Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 06:53:38 06/06/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 1998 at 11:31:42, Don Dailey wrote: >On June 05, 1998 at 04:24:25, Danniel Corbit wrote: > >>One further caveat: >>A "world" title based on a handful of games is really pretty meaningless >>anyway. If one hundred games against each opponent were performed, we >>could have some certainty. But with a tiny selection, it is just a wild >>guestimate anyway. I think this is probably even more true of computer >>chess than with people. I suspect that a large number of games against >>a computer program are likely to reveal a flaw. The same will be true >>for humans, but the humans will quickly learn and recover. > >Yes, I agree. The ICCA plans to make the next world championship have >more rounds which is an improvement. > >It would be nice (but hard to arrange) if the world championship was >more like the human championship. A challenger selected and then a >long match played between the two. Then you could still have bragging >rights to being either the "world challenger" or former world champion. > >- Don Or else, and as things are now, it would be possible to consider the SSDF list as more of a world championship for commercials than the ICCA events. Question for programmers: what do you value more, to be the official world champion for a year, or to be on top of the SSDF list also for a year? If you had to pick between one or the other? I heard that being #1 on the SSDF makes Frans Morsch happier than any world title he won before. Enrique
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.