Author: Mark Young
Date: 07:26:30 08/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2001 at 10:11:22, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >>> >>>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. Not Correct, the Knock-out tourneys are much better then the Swiss System, the problem that Fide had was the matches were too short for declaring a World Champion. > >> >>> >>>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. Well we have a process right now that does just that, it takes months, it reliably determines the best program, and they play on equal hardware. And in my opinion is a much better and harder Title to win then the computer world champion title, it is the #1 ranking on the SSDF rating list. > >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.