7th International Paderborn Computer Chess Championships
mclane
Hello,
I just arrived from participating in the 7th IPCCC.
It was marvellous and we had great fun but also it was very tough job.
If anybody of you has some questions concerning it, we can discuss
openly.
First, the site for getting information non-personal is:
http://www.uni-paderborn.de/cs/chess//chesshome/overview.html
Click on the 7th tournament.
Here some preview:
7th IPCCC 1998: Participants (Feb 8th 1998)
Feldmann, Mysliwietz, Matthias: ZUGZWANG
Lorenz: P.CoNNerS
Koch: Breakthrough
Pfister: Patzer
Tuerke: Comet
Donninger: Nimzo98
Peussner: Neurologic
Burwitz: Diogenes
Huber : SOS
Zentner: XXXXII
Greiner: AmyIII
Diepeveen: Diep
Suurballe,Wulf: Gandalf
Meyer-Kahlen: Clever&Smart
Tom Vijlbrief: Ant
Christophe Theron: Chess Tiger
You can download the pgn-files and replay. We could discuss the games
here and maybe answer special questions about hardware used and what
happens during the rounds !
I have to thank the organizers for their brilliant job, especially
Rainer Feldmann and Ulf Lorenz and all the many other helpers for the
nice event they have planned and succesfully organized.
There were some visitors from different coutries too, maybe next year
YOU want to join it too ?
BTW: there was no visit of Mr.Rolf Tueschen and I am sure, he would
have had a difficult stand against many of the participants.
Seifriz
mclane wrote:
> Hello,
> I just arrived from participating in the 7th IPCCC.
>
> It was marvellous and we had great fun but also it was very tough job.
>
> If anybody of you has some questions concerning it, we can discuss
> openly.
>
> First, the site for getting information non-personal is:
>
> http://www.uni-paderborn.de/cs/chess//chesshome/overview.html
>
> Click on the 7th tournament.
>
> Here some preview:
>
> 7th IPCCC 1998: Participants (Feb 8th 1998)
>
> You can download the pgn-files and replay. We could discuss the games
> here and maybe answer special questions about hardware used and what
> happens during the rounds !
>
> I have to thank the organizers for their brilliant job, especially
> Rainer Feldmann and Ulf Lorenz and all the many other helpers for the
> nice event they have planned and succesfully organized.
>
As of Monday morning, they have not put in the last round
and the final standings are nowhere? Brilliant job???
mclane
Seifriz <sei...@gambitsoft.com> wrote:
>As of Monday morning, they have not put in the last round
>and the final standings are nowhere? Brilliant job???
!!! :-)
I guess
Rainer and Ulf have to sleep a little. When I came home I was also
very tired from travelling and tournament and and and.
From my point of view they have done a good job, maybe the internet
was not that fast, but this was not a championship and more a FUN
tournament. And I guess all participants enjoyed it.
I have started THIS thread to clarify anything. Here the final
standings:
Abschlusstabelle:
Platz | Name | Punkte
------+--------------+--------------
1 | Nimzo98 | 5.0
------+--------------+--------------
2 | Clever&Smart | 5.0
------+--------------+--------------
3 | ChessTiger | 4.5
------+--------------+--------------
4 | P.ConNerS | 4.5
------+--------------+--------------
5 | Gandalf | 4.5
------+--------------+--------------
6 | Zugzwang | 4.5
------+--------------+--------------
7 | Comet | 4.0
------+--------------+--------------
8 | Diep | 4.0
------+--------------+--------------
9 | Ant | 3.5
------+--------------+--------------
10 | Amy III | 3.5
------+--------------+--------------
10 | SOS | 3.0
------+--------------+--------------
12 | XXXXII | 3.0
------+--------------+--------------
13 | Patzer | 2.0
------+--------------+--------------
14 | Breakthrough | 2.0
------+--------------+--------------
15 | Neurologic | 1.5
------+--------------+--------------
16 | Diogenes | 1.5
------+--------------+--------------
It was a very close fight and download the games in paderborn site...
Andreas Mader
mclane wrote:
> It was a very close fight
I've just heared from Chrilly Donninger that Nimzo run on the slowest
hardware (a Pentium II 266).
