Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 10:48:17 12/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 25, 2000 at 01:28:38, Steve wrote: >Thank you for the information. I thought that might be the case, which is why I >asked about closely matched players. You have answered my real question above, >by pointing out that in such a case, the match could stretch out to a completely >unmanageable length. And, as you also note, there is simply no reason to >require a "statistically significant" result. A score of 3.5-0.5 may not be >statistically significant, but as a practical matter it tells most chessplayers >a lot about the relative strength of Anand and Shirov at this point. I don't think it needs to tell us anything, other than that Anand won, which is good enough. Doesn't anyone watch team sports? The winner at the end of the season is not the one that is "proven" the best, the winner is the one that won. Too much proof makes it *less* interesting. Why watch sports if you know that your team is 20 Elo points worse than the best team, and this will be exposed by a rigorous champion determination process, causing your team to finish second every year? The chance that an inferior team will win is a good reason to watch. bruce
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.