Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 23:02:34 04/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2001 at 16:06:21, Christophe Theron wrote: >On April 17, 2001 at 13:51:20, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>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! > > > > >Right, but it is interesting to know what is the exact value of this title by >understanding how you get it. The same is true for Kramnik. I do not believe he is the strongest chess player, but he is the world champion having defeated Kasparov. > > > > >>>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! > > > > >We are making progress here, Sandro. I never told something different. > >I guess our disagreement is smaller than I thought. > >We can agree that the program that owns the World Champion title is not >automatically the strongest. > >So it is possible to have: >* on one hand the "World Champion" >* and on the other hand the "Strongest Program" > >And I still do not understand why the "World Champion" has to be picked in >priority. Because it owns the World Champion title as Kramnik does. > >It may be that most people want to see the strongest program competing. I'm sure >you can understand that. I can understand this, but I do not agree. If you will win the next WCCC I will say, Chess Tiger MUST play because it is the World Champion. This is my believe. > > > > > >>>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. > > > >That's a weak point, Sandro. I don't care for how long you've been into this. I >just care about facts and good points. I am telling facts. You are changing my words. > > > > > >> I did not say the contrary. >>I am not trying to convince anyone that you! > > > > >I understand your point of view. I'm not saying that you are 100% wrong, but you >can also understand that people know that a World title does not mean the owner >is the best out there, and people want to see the best pitted against Kramnik. > > > > > >>>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! > > > >They do not mean much but I like them! OK, but then why to award a World title if it does not mean something? > > > > >>>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! > > > > >Pff... I don't think they would pretend their tournaments have an absolute >significance either. > >We all know that we participate to a big lottery when we enter a WCCC or WMCCC. >Being so vocal just because you win a lottery, even if you have some merit >because in order to win it you must be amongst the best, is just propaganda. Yes, but if you win the lottery again and again it cannot be only LUCK! Ciao Sandro > > > > > 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.