Andreas
mclane
Andreas Mader <ma...@p6.gud.siemens.at> wrote:
>mclane wrote:
>Andreas
All PC-programs were given Pentium2 266 Mhz at minimum.
This machine is not that fast (I would say a k6/233 is faster) but it
is ok.
Shredder used a 2 CPU system and run a clever plus a smart program and
a decision program coordinating the 2. Stefan said that clever + smart
IS stronger than shredder2.
Nimzo and Chess Tiger both used p2/266.
I tried to beat Nimzo98 with Tiger, but Nimzo98 gave no point. He
started 3 from 3 !!
Later he lost some points in draws. Tiger too. When Tiger had to fight
against Nimzo98 it was a very very tough fight where Nimzo98 attacked
unsuccesfully. Till the endgame the game was very close. It ended in a
draw.
In the last round Conners, a parallel machine of 24x P2/300 by Ulf
Lorenz with conspiracy-search killed Nimzo. Clever+smart made a draw.
Tiger only needed a draw to win, because it would have had better
buchholz rating than clever+smart.
BUT : tiger had to play vs. GANDALF, a danish program from Steen
Suurballe and Dan Wolf, a knowledge program that can kill ANY top
program (often showed in tournaments).
Gandalf KILLED tiger and: instead of winning the tournament, tiger
ranked 3rd.
I think this was a good tournament of Chess Tiger by Christophe Theron
and I am sure this program will be very very strong after some more
work. In the moment it IS strong enough - as the participants in
paderborn recognized. Tiger killed Zugzwang and Conners (both parallel
systems) AND drew against Nimzo98, the final winner !
Evidence enough for me that Tiger could be a nice commercial program
in the next future...
Bravo Nimzo98, bravo clever+smart, bravo Chess Tiger.
Har...@t-online.de
quoting a mail from mcl...@prima.ruhr.de
> I have started THIS thread to clarify anything. Here the final
> standings:
>
> Abschlusstabelle:
>
> Platz | Name | Punkte
> ------+--------------+--------------
> 1 | Nimzo98 | 5.0
> ------+--------------+--------------
> 2 | Clever&Smart | 5.0
> ------+--------------+--------------
Is it correct that Clever&Smart is Shredder2 or a later version?
Harald Faber
Ingo Althoefer
Clever&Smart is a fully-automatic 3-Hirn. It Paderborn it ran on a Dual-PC.
Clever and Smart are two ( rather different ) variants of Shredder. Their
move proposals ( and additional data from their search processes ) are given
to an automatic controll program ( the BOSS ) which makes the final choice
( and also the timing ).
Ingo Althoefer.
Komputer Korner
So will this make Stefan an amateur again in the next world championship if
he enters only "Clever and Smart"?
--
- -
Komputer Korner
The inkompetent komputer
If you see a 1 in my email address, take it out before replying.
Please do not email both me and the r.g.c.c. at the same time. I read all
the postings on r.g.c.c.
Also every statement of mine should be taken with a grain of salt. Read at
your own risk and
assume that it is only this humble komputer's opinion.
Ingo Althoefer wrote in message <6ces46$1jr$1...@fsuj19.rz.uni-jena.de>...
Robert Hyatt
Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote:
: So will this make Stefan an amateur again in the next world championship if
: he enters only "Clever and Smart"?
nope. the rule says (if it is kept and not discarded as I'l like to
see) that if you sell a chess program, you are a professional. Not
whether the version you compete with has been sold, but whether you
have sold one, period. Since Shredder is commercially available, he
ends up a professional from here on.
That interpretation makes sense, although I don't like the "professional"
tag at all myself.
: --
: - -
: Komputer Korner
: The inkompetent komputer
: If you see a 1 in my email address, take it out before replying.
: Please do not email both me and the r.g.c.c. at the same time. I read all
: the postings on r.g.c.c.
: Also every statement of mine should be taken with a grain of salt. Read at
: your own risk and
: assume that it is only this humble komputer's opinion.
