However, I don't like at all how he disses Harvey near the end of the interview--the reality is that if all competitors who are commercial must pay the entry fee, then it is not unfair to make this enforced uniformly. It was just discouraging because he didn't pay it the previous year.
> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">We have been, ehem, discussing this on Hiarcs Forum, which of course we would appreciate your comments (I may regret saying that
CCC would seem to be a more neutral venue for such a discussion, with independent moderation.
>CCC would seem to be a more neutral venue for such a discussion, with independent moderation.
On first glance one might think that (not knowing any past history of CCC).
But then... when post are deleted "w/o cause" then obviously that assumption doesn't hold water.
> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">However, I don't like at all how he disses Harvey near the end of the interview-
It seems that the rules are quite badly worded, and Gian-Carlo has a very valid point. I support him on this. The way forward is more clearly worded rules, with no exceptions, and then everyone knows where they stand. Then peace will be restored.
>It seems that the rules are quite badly worded, and Gian-Carlo has a very valid point.
The "rules" are quite clear as David Levy pointed out. And you agree with anything as long as it is anti-Harvey.
A grade schooler proficient in English could understand those rules. It takes an adult who is looking for a way-out (thinking the rest will be too stupid to see it) to come up with the idea "the rules are badly worded."
Watchman, please refrain from such personal insults. I am sure Ray's command of English is excellent.
Ray maybe you could explain exactly what is unclear from the rules. Was the definition of what constitute a professional program changed from 2008? I know there was some issues between Hiarcs and Deep Sjeng. Was there more to that than the 8 core issue?
It is hard to disagree with Ray when he says that the way forward is to make sure the rules are clearly worded so everyone knows where they stand. But, please enlighten me if there is something I am missing.
“Amateur: programmers who have no commercial interest in their program, and are not professional game programmers.
Applications for amateur classification must supply information to justify their claim."
“Professional: A program whose name is the same as or derived from a commercial product.”
You tell me which Sjeng, Rybka, Hiarcs, Junior, Shredder etc... fit into?
The rules are clear. In 2008 GCP entered as an amateur and paid 25 Euros while the others paid 500. In Pamplona he paid nothing. Soren you were in the players meeting when it was decided that Sjeng, if it played, should pay the professional fee.
Here is the ICGA ruling:
"In view of the fact that a categorical and clear decision was taken at the participants' meeting and endorsed by Jaap in his role as Tournament Director, the subsequent decision taken by myself and ICGA colleagues last week was not correct. There should never have been any doubt that your program entry in Pamplona calls for payment of the "Professional" entry fee.
In addition to the above, it has been pointed out to the ICGA in the past 24 hours (and confirmed by the secretariat) that when Deep Sjeng participated at last year's WCCC in Beijing you paid only the amateur entry fee even though your program was categorized as "Professional" under our rules for that event. The fact that the ICGA secretariat was not aware last year of your program's "Professional" status is in no way a justification for your not having paid the correct entry fee in Beijing.
Taking everything into account the ICGA has decided on the following.
When you or your chess program next participates in an ICGA event you will be required, at the time of making your entry, to pay 500 Euro in addition to the appropriate entry fee for that event.
>>"A grade schooler proficient in English could understand those rules"
>Watchman, please refrain from such personal insults. I am sure Ray's command of English is excellent.
It wasn't a personal insult Soren... I thought for a few minutes at what level would an individual need to be here in the U.S. to understand the rules. I thought about my 14 year old son and thought... "no way too old, too easy to understand for someone his age... one would have to be much younger... a grade schooler perhaps... yep sounds about right."
Ray's command of the English language could be better than mine... that is what makes his statement, "It seems that the rules are quite badly worded, and Gian-Carlo has a very valid point" so... well that is a boneheaded, knuckle dragging statement. It's purely intended to somehow justify what Gian did for sake of justifying Gian. It by no way shape or form accurately describes The Rule(s). Judge for yourself, because yes I think you are missing something.
“Professional: A program whose name is the same as or derived from a commercial product.”
If my description of who should understand this is accurate, why do you fault me?
I still do not think this type of language helps getting to the bottom of the issue.
>Your post was reported, and I think your remark at least was somewhat disrespectful
It's funny (ironic) you should say this... my remark imo is accurate yet is taken as an insult or sign of disrespect...
Ray's remark, "It seems that the rules are quite badly worded" superficially seems benign. (Wow, maybe they are... [the reader says to himself] who knows?) Yet if one actually looks at the rules (which you do know Soren, since you were at the players meeting) and tries to reconcile Ray's statement: it is that which is the insult!
We (whoever has read them) are being insulted as the reader is expected to assign some validity to what Ray said. The only way I can possibly do that is to "dumb myself down" or pretend to be a "Neanderthal" in my understanding (hence the bonehead / knuckle dragging statement... I am not a Neanderthal despite how I look :-P ).
It's no different than when a child has done something "wrong" and lies to the parent expecting (apparently) the parent to be too stupid to understand the difference between the lie and what is actually taking place.
We are the ones being insulted here and we should be angry! Alas, I can't get myself that worked up over something Ray has said.
