Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 10:45:22 08/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 08, 2002 at 06:07:57, Roger Brown wrote: > Russell, let us use a chess argument here. Are you saying that if a player >rated 2000 went on a rampage in an Open, shredded the field of players all rated >higher than him/her over the course of several days and several games and met a >GM (say 2600) in the finals, winning by a half point, he/she wouldn't be the >best player? What if the GM had a momentary slip and hung his queen and gave the 2000 player an easy win? The GM would beat the 2000 player the vast majority of the time. Clearly the GM is the better of the two players, but the 2000 player was better for one game, and you can't conclude anything based on one game. Sometimes you can't conclude anything over a long match. I think that is the only point he was trying to make, that no matter what the outcome of both of the tournaments in October, it won't "prove" anything. Russell
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.