Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:58:45 07/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2002 at 18:50:11, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On July 19, 2002 at 16:49:33, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On July 19, 2002 at 09:54:08, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>world championship. >>> >>>I suggest that the rules can say that the games are >>>played under winboard(pondering off,animation off). >>> >>>Every 2 programs can play 100 or even more games between >>>them so the total number of games of every program can be >>>at least 5000. >>> >>>I believe that we may get significant results >>>by that idea. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >> >>Just one remark: the WCCC or WMCCC is not designed to show which program is the >>best. >> >>It is designed to give the trophy at random amongst the most valuable >>participants, with a little preference for those who can hire the fastest >>available hardware. >> >>Where is the fun if the best wins? >> >>So what you suggest is exactly what is to be avoided for the WCCC or WMCCC. >> >> >> >> Christophe > >I'm afraid what you are saying is liable to be taken for sarcasm when it is not. >People don't understand that WCs are for entertainment and not for determining >who is the best. The results are seldom statistically significant in any type of >event whether it is chess, soccer, boxing, tennis or whatever. People in general >including the competitors themselves mistakenly think otherwise, but that's just >human nature. I understand but I do not see what is the problem in adding one world championship when you can expect statistically significant results. I know that we cannot expect statistically significant results at slow time control but we can get them at fast time control. I know that the results do not tell us which program is the best in 120/40 time control but it does not mean that the results are not interesting. Uri
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.