Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:51:00 01/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2003 at 16:38:47, James T. Walker wrote: >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) I think you missed my point. No contest can truly tell us which program is strongest. Not even a trillion rounds of round-robin. However, for a given number of games, a swiss tournament tells us more about which player is strongest (and weakest) than any other format does.
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.