And yes you are most correct, discussions should be friendly. But even Winnie the Pooh had an Eeyore in his world. Just once... just once! I would like to see Ray post something friendly or nice or respectful or positive about Harvey; no, it has to be all doom and gloom with him.
And with Gian... I don't think this is possible given what I have seem him post here (when he went ballistic over a change in the no. of cpus rule and now on Talkchess / Schachwelt). Sad and disappointing to me how this is turning out.
I am not saying Deep Sjeng faced any financial hardship, but I think GCP had made it clear that Deep Sjeng would ONLY be able to take part if they were to pay the reduced entry fee.
In Bejing 2008 some discretion might have been exercised by the organisers (or it was simply an oversight) since Deep Sjeng were allowed to enter at a the low reduced fee. Possible the organizers thought that it would be a pity if Sjeng were prevented from participating because GCP were not able (or not willing to) pay the entry fee for prof programs. In Pamplona 2009 the issue was raised and Deep Sjeng were allowed to play, though with some caveats about future participation.
>I agree that the rules are clear and I cannot imagine that GCP ever claimed Sjeng was an amateur program according to the definition in these rules.
Herein lies the problem...
What, I ask you, does this mean (from David Levy, Harvey posted above):
"it has been pointed out to the ICGA in the past 24 hours (and confirmed by the secretariat) that when Deep Sjeng participated at last year's WCCC in Beijing you paid only the amateur entry fee even though your program was categorized as "Professional" under our rules for that event. The fact that the ICGA secretariat was not aware last year of your program's "Professional" status is in no way a justification for your not having paid the correct entry fee in Beijing."
I wished you had read my thread at HF, but here is what I said which I feel is most relevant:
"What is also amazing to me, Gian would rather take this action and create a problem for himself, rather than right from when Sjeng “turned pro” i.e. when he began selling Sjeng (after Amsterdam?) the next ICGA tournament he entered (Beijing) and say to the ICGA President..." blah blah blah that he should have asked permission, notifying the ICGA of the status change and asking for a reduced rate.
The problem with future participation is he's expected to pay the professional fee PLUS a "back-fee," if you will, of 500 Euros.
>Consider for example (as an extreme case) a programmer that is financially broke. Is it fair to ask such a programmer to pay the full entry fee
This is a separate issue, of course, but whatever Gian (or anyone for that matter) could broker with the ICGA, to me (as I said in my HF post) the more power to them i.e. if they have ICGA Approval for such and such fee, who am I to raise that issue?
You should read the Talkchess link I posted above Soren. Gian plainly states he should be paying the Amateur Fee.
You should know that I did not register Deep Sjeng to take part in the WCCC, largely due to the 8-core rule and my inability to attend. Deep Sjeng entered the tournament, after it was invited Sunday night to enter to make the number of participants even.
Now, the ICGA is arguing that, despite inviting me, the decision to stop the exemption, taken at the players meeting in my absence and without communicating it to me until more than a month after the tournament, means that I should pay them up for the privilege of being invited.
That makes no sense whatsoever, and I will refuse to do so.
There are probably a lot of details and facts i am unaware of so I would rather not be dragged into the Hiarcs- Sjeng minefield. I have my views but I prefer to keep them private for the time being :-)
He of course could have gone to ICGA and made his case, before entering in Beijing, but if he had done that the ruling would have been worded differently.
> This is Gian-Carlo Pascutto explanation from Talkchess:
> You should know that I did not register Deep Sjeng to take part in the WCCC, largely due to the 8-core rule and my inability to attend. Deep Sjeng entered the tournament, after it was invited Sunday night to enter to make the number of participants even.
> Now, the ICGA is arguing that, despite inviting me, the decision to stop the exemption, taken at the players meeting in my absence and without communicating it to me until more than a month after the tournament, means that I should pay them up for the privilege of being invited.
> That makes no sense whatsoever, and I will refuse to do so.
I can sympathise with this. If Sjeng was invited purely to make an even number of participants, then GCP got stung with a hefty fee as thanks for agreeing to help the organisers out (even though he wasn't actually involved), I'd be pretty pissed too.
Am I missing something here? Perhaps I'm dragging my knuckles too.
I suspect that if he had not paid the incorrect fee in China that he may have been let off the fee in Spain. The ICGA ruling is only asking him to make good 500 Euros which is just 1 entry not 2.
> Yep you are missing that he made a false entry in 2008 in China and paid as an amateur. The decision that Sjeng should pay the full fee was made before the tournament started in Spain and no one objected at the players meeting.
> I suspect that if he had not paid the incorrect fee in China that he may have been let off the fee in Spain. The ICGA ruling is only asking him to make good 500 Euros which is just 1 entry not 2.
I got the impression that GCP had no intention of entering, but agreed to help the organisers out as a favour by allowing Sjeng to be entered and operated by somebody else. Am I wrong?
>It seems that the rules are quite badly worded, and Gian-Carlo has a very valid point.
The usual thing to do when you are unsure is (gasp) to ask for clarification. Then again, Freestyle would not be same w/o self-serving interpretations.
If you read the ICGA ruling all this is quite clear. he is only being asked to pay 1 entry fee as a penalty not 2.
