Author: Peter Fendrich
Date: 14:14:44 03/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
>>The guy lost, that's evidence enough for me. >>If he is the better chess player or if he would win the next match is a >>completely different story that we will never know, I'm afraid... >>//Peter > > > Evidence enough of what? Evidence of that DB was the better player in this match, meaning that it could happen again, nothing more, nothing less. >If a world championship match was anounced of only 6 >games NO ONE would think it was sufficient to prove anything, that's why there >has never in the history of all chess been a championship match that was so >short. Again as i said by your reasoning one could claim that after 9 rounds of >the kasp vs Anand match since anand was in the lead by a point that indeed that >should have proved to you that Anand was the better player. So all you are >demonstrating is an illogical bias, because not only was the match just a mere 6 >games, you have no other games of deep blues to point to to show it's strength >so you are basing an opinion of strength based solely upon 6 games total! You >can't even finsih a PROVISIONAL rating with 6 games! ...but isn't all that about the same as I said too in the post before? I think that almost every sport event including most world championships are as uncertain as this. We can't deny that the winner won but who really is the best is hardly not possible to prove. //Peter
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.