Author: martin fierz
Date: 12:59:53 08/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2002 at 15:11:24, Jeff White wrote: >>there sure is nothing magical to "24", but i think it's clear that longer >>matches are more desirable from a statistical point of view. > >Sure, thats exactly why I wanted to know how come it's never happened. I would >think that programmers of the top programs would like to see this as well. As I >said in a previous post, short matches mean nothing. A six game match, if you >lose once, all you have to do is draw the rest of the games to back in to a >victory. A 24 game match, you may have to win a little more than 1 or 2 to win >the match. The one I'd REALLY like to see would be Kasparov against the best >program in the world in a first to win 6 draws not counting. But thats somewhat >of a fantasy. > >Regards, >Jeff it won't happen because in man-machine matches, the machines put up the money, and, who pays decides how the match is played (=chessbase, mostly). i'm sure all the programmers are very aware of the fact that their programs would have significantly worse chances in a longer match, so this won't happen at the time being. aloha martin
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.