Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 10:51:20 04/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2001 at 13:42:31, Christophe Theron wrote: >On April 17, 2001 at 13:19:19, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>We are the World Champion until the ICCA new tournament will be held and another >>program win the title. >>If we do not recognize such a title and event there is no reason to make such >>event anymore!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> >>Sandro Necchi > > >The event is recognized for what it is: a nice event with a lot of randomness in >the result, but which is fine because it is the only opportunity for programmers >and computer chess businessmen to meet each other. I do not agre. > >I personally enjoyed a lot participating in person to the WMCCC 1997 (Paris) and >the WCCC 1999 (Paderborn). I have nice memories of everybody, and for me that >was a dream come true. > >But you should not assume people are so stupid that they do not understand the >low reliability of such events. That's your opinion! A World champion title is a title! > >If the event was so reliable, why would the SSDF results be so interesting for >everybody? Why would testers play home tournaments? That's their choice. > >What you are doing here is trying to disinform people about the reliability of >chess events. I am not trying to disinform anyone. I did not say that winning such event automatically means that the program is the strongest. I say that it becomes the World Champion! >But it won't work. People are more and more aware that a high >number of games is necessary to evaluate the relative strength of chess >programs, and that a 7 or 9 or even 11 rounds event means close to nothing. Look, I am involved in computer chess before you did, so I know this better than you. I did not say the contrary. I am not trying to convince anyone that you! > >In the tournaments organized by the ICCA, all you can do is say that there must >be a stength difference between the bottom and the top of the final rankings. >But between, say, the 5 first programs it is impossible to say which is the >best. if these tournaments means nothing then lets cancel them! > >20 years ago these events were significant because there were significant >differences in the strength of chess programs. That's why the "Chess" program >was reliably leading, and that's also why Richard Lang's programs have been able >to do the same in the eighties. > >Nowadays the difference in playing strength is less obvious, and the reliability >of the ICCA tournaments is close to nil. You are offending ICCA! > >This is not a critic against the ICCA. Given the time and money constraints it >is impossible to do any better, and anyway the events are very enjoyable for the >participants. Sandro Necchi > > > > Christophe
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.