What makes a world championship a world championship? I'd argue it's that at least some demographic clearly regards it as such. The WCCC appears not to hit this mark at all - it appears only a minority of developers place much value in its result. Academics have moved on to other fields. And users/spectators may not even know it exists much less care about the result.
The in-person platform provides a sizable barrier to caring. The developers and users/potential spectators that have some interest but not enough to pay for a vacation to engage with it may care a bit more if the competition were online. It could still in contrast to something like TCEC be competitors own machines to allow them to leverage any advantage they can get.
Chess as a spectator event has difficulty hitting the mainstream. By and large professional chess has always relied on a few wealthy patrons with no illusions of making any money off an event to carry the cost. Numerous attempts to put chess on tv failed. The internet is the only platform that's really succeeded in servicing the small demographic who want to watch high level chess events. It was able to do this through a combination of being cheap and widely distributed.
If you want your WCCC to be a live event, you need to find an incentive to make winning it prized enough for people to take precious time to travel/attend. A wealthy sponsor with money to burn is the only thing i can think of in this respect - maybe you can come up with a better idea but the 'prestige' of winning the title is just not enough atm obviously.
If you want it to be widely recognised by users/spectators, you need a significant marketing effort to get it on the assorted chess news portals across the internet, to build hype, and to make sure it's broadcast in a professional manner (video with live titled commentators to explain it to the masses as well as a place for chess servers to load pgns for relay)
Rodolfo Leoni wrote:I got several arguments worth of note in last few posts. From Bob, the fact computer engines became stronger than top GMs. The fact anybody could get his own World Champion for free causes lack of interest in events. Why should one follow an event? He already has the best players in his PC...
Again from Bob, clones/derivatives.... a parallel with sport could be the doping issue, with a difference: in cycling races (just for example) it's very spectacular to watch someone klimbing a mountain at an impossible speed; in chess this "doping" often leads to flat and boring games. Unfair in both cases.
From Kevin, about online Championship. Technology brings innovation, and maybe the net is the future. One has tu be sure nobody cheats anyway... There's the danger to become more invisible than WCCC is now, anyway.
From HGM, about the race for 2-3 ELOs. It seems we lost the human dimension of computer chess. Years ago, when Richard sent me a new version of The Baron for testing, he wrote: "Have fun!" For me, this has much more sense than few ELO points.
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
well, it is obvious, since Van Gogh, no more great painters,
Matisse? Picasso?
since Mozart, very few great musicians,
Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Shostakovic, Mahler... you know what, I know more who came after Mozart.
since Newton, very few great mathematicians, etc.
Laplace, Gauss, Euler...
all those people never attended any kind of conference or took artistic advice, but still their names are carved in gold.
You do know the myth of people from "outside" a field revolutionising the field without any formal training is just that, right? A myth, that is.
people who attend scientific conferences mainly remain unnoticed, at least I can not think of a single worthy name.
Well, that says a great deal about you.
There are about five people in that image I have not heard about. All the other ones are notable. Mme Curie doubly so.
and it is only about natural, in order to create, you need tabula rasa, no knowledge whasoever about the past; once you know about the past, all you can do is repeat things already well known.
You are quite wrong (again).
Conversely, those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.[/img]
I said very few, and you listed just a few.
what about great scientists, mathematicians, artists, novelists, musician, poets, in the last 50 years or so, mine and yours lifetime?
just mention a single poet, a single one, apart from Vysotsky
a single mathematician
a single painter who sells as Van Gogh does
a single novelist who got higher fame than Hugo and Senkievicz, for example a single one?
you can not, because there are not such.
that tells a lot about me, you and the world we are living in.
no more creativity, plain boring routine and plagiarism.
btw., have not you read Asimov's Foundation?
Trantor is the Earth of today, no doubt about it.
nevermind, we will never share similar point of view.
good liuck with your next scientific conference. :)
This is so much OT that it belongs to the CT forum.
Anyhow just a quick sidenote again, picking one single example of your (always) crude logic and viewpoints:
well, it is obvious, since Van Gogh, no more great painters,
Matisse? Picasso?
just mention ... a single painter who sells as Van Gogh does
1. so you really think the quantity of sales or the amount of money earned by art at a given point in time scales with the quality/mastery of it?
2. you have an idea how much van Gogh sold at his lifetime in quantity or money?
All your conclusions are either logically wrong or based on false assumptions. (might add, as usual...)
Please send the OT part to the CT forum.
Milos wrote:Year sure, computer chess tournaments are dying, but then there is much bigger interest in tournaments such as TCEC than what WCCC ever had in its history.
Just keep living in your bubble and keep blaming everything else. Such a dystopian view...
So how much you think people would be willing to pay to watch TCEC?
Ppl already give some quite substantial donations, a lot of them, much more than what WCCC has in its budget. Problem is length of the tournament. Just calculate how much it cost to rent super strong hardware for 3 months 24/7 or to buy it and then pay for electricity and cooling.
