Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:45:33 04/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2001 at 15:32:05, Albert Silver wrote: >On April 23, 2001 at 15:15:38, Mogens Larsen wrote: > >>On April 23, 2001 at 11:52:35, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >> >>>Hello, >>> >>>today I wrote a little eMail to the Herald Tribune: >> >>A better article can be found at Kasparov Chess, written by Mig: >> >>http://www.kasparovchess.com/serve/templates/folders/show.asp?p_docID=16097&p_docLang=EN >> >>Mogens. > >Yes, the problem here is the presumption that Cadaques is the final word. No >disrespect meant to the event (as fascinating as I think it is), but it is still >a tournament of hand-picked programs. You know from the outset, that the winner >will be one of those chosen, so a program such as SOS, whether you _believe_ it >is weaker or not, can never be the winner. On the other hand it could (in >theory) have been World Champion. As I recall, it was also one of the stumbling >blocks of Fritz in the WC. Ferret, which came second, and whose strength is >undisputed, could also never have been a winner of Cadaques. Etc. So much as >Cadaques is great, it can hardly be said to represent the computer chess >community as a whole. I'm not saying that is what Enrique claimed it was, but >the implication in MIG's piece was there. > Yes, but with as many as 20! (not factorial) games, wouldn't it be indisputable? :-) Imagine! As many as 20 games! I should think that would settle all possible doubt. BTW, as far as choosing a single champion, round robin format is *not* more accurate. It only creates greater accuracy for choosing anything besides the best and worst contest entrants (which is the _entire_ value of the swiss format). On the other hand, I would like to see the ICCA have more games to settle the contest. On the other, other hand, I am aware that the programmers would oppose this.
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.