: Ingo Althoefer wrote in message <6ces46$1jr$1...@fsuj19.rz.uni-jena.de>...
:>Clever&Smart is a fully-automatic 3-Hirn. It Paderborn it ran on a Dual-PC.
:>Clever and Smart are two ( rather different ) variants of Shredder. Their
:>move proposals ( and additional data from their search processes ) are
: given
:>to an automatic controll program ( the BOSS ) which makes the final choice
:>( and also the timing ).
:>
:>Ingo Althoefer.
--
Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
hy...@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
bruce moreland
On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 12:36:16 -0500, "Komputer Korner"
<kor...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>So will this make Stefan an amateur again in the next world championship if
>he enters only "Clever and Smart"?
Good question.
A more general case would come up if one of the professionals makes a
version that runs on something Cray-like. The programmer is a
professional program, but the particular version being used wouldn't
be commercially viable.
I think this is still a professional entry, but maybe others would
feel differently. It might be interesting to remember how "Virtua
Chess" and "Frenchess" were handled at the 1995 WCCC.
I think Stefan is still professional, too.
At the last WCCC there was less distinction between amateur and
professional entries. I can't remember if there was an entry fee, but
the professional entries didn't get travel support, while the amateurs
got a free trip (nice hotel, too).
There's only one title at the WCCC, there is no amateur title.
Perhaps the sponsor this year will provide 100% travel support, so
this issue will be moot, and perhaps the WMCCC will be changed so that
there is no need to make this distinction for that event.
bruce
mclane
Har...@t-online.de wrote:
>quoting a mail from mcl...@prima.ruhr.de
>> I have started THIS thread to clarify anything. Here the final
>> standings:
>>
>> Abschlusstabelle:
>>
>> Platz | Name | Punkte
>> ------+--------------+--------------
>> 1 | Nimzo98 | 5.0
>> ------+--------------+--------------
>> 2 | Clever&Smart | 5.0
>> ------+--------------+--------------
>Is it correct that Clever&Smart is Shredder2 or a later version?
Shredder is a commercial attempt, the "garbage" out of Stefan
Meyer-Kahlens work at the university. He made his degree on 3-brain
concepts and his "father" prof. is Dr.Ingo Althoefer.
Now Ingo has retired from 3-brain and Stefan comes out with the
3-brain himself where Ingo is replaced by some lines of C-code.
This is a very intersting experiment. Can a chess program decide out
of 2 other chess programs and increase the playing strength this way ?
There was a clever program (comes not that deep) and a smart program
(comes deeper but is more stupid) and the coordinator program.
In paderborn you were able to see 3 screens opened. It was said that
each (clever+smart) program got ONE cpu !
The coordination program decided by different parameters, generated by
the 2 programs. We were able to watch the program taking the
desicions. This was very interesting, especially when WE thought the
best move was NOT chosen due to different things.
Stefan said this program cannot be related with shredder (shredder is
the commericial child meanwhile clever+smart is part of a work in
progress), but he also said that clever+smart is stronger than
shredder2. But it needs at least a dual-cpu-machine because each part
needs an own cpu.
I hope Stefan could explain this in more detail. I was only watching
it when Tiger had to play vs. Clever+Smart (the game was a draw!).
>Harald Faber
mclane
"Komputer Korner" <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>So will this make Stefan an amateur again in the next world championship if
>he enters only "Clever and Smart"?
:-)
Don't worry. Chess Tiger would also be amateur !!
And clever and smart did not look brilliant against Tiger...
mclane
Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>nope. the rule says (if it is kept and not discarded as I'l like to
>see) that if you sell a chess program, you are a professional. Not
>whether the version you compete with has been sold, but whether you
>have sold one, period. Since Shredder is commercially available, he
>ends up a professional from here on.
>That interpretation makes sense, although I don't like the "professional"
>tag at all myself.
If this IS the rule, why was shredder2 not professional in Paris ???
!!!! :-)))))))
Chris was professional with the NOT SOLD CSTal.
Virtual was professional.
Fritz was professional.
Mchess was professional.
Running gag I suppose ! The ICCA and their "rules".
