Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 07:11:22 08/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
>> >>It's just the same with human tournaments. The world champion is determined as >>the winner of a special tournament. > >Not Correct, yes they play tournaments, but never using the Swiss tournament >system. You're right; FIDE used to play knock-out tourneys. That's much worse, IMHO. > >> >>That's an exciting and interesting way to determine the champion and I seriously >>can't see what's wrong with this. > >You don't see a problem with an open tournament with only 9 rounds to declar a >world champion? No Human Champion has ever been declared this way. I have no problem with this. In order to reliably determine the "best" player they'd to play for months. That's just boaring. Other issues (e.g. equal hardware ?) would remain unsolved nevertheless. Uli > >> >>Defining the winner by some utility like ELOstat for a tourney is ridiculous >>anyway because you need at least 200 or more games to get reasonable error >>margins. So, the Maastricht ranking is certainly in perfect agreement with >>ELOstat statistics for this tourney provided you account for the error margins >>(what you have to do if you want to be kind of "scientific"). >> >>Uli
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.