Author: KarinsDad
Date: 12:38:06 06/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 30, 1999 at 15:19:54, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: [snip] > >Interesting point, but I doubt that this would help much. The only people on ICC >capable of beating the better programs are the *strong* IM/GM types (ICC rated >over 2700). They play on ICC, in part, precisely *because* they get to choose >who they play. Why would a ICC 2850 want to play in some kind of random >tournament, playing 1282s (or even 2282s for that matter)? What would he/she >gain? Nothing...so they wouldn't play...so nobody who *would* play would have >any realistic chance of challenging a good computer. Hence, the 'tournament >blitz' rating of the computer would be meaningless. How much information do we >get from the fact that Crafty went 70-0-0 against players rated on average 1950? >We already know this. This system would give us no additional information, in my >opinion. The players who could give us more information wouldn't play, and those >who did play would not allow us to generate meaningful conclusions. > >I just feel that this kind of rating system is a bad idea from the word go. > >Chris Hence, one of the reasons we have discussions here on this forum. Some ideas may seem good on the surface, but other people with a different mindset can often refute them with ease. I do find it interesting that many people (including IMs and GMs) do not use ICC and the other servers to play standard timed (class segregated) tournaments. Since the ratings do not really mean anything, it would seem like this would be an ideal way for geographically separated individuals to play and practice against each other in tournament conditions (and without paying transportation costs or tournament entry fees). But it appears that this is not often done. Strange. KarinsDad :)
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.