Author: James T. Walker
Date: 13:38:47 01/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2003 at 14:42:10, Dann Corbit 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. > > >The Swiss system produces two data points: >1. The strongest player >2. The weakest player Sorry Dan but I have to disagree with you (as usual). The Swiss system produces a winner and all other spots down the list. Each one can be a data point. Since you can run the same tournament next week-end and get a different winner it does NOT produce the strongest player. It produces a winner for that tournament only. So what! It's why we play the game. Also just because one program finished last this time does not mean it is the weakest and will repeat next week. (Unless it is so weak it is doomed to that position all the time) > >There is very little you can say about the programs in between these points. >The entire format is dedicated to find the strongest (and by virtue of its >structure it also detects the weakest though that is not the intent). > >No other format can come close in accuracy to predicting the strongest program >with a reasonable number of games. If you want to know how strong *all* of the >programs are, you will have to run round-robins or gauntlets. > >>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 I see this as an outdated idea.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. > >This is what I call the death of chess and the birth of something new: >"blitz-o-mania" > >I hate it. I'm aware of your feeling towards the faster time controls. Mine happens to be the opposite (as usual). :-) It is interesting to the spectators like me to watch in amazement at your creations battling it out. At relatively fast time controls it can even be exciting. At very slow time controls it gets boring waiting for a move. We just happen to have different likes/dislikes that's all. Nothing to get alarmed about. Jim
This page took 0.01 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.