To MODERATORS: Please STOP moving genuine tournaments!

[hgm]

Actually, it's not correct. The front page of talkchess is not the general forum. On the front page, you have a choice between 3 forums. If you want to know about tournaments, you look at tournament forum. It cost you one click, regardless of the forum. How hard is that ?

Some people are arguing that ICGA, or ACCA, or whatever else is may be, are special snowflakes, that deserve more consideration than other tournaments.

The way newspapers decide what goes on the front page and what goes in the sport section, is by trying to estimate interest. Indeed, newspapers want to sell more copies, so they put on the front page what people care about, so they want to buy the news paper.

The interest in ICGA or ACCA or *insert yet another obscure OTB tournament with a handful of participants* is slowly converging to zero.

How many participants are there in ICGA or ACCA tournaments ? And how many have applied to participate but did not pass the qualification stage because there was so much demand they couldn't accept everyone ? Right...

On the other hands, events that draw a lot more interest like TCEC respect the rule and get announced in the tournament section. And it doesn't hinder their popularity, btw.

IMO, this whole debate is yet another hopeless and pathetic attempt at trying to draw attention to old and fossilized organizations like ICGA, because almost no one cares about their tournaments anymore...

Always the same people, making the same empty arguments...

You miss the point entirely. It is not up to you to determine what others are allowed to think interesting to them. It is not up to a majority to decide what others think is interesting. If a small minority, or even a single person judges his purposes are best served by using a particular forum section, he should be given the opportunity to do so. TalkChess was created to serve the entire computer Chess community. Not just what Mr. Lucas Braesch happens to like (if there actually would be such a thing).

It is outrageous that moderators abuse their power to interfere with the intentions of those who post.

[Henk]

A reason people don't like ICGA may be because their engines did not pass the acceptance test.

Hardly any have been rejected. In at least 99% of the cases, the author chooses to not enter, rather than entering and being rejected.

Maybe a good start for people who want to make a list of 'original' engines is to put all engines who have not participated in ICGA tournaments on an initial suspect list.

[velmarin]

Maybe a good start for people who want to make a list of 'original' engines is to put all engines who have not participated in ICGA tournaments on an initial suspect list.

Other things how money $, that thing that always lack can influence, is an event that needs much, much money $$$.

Many authors decided to have closed sources, why is your desire,
even some expected perhaps having an attractive product and make your commercial project.
Release the sources in this case is a risk.

ACCA is different always use Lesser profets

[lucasart]

It seems they are in their bunker and are to important to discuss the issue with the many programmers who have raised it.

Actually, unlike you, both John and Fabien are programmers

+1

[Stan Arts]

IMO, this whole debate is yet another hopeless and pathetic attempt at trying to draw attention to old and fossilized organizations like ICGA, because almost no one cares about their tournaments anymore...

Always the same people, making the same empty arguments...

The point of such chess tournaments and computerchess in general is that people enjoy playing in them rather than the result or benefit for mankind.
You however seem to be under the impression that you are doing science or something more profound than the rest of us. This is amuzing to watch.

Interesting as well seeing many strong "derivative supporters" of before come out of the woodworks to chime in on one side while the matters are almost unrelated. Coincidence? Maybe not. A nice display of "I couldn't beat them/I don't get enough attention/I don't get enough credit, so I must destroy it" sociopathic mentality about computerchess over here.

[hgm]

Indeed, so far the only acclaim the moderators have received on this here seems to be motivated by petty jealousy.

[velmarin]

Indeed, so far the only acclaim the moderators have received on this here seems to be motivated by petty jealousy.

In the survey have voted less than 10 per cent of the members.
Normally in a poll against moderation, they vote opposed to moderation, which is very sad.

Previous group moderation also had their problems... with these stories.
One author last year opened up to four threads that could not be put in contact with the sponsor ACCA, this is sad.

We will see that ACCA does so this sounds attractive to members of the Forum...
Nothing?

[CRoberson]

Lucas, you just don't get it.

The argument isn't about tournaments. It is about certain types of posts.
The initial post is a "call for participation" post; not just an announcement.
The authors that have posted in this thread and the other one have clearly stated that they rarely look at the tournament page, thus they wouldn't
see "call for participation" posts.

The "basement/garage/bedroom ..." self run tournaments do not post calls for participation, therefore they don't have this issue.

The results threads from the tournament will go in the "tournament" section, but the "call for participation" needs to be more easily seen.

....

Some people are arguing that ICGA, or ACCA, or whatever else is may be, are special snowflakes, that deserve more consideration than other tournaments.

.....

The interest in ICGA or ACCA or *insert yet another obscure OTB tournament with a handful of participants* is slowly converging to zero.

How many participants are there in ICGA or ACCA tournaments ? And how many have applied to participate but did not pass the qualification stage because there was so much demand they couldn't accept everyone ? Right...

On the other hands, events that draw a lot more interest like TCEC respect the rule and get announced in the tournament section. And it doesn't hinder their popularity, btw.

IMO, this whole debate is yet another hopeless and pathetic attempt at trying to draw attention to old and fossilized organizations like ICGA, because almost no one cares about their tournaments anymore...

Always the same people, making the same empty arguments...

[CRoberson]

We need to understand the issue is not about the tournament; it is about the type of post. The issue is for "call for participation" types of posts
which only the ACCA/ICGA/IGT/CCT/Leiden.... events have and the "self run" tournaments don't have.

I have concerns:
(1) Most authors have already been trained to rarely look at the tournaments section, thus they will miss the "call for participation" posts.
(2) Trusting any admins to notice which events need the sticky and which don't will not work. Proof being the IGT 2016 event which should have a sticky,
but still doesn't and is currently buried on the 3rd page of the "tournaments" section.
(3) A process needs to be defined and documented. I can think of several.
(a) Leave to what it used to be and let "call for participation" posts be in the main and/or programmers forum.
(b) Leave them in the main forum and sticky them.
(c) We post to the main and then the mods sticky it when they move it.
(d) We post to the "tournaments" and message the mods to sticky it.

Bob - I don't mind which way the mods prefer to address the issue at hand, but what did you think of the suggestion that I posted?

An announcement in the top part of the general subforum (stays there) that all tournament announcements and information are posted in the tournament subforum.

That in conjunction with the programmer-only events being stickied at the top of the tournament subforum for as long as necessary?

I would have thought that that gives lots of exposure for the organisers.

I do agree that these events are important to a lot of people.

Would also be good for Charles to give an opinion regarding this suggestion.

[hgm]

(3) A process needs to be defined and documented. I can think of several.
(a) Leave to what it used to be and let "call for participation" posts be in the main and/or programmers forum.
(b) Leave them in the main forum and sticky them.
(c) We post to the main and then the mods sticky it when they move it.
(d) We post to the "tournaments" and message the mods to sticky it.

The natural solution would be (a): restrict the moderators to doing their job, and don't have them interfere with activities of members that do not violate the charter and do not make a nuisance of themselves by causing excessive hindering of others. The normal procedure is that the OP would revive the tread by adding a post when it gets pushed out of view for as long as the info is relevant.

(b) could improve on this, but in addition to making the thread sticky, it should probably be locked, to prevent it from growing into an lengthy discussion that would hinder uninterested readers that use threaded view (dreaded view?) by pushing the stuff they are interested in off the main page. If locking is the norm, the OP should preferably also start another thread (which won't be sticky), and put a link to that in the sticky post.

(c) and (d) are non-solutions, as these will hide the announcement from those readers it targets. Being sticky in a section that the intended readeship doesn't look in is pointless, and in fact only hinders the regular visitors of that section.