Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 16:26:50 12/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 2000 at 17:44:30, Roger D Davis wrote: That is not necessary, the rule was set by FIDE and all the participants agreed to play under that system. I don't believe that none of the participants would have agreed to play another set number of games knowing that at the final stage they would have been too tired. Just to remind you all take a close look at this schedule, and honestly make a sound jugedment and place yourself in their shoes. How would you feel after playing all these games. http://www.kasparovchess.com/serve/templates/folders/freehtml.asp?p_folderID=535 >They should play a set number of games, say 5 or ten. At the end of that >tournament, if the results are not statistically significant, they should play >on until the results ARE statistically significant. If you look at all past >world champions, it appears that there have seldom been enough games played to >make a statistically significant champion. Sad, but true. The world championship >is rather like Junior 6 v. Shredder and one program coming out on top by one >game. We all know that proves nothing. > >I do not mind there being someone called "world champion," but I think there >should also be a "statistically significant champion." Only the statistically >significant champion can be the real champion. > >Roger > > >On December 24, 2000 at 13:11:49, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On December 24, 2000 at 09:09:27, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >> >>>My congratulations to Vishy Anand, for winning the >>>FIDE World Championship 2000! >>> >>>3,5-0,5 in the final against Shirov, that leaves no >>>discussion whatsoever. Anand was the best, remained >>>unbeaten and scored a clear victory in the final. >>>Well done! >>> >>>Jeroen >> >> >>I am still absolutely amazed that a World Championship can be decided this way. >> >>A score of 3.5-0.5 is not statistically significant, not even with a low >>confidence. >> >>It is now clear, at least amongst the experienced computers chess operators, >>that such a result means NOTHING. >> >>I think that the computer chess community is on some topics much more advanced >>than the human chess community. For example the human chess community has >>adopted the ELO rating system, but still ignores most of the basic rules of this >>system (margin of error, level of confidence). The computer chess community is >>aware of these rules, and you can find these parameters published in the SSDF >>rating list for example. >> >> >> >> Christophe
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.