Robert Hyatt
mclane <mcl...@prima.ruhr.de> wrote:
: Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
:>nope. the rule says (if it is kept and not discarded as I'l like to
:>see) that if you sell a chess program, you are a professional. Not
:>whether the version you compete with has been sold, but whether you
:>have sold one, period. Since Shredder is commercially available, he
:>ends up a professional from here on.
:>That interpretation makes sense, although I don't like the "professional"
:>tag at all myself.
: If this IS the rule, why was shredder2 not professional in Paris ???
: !!!! :-)))))))
Because it seems that "some" can't figure out a reasonable definition
of professional, nor can they apply it in a sensible manner when one
is given.
Chris is part of a company that produces games. I'd call that professional
any day. Steffan is too, now. But I still believe the category needs to
be thrown out... it's arcane...
: Chris was professional with the NOT SOLD CSTal.
: Virtual was professional.
: Fritz was professional.
: Mchess was professional.
: Running gag I suppose ! The ICCA and their "rules".
--
Komputer Korner
So we could have the situation unless the rule is changed where Stefan could
call his 2 cpu program "Shredder Pro" and his commercial program Shredder
3. If Shredder Pro wins the next commercial title but finishes let us say
4th because 3 "amateur programs beat it" at the next world micro, he could
make a statement on the advertising of his Shredder 3 package to the effect
that he Stefan Meyer-Kahlen is programmer of the 1998 world micro chess
professional/commercial title holder. This would not contravene any
commercial fraud laws but would sure confuse the heck out of any potential
buyers. I am not saying that he would do this, but clearly the ICCA
commercial "title" has to be done away with.
--
- -
Komputer Korner
The inkompetent komputer
If you see a 1 in my email address, take it out before replying.
Please do not email both me and the r.g.c.c. at the same time. I read all
the postings on r.g.c.c.
Also every statement of mine should be taken with a grain of salt. Read at
your own risk and
assume that it is only this humble komputer's opinion.
bruce moreland wrote in message <34eb2b63...@news.seanet.com>...
>On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 12:36:16 -0500, "Komputer Korner"
Har...@t-online.de
quoting a mail from alth...@pdec01.uucp
> >> I have started THIS thread to clarify anything. Here the final
> >> standings:
> >>
> >> Abschlusstabelle:
> >>
> >> Platz | Name | Punkte
> >> ------+--------------+--------------
> >> 1 | Nimzo98 | 5.0
> >> ------+--------------+--------------
> >> 2 | Clever&Smart | 5.0
> >> ------+--------------+--------------
>
> >Is it correct that Clever&Smart is Shredder2 or a later version?
>
>
> Clever&Smart is a fully-automatic 3-Hirn. It Paderborn it ran on a Dual-PC.
> Clever and Smart are two ( rather different ) variants of Shredder. Their
> move proposals ( and additional data from their search processes ) are given
> to an automatic controll program ( the BOSS ) which makes the final choice
> ( and also the timing ).
> Ingo Althoefer.
Ah yes, I have read it in the Gambitsoft-news.
Do the 2 engines play really different, meaning one is tactical strong and
the other one more positional? Would it be more senseful than 2 engines
with a similar playing style?
Harald Faber
elvi...@owl-online.de
On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 18:48:22 GMT, mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:
>Hello,
>I just arrived from participating in the 7th IPCCC.
>
>It was marvellous and we had great fun but also it was very tough job.
>
>If anybody of you has some questions concerning it, we can discuss
>openly.
>
>First, the site for getting information non-personal is:
>
>http://www.uni-paderborn.de/cs/chess//chesshome/overview.html
>
>Click on the 7th tournament.
>
>
>Here some preview:
>
>7th IPCCC 1998: Participants (Feb 8th 1998)
>
> Feldmann, Mysliwietz, Matthias: ZUGZWANG
> Lorenz: P.CoNNerS
> Koch: Breakthrough
> Pfister: Patzer
> Tuerke: Comet
> Donninger: Nimzo98
> Peussner: Neurologic
> Burwitz: Diogenes
> Huber : SOS
> Zentner: XXXXII
> Greiner: AmyIII
> Diepeveen: Diep
> Suurballe,Wulf: Gandalf
> Meyer-Kahlen: Clever&Smart
> Tom Vijlbrief: Ant
> Christophe Theron: Chess Tiger
>
>You can download the pgn-files and replay. We could discuss the games
>here and maybe answer special questions about hardware used and what
>happens during the rounds !
