Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 05:02:20 01/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2002 at 07:42:27, José Carlos wrote: > > I don't find it surprising, nor wrong. In "human" chess, we don't need >thousands of games to pick a world champion, and most people is okay with that. >In basketball, in soccer, tennis or golf, the champions are not statistically >the best, but it doesn't matter because success is success anyway. > It's only a matter of "point of view"; chess as science or chess as sport. I >like both points of view. > Quark was lucky against Monsoon. Well, that's sport. Fine for me. > Congratulations Thomas, no matter what happens today. > > José C. I agree with you in the distinction of sport and science. I like soccer as well, and I have always thought that the important tournaments should have more games to make it more statistically significant. Specifically such as thing as the world championship or the european championship is a joke statistically. Anyway, most people here in CCC usually don't draw conclusions unless they have a lot of games to back it up. That's all. Statistics or not, it is still a remarkable achievement, yesterdays games for Quark. /David
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.