TalkChess.com

Why not for free. Then you would have a lot more in.

chrisw wrote: I would like to offer support for this tournament by offering an initial $100 for a brilliancy prize. Format being five games selected by a panel of thinkers, and those five games then being ranked by a user poll on this forum to determine the winner.

I propose asking those who stand out from the crowd and show original and creative thought in the face of adversity to form this panel. Well, what better criteria for brilliancy prize selection?

Ed Schroeder
Jeroen Noomen
Rolf Tueschen
George Speight
Fernando Villegas
and Yours Truly.

Offers to increase the prize fund welcome.

Offer and panel accepted. Terrific idea.

Peter

IanO wrote:I was going to donate $100 to the general prize fund, but this is an even better idea! And having the main event be self-funding is a good way to keep the tournament a manageable size.

Another idea would be an upset prize, to give extra incentive to the mid-tier participants.

(Any chance you could bring CS Tal out of retirement? It would be great to see some classics among the crowd!)

There is already a price set out for the best Amateur who enters, but you are welcomed to make an "Upset prize" like Chris did with the "Brilliancy Prize".

Offer accepted.

Peter

Laskos wrote: I already wrote that applying the 60% CSVN rule will result in only one Houdini, one Komodo, etc. participating. Your absurd ramblings show that you do not want to meet Houdini & other strong engines in any tourney.

Kai

You couldn't be more wrong. I will be paying for Crafty's entry into the tournament. I'm not scared of facing Houdini.. let alone 50 of them.

Peter

Well, I am sure I an underbid Peter, as only 50% of the money towards the prize fund sounds like robbery to me. If we were to hold such an event on my ICS, rather than ICC, it seems that would save us $25, so 75% of the entrance fee could go towards the prize money. Of course if someone would be willing to organize it for free... Asking $25 seems a little steep for the one-minute effort it takes to create a registered account!

Problem is that I am not sure it will be legal in my country, and I don't feel like doing any jail time. But if someone would be willing to organize it for free, my ICS is available. As long as I don't have anything to do with any money changing hands!

gerold wrote:Why not for free. Then you would have a lot more in.

The tournament is designed to be self funding. Being, the ICC accounts are paid for by the entrants, prize fund is taken from the registration fees, additional prizes are taken from the fees, and my "fee" which was going to be used to possibly get a commentator if there were enough registrants.

GM's on ICC like anywhere from $700 - 1200 for a two day tournament, commentating on the top 5 boards, and frolicking in other games from time to time.

Peter

hgm wrote:Well, I am sure I an underbid Peter, as only 50% of the money towards the prize fund sounds like robbery to me. If we were to hold such an event on my ICS, rather than ICC, it seems that would save us $25, so 75% of the entrance fee could go towards the prize money. Of course if someone would be willing to organize it for free... Asking $25 seems a little steep for the one-minute effort it takes to create a registered account!

Problem is that I am not sure it will be legal in my country, and I don't feel like doing any jail time. But if someone would be willing to organize it for free, my ICS is available. As long as I don't have anything to do with any money changing hands!

The $25 to me was to try and get a GM commentator, or at the very least an IM willing to do it for a reasonable amount of money.

If someone else would like to organize the event to save some money, please feel free.

Peter

michiguel wrote:

Jeroen wrote:It appears that the real reason for this tournament is slightly different:

The whole point of the tournament is to prove how utterly useless it is, and what a waste of time it will be. Nothing more. The reason the ICGA has good tournament rules (And I try to follow the same rules with the CCT) is because it weeds out the crap. I'm out to prove that with 90 derivatives entering, it will become what everyone bitches about. A hardware/book war. Nothing more.

But you are making a huge mistake in thinking that this is a waste of time and 'utterly useless'. People want to see:

A) the strongest programs
B) the best hardware
C) the best books

Remember Freestyle? That was a HUGE success. And in Freestyle 90%-100% of the players used Rybka. Basically you are organising a Freestyle tournament with more variety and the 'engine only' option!

You are quoting someone who misquote Peter. He did not say that. Someone else did it sarcastically. Please, people, make sure the quotes are correct, otherwise this turns into a mess. I will encourage the person who started the misquote to fix the problem.

Miguel

Would the moderators please investigate this "misquote" to determine if (a) it was deliberate and (b) specifically placed onto this forum and (c) malicious and, if this is found to be the case, take strongest possible action against the perpetrator?

chrisw wrote:

michiguel wrote:

Jeroen wrote:It appears that the real reason for this tournament is slightly different:

The whole point of the tournament is to prove how utterly useless it is, and what a waste of time it will be. Nothing more. The reason the ICGA has good tournament rules (And I try to follow the same rules with the CCT) is because it weeds out the crap. I'm out to prove that with 90 derivatives entering, it will become what everyone bitches about. A hardware/book war. Nothing more.

But you are making a huge mistake in thinking that this is a waste of time and 'utterly useless'. People want to see:

A) the strongest programs
B) the best hardware
C) the best books

Remember Freestyle? That was a HUGE success. And in Freestyle 90%-100% of the players used Rybka. Basically you are organising a Freestyle tournament with more variety and the 'engine only' option!

You are quoting someone who misquote Peter. He did not say that. Someone else did it sarcastically. Please, people, make sure the quotes are correct, otherwise this turns into a mess. I will encourage the person who started the misquote to fix the problem.

Miguel

Would the moderators please investigate this "misquote" to determine if (a) it was deliberate and (b) specifically placed onto this forum and (c) malicious and, if this is found to be the case, take strongest possible action against the perpetrator?

The quote is 100% accurate. The moderators should check before acting.

chrisw wrote: Would the moderators please investigate this "misquote" to determine if (a) it was deliberate and (b) specifically placed onto this forum and (c) malicious and, if this is found to be the case, take strongest possible action against the perpetrator?

Oh no, that was _exactly_ what I said, in a private message to Harvey on the Hiarcs forum after he basically accused me of supporting piracy with this tournament.

No need to investigate. I have _zero_ issue owning up to my own words. I would have done it sooner, but I missed the moderation message in that reply.

Peter