>
>I have to thank the organizers for their brilliant job, especially
>Rainer Feldmann and Ulf Lorenz and all the many other helpers for the
>nice event they have planned and succesfully organized.
>
>There were some visitors from different coutries too, maybe next year
>YOU want to join it too ?
>
>BTW: there was no visit of Mr.Rolf Tueschen and I am sure, he would
>have had a difficult stand against many of the participants.
>
>
>
2 questions :
will Clever & smart remain a idea ?
will Chess Tiger be a commerial intime ?
Chris Whittington
Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article
<6cfqm6$fem$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...
> mclane <mcl...@prima.ruhr.de> wrote:
> : Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>
> :>nope. the rule says (if it is kept and not discarded as I'l like to
> :>see) that if you sell a chess program, you are a professional. Not
> :>whether the version you compete with has been sold, but whether you
> :>have sold one, period. Since Shredder is commercially available, he
> :>ends up a professional from here on.
>
> :>That interpretation makes sense, although I don't like the
"professional"
> :>tag at all myself.
>
> : If this IS the rule, why was shredder2 not professional in Paris ???
> : !!!! :-)))))))
>
> Because it seems that "some" can't figure out a reasonable definition
> of professional, nor can they apply it in a sensible manner when one
> is given.
>
> Chris is part of a company that produces games.
This has to be a real "so what".
If I produce Go and Bridge games commercially, why does that mean I have to
be a commercial chess entrant ?
If I produce Doom III ? Should I be commercial chess ?
If I make StockMarket programs, should I be commercial chess ?
> I'd call that professional
> any day.
The rules were changed before Paris to ensure that I (CSTal) was going to
have to pay $1000 to enter.
Probably you have to accept that the decision to make some be professional
and pay, and some be amateur and be free, is actually an intensely
*personal* decision. There have been too many individuals who have been
"let off" from paying for this to be otherwise.
I think my mistake was to have competed with companies run by the icca
president :)
Chris Whittington
mclane
Har...@t-online.de wrote:
>Ah yes, I have read it in the Gambitsoft-news.
>Do the 2 engines play really different, meaning one is tactical strong and
>the other one more positional?
It looked like.
> Would it be more senseful than 2 engines
>with a similar playing style?
I think YES. If you have similar engines, the whole idea gets
destroyed. I have a theory that STRENGTH is in computerchess no
absoulute term and that the program beeing DIFFERENT than all the
others kills them because it cannot be handled.
Over the years and due to the very tough competition, the more the
programs get tuned against each others, the more siliar they behave
and evaluate. I guess if you really want to make PROGRESS you have to
do the job different again, instead of tuning a program that looks
SIMILAR to the other programs.
>Harald Faber
mclane
?!?! Difficult to say. Stefan could do anything possible. He is not
limited to ONE solution.
>will Chess Tiger be a commerial intime ?
I guess Christophe wants to make it a little stronger, and also works
on making it commercially available ...
Good program, he ?
Robert Hyatt
Chris Whittington <chrisw[nospam]@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article
: <6cfqm6$fem$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...
:> mclane <mcl...@prima.ruhr.de> wrote:
:> : Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
:>
:> :>nope. the rule says (if it is kept and not discarded as I'l like to
:> :>see) that if you sell a chess program, you are a professional. Not
:> :>whether the version you compete with has been sold, but whether you
:> :>have sold one, period. Since Shredder is commercially available, he
:> :>ends up a professional from here on.
:>
:> :>That interpretation makes sense, although I don't like the
: "professional"
:> :>tag at all myself.
:>
:> : If this IS the rule, why was shredder2 not professional in Paris ???
:> : !!!! :-)))))))
:>
:> Because it seems that "some" can't figure out a reasonable definition
:> of professional, nor can they apply it in a sensible manner when one
:> is given.