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
well, it is obvious, since Van Gogh, no more great painters,
Matisse? Picasso?
since Mozart, very few great musicians,
Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Shostakovic, Mahler... you know what, I know more who came after Mozart.
since Newton, very few great mathematicians, etc.
Laplace, Gauss, Euler...
all those people never attended any kind of conference or took artistic advice, but still their names are carved in gold.
You do know the myth of people from "outside" a field revolutionising the field without any formal training is just that, right? A myth, that is.
people who attend scientific conferences mainly remain unnoticed, at least I can not think of a single worthy name.
Well, that says a great deal about you.
There are about five people in that image I have not heard about. All the other ones are notable. Mme Curie doubly so.
and it is only about natural, in order to create, you need tabula rasa, no knowledge whasoever about the past; once you know about the past, all you can do is repeat things already well known.
You are quite wrong (again).
Conversely, those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.[/img]
I said very few, and you listed just a few.
what about great scientists, mathematicians, artists, novelists, musician, poets, in the last 50 years or so, mine and yours lifetime?
just mention a single poet, a single one, apart from Vysotsky
a single mathematician
a single painter who sells as Van Gogh does
a single novelist who got higher fame than Hugo and Senkievicz, for example a single one?
you can not, because there are not such.
that tells a lot about me, you and the world we are living in.
no more creativity, plain boring routine and plagiarism.
btw., have not you read Asimov's Foundation?
Trantor is the Earth of today, no doubt about it.
nevermind, we will never share similar point of view.
good liuck with your next scientific conference.
This is so much OT that it belongs to the CT forum.
Anyhow just a quick sidenote again, picking one single example of your (always) crude logic and viewpoints:
well, it is obvious, since Van Gogh, no more great painters,
Matisse? Picasso?
just mention ... a single painter who sells as Van Gogh does
1. so you really think the quantity of sales or the amount of money earned by art at a given point in time scales with the quality/mastery of it?
2. you have an idea how much van Gogh sold at his lifetime in quantity or money?
All your conclusions are either logically wrong or based on false assumptions. (might add, as usual...)
Please send the OT part to the CT forum.
what concerns painting and big auction houses like Sotheby's, yes, amount of money earned is usally proportionate to the value of the work.
whether van Gogh earned something during his lifetime or not is another matter, market was quite different from today.
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
well, it is obvious, since Van Gogh, no more great painters,
Matisse? Picasso?
since Mozart, very few great musicians,
Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Shostakovic, Mahler... you know what, I know more who came after Mozart.
since Newton, very few great mathematicians, etc.
Laplace, Gauss, Euler...
all those people never attended any kind of conference or took artistic advice, but still their names are carved in gold.
You do know the myth of people from "outside" a field revolutionising the field without any formal training is just that, right? A myth, that is.
people who attend scientific conferences mainly remain unnoticed, at least I can not think of a single worthy name.
Well, that says a great deal about you.
There are about five people in that image I have not heard about. All the other ones are notable. Mme Curie doubly so.
and it is only about natural, in order to create, you need tabula rasa, no knowledge whasoever about the past; once you know about the past, all you can do is repeat things already well known.
You are quite wrong (again).
Conversely, those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.[/img]
I said very few, and you listed just a few.
what about great scientists, mathematicians, artists, novelists, musician, poets, in the last 50 years or so, mine and yours lifetime?
just mention a single poet, a single one, apart from Vysotsky
a single mathematician
a single painter who sells as Van Gogh does
a single novelist who got higher fame than Hugo and Senkievicz, for example a single one?
you can not, because there are not such.
that tells a lot about me, you and the world we are living in.
no more creativity, plain boring routine and plagiarism.
btw., have not you read Asimov's Foundation?
Trantor is the Earth of today, no doubt about it.
nevermind, we will never share similar point of view.
good liuck with your next scientific conference. :)
This is so much OT that it belongs to the CT forum.
Anyhow just a quick sidenote again, picking one single example of your (always) crude logic and viewpoints:
well, it is obvious, since Van Gogh, no more great painters,
Matisse? Picasso?
just mention ... a single painter who sells as Van Gogh does
1. so you really think the quantity of sales or the amount of money earned by art at a given point in time scales with the quality/mastery of it?
2. you have an idea how much van Gogh sold at his lifetime in quantity or money?
All your conclusions are either logically wrong or based on false assumptions. (might add, as usual...)
Please send the OT part to the CT forum.
what concerns painting and big auction houses like Sotheby's, yes, amount of money earned is usally proportionate to the value of the work.
whether van Gogh earned something during his lifetime or not is another matter, market was quite different from today.
You still didn't grasp most of it. There can be dozens of artists from the last 100 years who are just not 'discovered' yet and still might sell their works for more than any van Gogh in future.
(if you still insist on your weird 'money = value of art') Good art is completely independent from what you think.
Anyhow my last remark, because this leads to nothing...
