Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:25:20 01/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2003 at 11:39:27, James T. Walker wrote: >Neither will 90 rounds. I've seen some discussion about the >times/rounds/playoffs of CCT mostly looking for ways to improve the format. In >my opinion as a spectator the format is great. I even liked the playoff format. > I believe a world championship was decided in a similiar manner not too long >ago. Nobody should expect a swiss system event to produce the strongest player >as the winner every time. However in my opinion this was the case this time. >I'm also curious about some programmers claiming the blitz playoff is not good >because their program is tuned for longer time controls. I wonder how you do >that. I mean if you are playing your program on ICC for games, how does playing >80% or more of your games at blitz/lightning help you to tune for 40/2? Why >would you want your program to perform better at 40/2 than at G/5 compared to >other engines? It seems to me that the SSDF is one of the few organizations >still using 40/2 for comparison. I see this as an outdated idea. The trend is >toward faster time controls to better serve the spectators interest. All this >is from a non programming spectator so don't give it much thought. >:-) >Jim You miss the point. A _tournament_ will _never_ give you the "best program." It will just give you a winner, hopefully. There is a big difference between "winner" and "best program". The difference can be explained statistically, if you are interested...
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.