:>
:> Chris is part of a company that produces games.
: This has to be a real "so what".
: If I produce Go and Bridge games commercially, why does that mean I have to
: be a commercial chess entrant ?
: If I produce Doom III ? Should I be commercial chess ?
yes. If you are a "commercial game writer" then you ought to be
commercial, *if* that classification is going to stick. Because you
have experience, resources (income derived from games that can be used
to accomplish things that an amateur can't) and so forth.
: If I make StockMarket programs, should I be commercial chess ?
:> I'd call that professional
:> any day.
: The rules were changed before Paris to ensure that I (CSTal) was going to
: have to pay $1000 to enter.
: Probably you have to accept that the decision to make some be professional
: and pay, and some be amateur and be free, is actually an intensely
: *personal* decision. There have been too many individuals who have been
: "let off" from paying for this to be otherwise.
My only comment here is that *if* I were running an event, and *if* there
was not enough money to provide travel to everyone, then I would most likely
choose to offer travel to those not writing game-playing programs for a living,
because *they* have a hard time scraping up the travel funds to attend one
of these events. A person working for a game-producing company stands a much
better chance of having money to go, because it makes good advertising sense
to do so...
But that's the *only* distinction I'd go for... IE ACM events have *never*
had an entry fee..
: I think my mistake was to have competed with companies run by the icca
: president :)
: Chris Whittington
Chris Whittington
Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article
<6cmst4$5ps$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...
yes. If you are an "academic in a computer science dept" then you ought to
be commercial, *if* that classification is going to stick. Because you have
experience, resources (compilers, hardware, machine time, encouragement to
do research, income derived from your work) that can be used to accomplish
things that an amateur can't, and so forth.
>
> : If I make StockMarket programs, should I be commercial chess ?
>
> :> I'd call that professional
> :> any day.
>
> : The rules were changed before Paris to ensure that I (CSTal) was going
to
> : have to pay $1000 to enter.
>
> : Probably you have to accept that the decision to make some be
professional
> : and pay, and some be amateur and be free, is actually an intensely
> : *personal* decision. There have been too many individuals who have been
> : "let off" from paying for this to be otherwise.
>
> My only comment here is that *if* I were running an event, and *if* there
> was not enough money to provide travel to everyone, then I would most
likely
> choose to offer travel to those not writing game-playing programs for a
living,
> because *they* have a hard time scraping up the travel funds to attend
one
> of these events. A person working for a game-producing company stands a
much
> better chance of having money to go, because it makes good advertising
sense
> to do so...
My only comment is that if there wasn't enought money to provide travel to
everyone, I'ld use some kind of means test on the general income level of
participants, because the poorer ones wouldn't have the money to travel to
events.
A professor in a computer science lab stands a much better chances of
having money to go, because he can usually blag free kit and stuff from
hardware manufacturors to do so ...
<
<
>
> But that's the *only* distinction I'd go for... IE ACM events have
*never*
> had an entry fee..
I'ld try and create a situation where nobody had to pay an entry fee too.
Chris Whittington
bruce moreland
On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:48:42 GMT, mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:
>If this IS the rule, why was shredder2 not professional in Paris ???
>!!!! :-)))))))
Shredder was professional, with a reduced entry fee.
bruce
bruce moreland
On 21 Feb 1998 15:46:44 GMT, Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>My only comment here is that *if* I were running an event, and *if* there
>was not enough money to provide travel to everyone, then I would most likely
>choose to offer travel to those not writing game-playing programs for a living,
>because *they* have a hard time scraping up the travel funds to attend one
>of these events. A person working for a game-producing company stands a much
>better chance of having money to go, because it makes good advertising sense
>to do so...
This is another can of worms, since you are arguing that the reason
amateur and professional labels are assigned is in order to assign
financial aid to the needy.
But this isn't the current implementation. Some of the amateurs may
have more resources than some of the professionals, since they've kept
their day jobs.
This whole thing is a mess for many reasons. Another is that success
as an amateur implies a professional level of effort, and this is
often accompanied by commercial intent. The last two WMCCC winners
were amateurs that became professional shortly after the tournament.
