Author: Aaron Tay
Date: 13:47:57 09/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2000 at 10:51:33, pavel wrote: >On September 14, 2000 at 07:22:11, Aaron Tay wrote: >>>this tourny is a good example of how important a big number of games are to come >>>to *some* (or any) conclution about a set of programs strength. >>> >>>I know this is just a 'limited game' tournament. >>>and result like this is understandable. >>> >>>but its also a very good example ;) >>> >>>pavel >> >>Actually it more interesting to see how such comments about "not enough games" >>becomes more frequent the more the results don't match up with one's >>expectation. > >hmmm,what was your expectation? Faile to win? no no no, let me guess....... its >probably Ant!! ??? It's your expectation we are talking about right? >You cant have *single* logical 'expectation' when you have programs like (who is as strong as) junior6, Frictz6, hiarcs, comet, crafty,nimzo, lil goliath, sos, anmon, yace in a single tournament. Obviously. But u can have a expectation of a program not winning as you did..See your comment below about Phalanx >It is *ussual* to see commercial programs (eg, fritz, junior) to win most >tournys, but when you see _not so likely_ programs (or not so strong) to win, >actually 'win', that is when the question of "not enough games" come out.... > >for swisses definately......... > >now dont tell me Phalanax is the best in this pack.. Why not? It's strong enough. The problem i see is not because it's "Swiss" and because not enough games were played rather the results that came out were in the opinion of the tester or commentator unlikely.. >LOL > >Pavel ;)
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.