Author: James T. Walker
Date: 13:20:35 01/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2003 at 15:25:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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 I see this as an outdated idea.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... How did I miss the point since that was the topic of my post? I suspect you missed the point. Jim
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.