I have commercial intent, too.
bruce
Robert Hyatt
Chris Whittington <chrisw[nospam]@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: yes. If you are an "academic in a computer science dept" then you ought to
: be commercial, *if* that classification is going to stick. Because you have
: experience, resources (compilers, hardware, machine time, encouragement to
: do research, income derived from your work) that can be used to accomplish
: things that an amateur can't, and so forth.
I wouldn't argue. I see *three* cases:
1. professional game writer. Here you can legitimately use company
resources (money mainly) to attend events because of the advertising
gained.
2. academic. As in my case. I have computer resources, and more time
than (3) below (maybe) to work on the program. But I generally don't get
to travel to tournaments at university expense, except for those old ACM
events (sometimes) when I could present a paper at the conference as well,
or where I attended the conference *and* played in the tournament. But
WCCC events rarely fit this, and WMCCC events never have (for me.)
3. pure amateur. Someone working on a program at home... with a full-time
job doing something unrelated.
So I wouldn't argue with you at all... which is why I have been in favor of
dropping that "professional" or "commercial" title completely...
However, being in (2) above, I have spent a *ton* of money on computer chess.
From trips to Cape May (last ACM event) to you-name-it. That's why I'd make
a distinction only for travel funds allocation, because a commercial entry
can expect a "return" on those dollars spent to attend an event, while I don't
make a penny from it and consider the money spent a total loss except for the
entertainment aspect..
:>
:> : If I make StockMarket programs, should I be commercial chess ?
:>
:> :> I'd call that professional
:> :> any day.
:>
:> : The rules were changed before Paris to ensure that I (CSTal) was going
: to
:> : have to pay $1000 to enter.
:>
:> : Probably you have to accept that the decision to make some be
: professional
:> : and pay, and some be amateur and be free, is actually an intensely
:> : *personal* decision. There have been too many individuals who have been
:> : "let off" from paying for this to be otherwise.
:>
:> My only comment here is that *if* I were running an event, and *if* there
:> was not enough money to provide travel to everyone, then I would most
: likely
:> choose to offer travel to those not writing game-playing programs for a
: living,
:> because *they* have a hard time scraping up the travel funds to attend
: one
:> of these events. A person working for a game-producing company stands a
: much
:> better chance of having money to go, because it makes good advertising
: sense
:> to do so...
: My only comment is that if there wasn't enought money to provide travel to
: everyone, I'ld use some kind of means test on the general income level of
: participants, because the poorer ones wouldn't have the money to travel to
: events.
not a bad idea...
: A professor in a computer science lab stands a much better chances of
: having money to go, because he can usually blag free kit and stuff from
: hardware manufacturors to do so ...
Don't know about that. This was a common misconception about Cray Blitz
over the years. Cray Research, Inc., provided me with machine time at no
cost. But that was *all*. No travel money. No expenses. No "consulting
fees" or anything.
: <
: <
:>
:> But that's the *only* distinction I'd go for... IE ACM events have
: *never*
:> had an entry fee..
: I'ld try and create a situation where nobody had to pay an entry fee too.
I agree. As I said, ACM events have *never* had entry fees. After asking
someone to cough up a couple of grand for travel, and then tacking on an
entry fee on top of that, it is more of a discouragement to participate than
anything else...
: Chris Whittington
:>
:>
:> : I think my mistake was to have competed with companies run by the icca
:> : president :)
:>
:> : Chris Whittington
:>
:>
mclane
"Chris Whittington" <chrisw[nospam]@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I think my mistake was to have competed with companies run by the icca
>president :)
I think, whatever it was, CSTal played a good tournament in Paris. So
- let's forget it. If possible.
Chris Whittington
Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article
<6cn6sf$8cd$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...
> Chris Whittington <chrisw[nospam]@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> : yes. If you are an "academic in a computer science dept" then you ought
to
> : be commercial, *if* that classification is going to stick. Because you
have
> : experience, resources (compilers, hardware, machine time, encouragement
to
> : do research, income derived from your work) that can be used to
accomplish
> : things that an amateur can't, and so forth.