The Sjeng situation was seen differently as it was a professional program. At 1st there was no operator. I remember suggesting Johan, who agreed. It was also agreed at the meeting there would be no operator fee. If the decision had been taken after the event started that Sjeng should pay i would see it differently but it was taken before. I also agree that the fee for Pamplona could have been waived in this circumstance. The good result of Sjeng stands of =2nd. Effectively he is only being asked to pay for Beijing which seems fair to me.
>It was also stated that this should not set a precedent.
As a point of law, does one even have to make such an explicit disclaimer? I guess it is prudent, however, as GCP seems largely to argue from precedent: ... regardless of what the rules say, the ICGA has allowed exemptions for programmers that are selling their programs under the name they play with, but which are not professional games programmers... [He then lists 6 examples, including Sjeng]. Are the facts that Sjeng (as a "professional") got an exemption in 2007, and so assumed that one would be granted in 2008?
Sjeng Chess Engine - Curious results - 2006/08/28 09:41
This chess engine is now a comercial item, but is still available for donwload.
Lokasoft even seems to say that there was a commerical product with the Sjeng name from 2003:
Deep Sjeng 1.0 Multiprocessor version by Gian-Carlo Pascutto Deep Sjeng 1.0
Our Price: $ 54.95 Publisher: Lokasoft, 2003 Edition: CD-Rom Language: English
> The Chinese part is clear. The Spanish part is not. If the organizers made a last minute appeal to GCP to play in Spain, and implied they would waive the entry fee, they shouldn't be trying to reinstate said fee, no matter what GCP tried to get away with in China. Of course it's perfectly legitimate for the ICGA to be trying to collect the correct fee for China...
Seems like a bit of a setup in order to get reparations.
> bullshit. But as usual the brothers Banks no better than those who were actually there and the board of the ICGA.
Well whatever may have have happened at the previous tournament, something certainly seems to smell about what happened at this one.
No I don't profess to know for sure, that's why I used the word "seems".
By the way, although Ray is my brother, we are separate people with separate opinions, yet you seem to forget this.
I am not "anti-Hiarcs" and respect Mark greatly. I've never had anything bad to say about him anywhere.
If GCP had done something wrong in the previous tournament, then he should be held accountable, but it just seems to me that what occurred was underhand.
> Am interested to hear that you think the board of the ICGA smell and are underhand. I will pass on your greetings. I guess the same also applies to those at the meeting including the Sjeng operator, The Rybka operator, Stefan, Amir etc...
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I have no idea what went down, but as I've already said, it does seem to give the impression of being underhand considering the circumstances. Then again, perhaps I have it all wrong. It would be good to hear the perspective of others who were there.
I hope the rules can be changed so all can pay a reduced fee in future. No one is getting rich from Computer Chess.
> You used the words smell and underhand. The governing body made a ruling. Some will always find a reason why it is wrong and never accept it. Do you think David lied in his ruling? I guess you do. I can imagine how many would react if Hiarcs had paid 25 euros in 2 years while Sjeng had paid 1000. He is only being asked to pay back 500.
> I hope the rules can be changed so all can pay a reduced fee in future. No one is getting rich from Computer Chess.
I don't think it's right to ask a programmer if his engine can be used to make up the numbers, and to then exploit his goodwill by doing what happened. The circumstances don't make it seem right. If GCP owed them because of a previous misdemeanour or misunderstanding, then this does seem a rather underhand way of exacting penance. Just my opinion on the face of what's been presented so far. It would be useful to hear from others in order to get a fuller picture.
> I guess this year we should all lie and put amateur on the form because you say it is ok and this precedent set in China. I think Sjeng was always going to play in the Cluster event in Spain - not sure if there was a fee to play in that only. I know this year you have to pay to enter but 1 fee gets you in as many of the 3 events as you want to play.
Again you put words in my mouth. I have never said it's okay to do what you've proposed.
I do support any changes that make life easier for you all though.
>I don't think it's right to ask a programmer if his engine can be used to make up the numbers, and to then exploit his goodwill by doing what happened.
My gosh the world has been turned upside down... black is now white... men are actually women...
What in the heck do you mean Graham "exploit his goodwill"??? He pays as Amateur in Beijing when by definition he's "Professional" and you say he's being exploited!
"The fact that the ICGA secretariat was not aware last year of your program's "Professional" status is in no way a justification for your not having paid the correct entry fee in Beijing."
Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge he cheated / exploited the ICGA (and his fellow competitors)? What more do you need to hear!
I "know" what "the problem" is...
Mine is just the opposite: I don't have a horse in this race. Actually I do (and some may find this amusing) my "horse" is Gian's "friendship"... how is that supposed to happen now? That is my personal problem; I am willing to put what is right before a friend. And building relationships is more important to me than most things in this world. However I will not "cast aside" what I believe to be the moral or ethical or lawful "thing to do" for the sake of a friendship.
> I'm enjoying this discussion-it is sounding more and more like a feud between the The Hatfield-McCoy, then fact and policy.
Yeah it was fun for awhile but it does seem that this is all computer chess forums and discussions are anymore: arguments that turn into petty "mine is bigger than yours" contests.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill