Author: blass uri
Date: 07:49:13 03/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 2000 at 19:06:48, Dann Corbit wrote: >On March 17, 2000 at 19:04:16, Derrick Williams wrote: >[snip] >> If Khalifman is the world champion, then to be world champion is absolutely >>meaningless, since is has nothing to do with being the strongest player or best >>player in the world as the word "WORLD CHAMPION" itself implies. > >It has never been about that. Anyone who knows anything about mathematics is >aware that a contest -- even a 50 game contest between the two persons supposed >to be best -- does not really decide who the better player is. I think that you need at least 20 games match to decide about the world champion. I know that even with 50 games I cannot be sure but at least I know that the errors are less big and that there is a good chance that the world champion is the best player. Uri
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.