>
> I wouldn't argue. I see *three* cases:
>
> 1. professional game writer. Here you can legitimately use company
> resources (money mainly) to attend events because of the advertising
> gained.
>
> 2. academic. As in my case. I have computer resources, and more time
> than (3) below (maybe) to work on the program. But I generally don't get
> to travel to tournaments at university expense, except for those old ACM
> events (sometimes) when I could present a paper at the conference as
well,
> or where I attended the conference *and* played in the tournament. But
> WCCC events rarely fit this, and WMCCC events never have (for me.)
>
> 3. pure amateur. Someone working on a program at home... with a
full-time
> job doing something unrelated.
Your (1) is often a lone individual who has given up everything else to
write chess programs. Given up his other job probably. This guy has no
income other than chess programming. Obvious cases would be Marty Hirsch,
Ruchard Lang, Frans Morsch, Ed Schroder etc. Some of these are successful
in income terms and some not. Some employ other people, and some don't. But
they all get treated as professional.
There are some (1)'s who manage to continue to be 'amateur' somehow; even
though we know they either sell their programs, or are about to sell their
programs, or have entered into secret deals to sell their programs. Either
way, they may be making money, or they may not be.
Your (3) is often a lone individual who works as (1) above, except he keeps
his day job. Often (3) is actually in a better financial position than (1);
but (3) gets to keep the $1000. Mark Uniacke is an obvious case.
Face it, Bob. Its a bloody great mess. The icca is fundamentally an
academic based organisation. It is nice to academics and students, on the
whole, it will pay their fares, and give them free entry. The 'rules' are
there in order to extract as much money as possible from the alleged
'commercials'; although it will bend the rule for those it likes (Nimzo
being an obvious case). Basically it discriminates against 'commercials' in
favour of 'academics'. It also discriminates against those it doesn't like
very much, or who criticise it. Hence the 'special' rule to take care of me
last year.
Chris Whittington
> :> : I think my mistake was to have competed with companies run by the
icca
> :> : president :)
Robert Hyatt
Chris Whittington <chrisw[nospam]@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: Your (1) is often a lone individual who has given up everything else to
: write chess programs. Given up his other job probably. This guy has no
: income other than chess programming. Obvious cases would be Marty Hirsch,
: Ruchard Lang, Frans Morsch, Ed Schroder etc. Some of these are successful
: in income terms and some not. Some employ other people, and some don't. But
: they all get treated as professional.
: There are some (1)'s who manage to continue to be 'amateur' somehow; even
: though we know they either sell their programs, or are about to sell their
: programs, or have entered into secret deals to sell their programs. Either
: way, they may be making money, or they may not be.
: Your (3) is often a lone individual who works as (1) above, except he keeps
: his day job. Often (3) is actually in a better financial position than (1);
: but (3) gets to keep the $1000. Mark Uniacke is an obvious case.
: Face it, Bob. Its a bloody great mess. The icca is fundamentally an
: academic based organisation. It is nice to academics and students, on the
: whole, it will pay their fares, and give them free entry. The 'rules' are
: there in order to extract as much money as possible from the alleged
: 'commercials'; although it will bend the rule for those it likes (Nimzo
: being an obvious case). Basically it discriminates against 'commercials' in
: favour of 'academics'. It also discriminates against those it doesn't like
: very much, or who criticise it. Hence the 'special' rule to take care of me
: last year.
: Chris Whittington
I've never said otherwise. The $1,000 should go. Travel might be a
different issue. IE if I had chosen to sell Crafty, I'd certainly earmark
some of the profit for advertising. And it's hard to find any better
advertising than a good result at a WMCCC or similar event. In fact, that
would be cheaper than taking out an ad in something like Chess Life or
whatever.
I like the old ACM approach to this: (1) no entry fee; (2) no travel
money. You apply and show up ready to play. They would supply a terminal
and phone line, if needed. But that was *all*. Later they added some
pretty large cash prizes. I didn't like this particularly, because we
always did well at those events, and it was sort of like earmarking a pool
of money for Cray Blitz or Deep Thought, which seemed unfair. But the ACM
events are dead so that doesn't matter...