Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 07:53:27 02/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 26, 2001 at 10:47:00, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 26, 2001 at 09:01:17, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: > >>On February 26, 2001 at 08:46:29, Mogens Larsen wrote: >> >>>On February 26, 2001 at 07:51:33, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >>> >>>>Well, I don't know what's a "moral winner". As a matter of fact, The gandalf >>>>engine has terribly improved. No problem to cope with the hardware disadvantage >>>>against the dual machines. >>> >>>You won't get any objection from here. There are no proper distinction between >>>moral and immoral winners (or losers). >>> >>>>Without the bug, throwing away the game against Fritz, Gandalf could have been >>>>the winner of this tourney. >>> >>>I agree with Uri's point. The draw would have been different, so you can't >>>extrapolate the result. You don't need chaos theory to make that connection :-). >> >>I think, that Gandalf had played all of the bigger guys anyway. Playing them in >>another order can of course produced different results. Agreed so far. > >It is not exactly playing them in a different order and it also could be >playing one of the programs that scored 4.5 or 5 and not neurologic. > >Gandalf had good chances to win but we cannot be sure and there were surprises >one example is that zchess (a program that scored 4 points) beated Deep Fritz. Of course, we can't be sure. However, the conclusion "getting a half point in the 1st game is a better pre-condition to win a tournament than getting 0 points" seems quite natural to me. > >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.