Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:34:59 08/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
The point I was trying to make is that *any* championship that relies on a short series of games *cannot* determine accurately who is the best. I remember one year when UCLA won the college basketball championship with a 16-11 record (IIRC). They probably were not the best team, but they got hot and won all the marbles anyway. The Lakers *may* be the best team in US basketball. However, the 7 game series did not prove superiority. It only crowned a champion. Which is fine, after all. We don't want to wait for 1000 games to decide who is best. And if Mr. Oneil should get hurt on game 200 what then? Short contests discover a winner. But they do not really demonstrate superiority. The longer the series, the greater the confidence. So a match between a computer and a human of 6 games will decide a winner. But it will not show who is better.
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.