Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:08:23 09/09/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2005 at 18:04:35, Dann Corbit wrote: >On September 09, 2005 at 17:50:58, Mig Greengard wrote: > >>I'm not a ChessBase employee, loyal or otherwise. >> >>ChessBase not being attacked? I guess you are new to these boards. You should >>look through the archives for the comments about ChessBase's lack of coverage of >>the WCCC. Saying I'm defending them or making excuses presupposes there is >>something for them to be ashamed of or worried about. >> >>I said an 11-round tournament was no more definitive than human chess. But since >>playing dozens and hundreds of games between computers is both practical and >>common, unlike with humans, yes, there is a higher standard for agreeing on >>legitimacy of strength. Or would you be happy if the computer rating list >>required just a dozen games? Running around and shouting the king is dead when >>Shredder and Junior don't win is just as sensible as declaring Arkady Naiditsch >>world champion because he won Dortmund. How about: Khalifman, A. Best player in the world in 1999? http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/9899$wix.htm >>It was a great result, a deserved win, >>and should be praised and enjoyed for what it is. It's also symbolic to a >>certain degree, mostly because Fruit is open source. Strong new engines have >>almost always been amateur. > >You are right about the reliability of a short event like this. >However, the contest is sponsored by the official sanctioning body for computer >chess and is every bit as much a world championship as a FIDE event (the best >man does not always win those either). > >Now, as for a reliable reference to which program is strongest, the SSDF is far >more sensible. But in the same manner with FIDE, we do not choose the world >champion just due to their Elo score (though that method would actually be as >good as any, I imagine). We have to have some formal contest to win. It is the >same with computer chess. > >>I was surprised that ChessBase didn't cover the event and tried to explain >>several possible rationales, both for not playing and for not covering it. I >>think they should have covered it, obviously. If not daily, at least the result.
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.