Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 20:30:10 08/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2002 at 19:47:18, Roger Brown wrote: > I cannot see after all of that how the Lakers are not the best team bar none? >Same for any team that wins the NBA. Then apparently you didn't watch the NBA playoffs this past season. Otherwise you would know that it was essentially luck that put the Lakers into the finals, because if they wouldn't have made some incredible comebacks and hit some incredible shots in the King's series, they wouldn't have even made it to the finals. Understand that the Lakers had quite a few things go their way in that series, and if even one of those things went the other way, a call here, a shot off the mark there, the Lakers are sitting at home during the finals. I am not saying the only reason the Lakers won the NBA championship is because they were lucky. They are a highly talented team, but even so, they needed a few things to go their way to accomplish what they did. > I will agree that they did not have the best record - the Lakers - but to me >that makes their winning the title an even a more commendable achievement as >they had to square off against higher rated opponents easlier without homecourt >advantage for the entire series. That means nothing. The Lakers get the benefit of the doubt whenever there is a close call. Any NBA multiple time winner of the NBA championship will have that advantage. I think the point that Dann was making is that you cannot say for sure that the "champion" was the best team. Let's say that in the NBA, the 8th seed in the eastern conference barely made it into the playoffs, and they went on a hot streak for several weeks and won the NBA championship, winning every game in the playoffs by 2-3 points, and every series going 7 games (or 5 in the first round). In addition, Shaq and Kobe play unusually bad (by their standards), and they lose game 7 of the NBA finals by 1 point because the other team hit a full court 3 pointer at the buzzer. Do you think the best team won? Of course not. The team with the most luck won. You can't take a reduced frame of reference and deduce any concrete meaning from it. So unless Kramnik and Kasparov both absolutely crush their digital opponents, then we will not be able to say 100% for sure that humans are still better or computers are better now. That is the only point he was trying to make. The Lakers happen to be the best NBA team right now, so that's why he used them in an example. The Lakers have the two best players in the NBA, and then a bunch of spare parts. Fortunately for them, Shaq and Kobe are capable of dominating, and when you add in a few points from other players, it equals wins and championships. There is no answer for Shaq, anywhere. No human being in the world can stop him, and so it's no wonder that the Lakers are the best team in the world. I think you could put together a team with the best players in the world, put them against the Lakers, and the Lakers would win (assuming no injuries). I'm wandering way off topic now, but hopefully you get my point. Russell
This page took 0.01 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.