Author: Paulo Soares
Date: 04:19:37 06/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 16, 1999 at 01:04:40, KarinsDad wrote: >On June 16, 1999 at 00:08:46, eric guttenberg wrote: > >> >>In a 7-round tournament luck is clearly a major factor, especially >>where the competitors are machines running programs within 20-30 >>elo points of each other. It may not be the biggest factor but >>anyone who has seen a lot of computer v computer results knows that in >>a tournament where the top contenders only play 3 or 4 games against >>other top contenders the result might be very different than if the >>top programs played 40 games against its top rivals. >> >>eric > >I disagree. > >Luck is not a major factor at all. > >Luck is one of those terms that is bandied about when some improbable event >occurs. However, you have 30 chess programs here. So, on average, they each have >about a 3.3% chance of winning. But just because the average chance to win is >low and hence the chance to win of the winning program is low (i.e. improbable), >does not mean that whichever program wins will be lucky. It means that one of >many improbable events will be the final result. The winning program will be >skillful. Chess is a game of total skill, not luck. Backgammon is a game of >skill and luck. > >If there were 30 humans playing in the tournament and you were one of them and >you won the tournament, then you would not say that you won it because you were >lucky. You would say that you won it because you had a higher winning percentage >than any other competitor (or maybe some more colorful euphemism). Four to six >round chess tournaments occur every week in the world and a lot of these are >split up in to 200 point differential sections. Nobody (generally) goes around >saying that the winner of these tournaments is lucky, so why would they say that >for a seven round tournament? > >When Anand played Karpov for the World Championship, the previous elimination >rounds consisted of the winner of two games (and quick chess tie breaks) per >round. Only 2 games! But, nobody said (at least to my knowledge) that Anand was >lucky to beat Shirov, Gelfand, and Adams after winning his first 3 rounds. >Everyone just took it in stride that Anand would be playing for the Championship >because he was victorious. End of story. > >The program that wins the WCCC will be one that plays extremely well. > >KarinsDad :) The factor lucky is more present in WCCC because are few elements to comprove the statistics studies. However is very good see this tournament! Not all in the life need to be scientific comproveted, life would be very monotonous. Paulo Soares, from Brazil
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.