercial". If the entry is by an individual,
we operated a rule of thumb that if that individual earned less than 25% of
their income from computer chess sales, they could still be regarded as an
amateur. (We continually ask the membership for advice and opinion regarding
what rules we should apply.) Chris Whittington (who owns and runs a
successful software company which for many years has written and sold chess
programs) was disappointed that an entry by him was classified "commercial"
when he argued that "by the 25% rule" he should have been an amateur.
I wasn't directly involved in any of these events, but I believe that Chris
Whittington considers himself seriously disadvantaged and unfairly treated on
all 3 occasions, and that Prof Herik and Tony Marsland believe they
acted impartially, properly and fairly in all these matters.
I believe the disputed TD decision, the unwelcome statements in the ICCA
Journal article, and the "amateur/commercial" ruling which went against him,
have all contributed to Chris Whittington feeling antagonistic (and somewhat
vengeful) against Prof Herik in particular and (sadly) the ICCA in general.
Someone else posting anti-ICCA messages is "mclane". He referred to
Prof Herik's decisions when acting as TD at the Munich Micro Championship
in 1993. mclane's posted message left an implication in the air that
the ICCA is a bad organisation because of the alleged bad decisions.
The ICCA committee used Prof Herik as TD because Mike Valvo wasn't
available and Prof Herik didn't have a commercial connection.
In championships during the previous decade there had been fierce arguments
between commercial participants when titles, and commercial sales, were
at stake. Prof Herik was impartial in that regard.
Rule 1 of all TDs is "the TD's decision is final". Whenever a TD has
to resolve a dispute between players, someone gets disadvantaged, and not
every TD can be a saintly figure who contrives to deliver a decision without
offending one side or the other.
Don Beal
Secretary/Treasurer ICCA
PS My thanks to Bob Hyatt and Bruce Moreland who have posted openly
and fairly about the ICCA and related matters. If there are any
reader/lurkers out there who are actually supportive of the ICCA, please
consider posting a message of support - it's a bit depressing seeing a
preponderance of critical/sniping/undermining messages!
PPS I liked your postings about CSTal, Chris!
Don Beal
: The ICCA exists to create and support computer chess.
A word was omitted. It was intended to be:
The ICCA exists to create and support computer chess activity.
Don Beal.
David Spencer
Don Beal wrote:
>...
> reader/lurkers out there who are actually supportive of the ICCA, please
> consider posting a message of support - it's a bit depressing seeing a
> preponderance of critical/sniping/undermining messages!
Don, ICCA, and USENET: - I've been a happy (and quiet!) member of the
ICCA
since the early 80's and eagerly look forward to each issue and to the
(tri annual?) Advances in Computer Chess book series.
>
> PPS I liked your postings about CSTal, Chris!
And so have I.
brucemo
Don Beal wrote:
>
> A few rgcc contributors have posted several messages criticising the ICCA.
> Some of it has been direct criticism - other messages have contained innuendo
> and biased questions with veiled implications.
>
> Here are a few factual statements.
It's interesting that this has received no response from those who accused you
guys of stealing.
bruce
Chris Whittington
--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote in article <32F236...@nwlink.com>...
> Don Beal wrote:
> >
> > A few rgcc contributors have posted several messages criticising the
ICCA.
> > Some of it has been direct criticism - other messages have contained
innuendo
> > and biased questions with veiled implications.
> >
> > Here are a few factual statements.
>
> It's interesting that this has received no response from those who
accused you
> guys of stealing.
Just in case, I hope you are not referring to me, because I'm very careful
about suggesting such things.
And BTW I was under the impression that no pay for ICCA officials meant
just that. Including no pay for ICCA officials at tournaments. It was
certainly a revelation to me that they could get paid under another hat so
to speak.
Chris Whittington
>
> bruce
>
Simon Read
Dear Don and ICCA,
Keep up the good work. It's a shame that no library near me
has a subscription to the ICCA journal, so I have to specifically
order articles, which takes ages and is a real pain. I wish it
could just be there on the shelves so that I could read every
issue.
of the airways. - PS&AG
but I can't make the cost
Maybe I'm lost
/ cranfield.ac.uk / I'm hungry to hear you.
Simon / @ / I'm out in the jungle,
/ s.read / Why don't you write me?