Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:27:44 01/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2003 at 17:02:35, James T. Walker wrote: >On January 20, 2003 at 16:51:00, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>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. >I think not. I think you missed mine. So I will spell it out for you. Since >there is no perfect format to find the strongest program, I find the format in >use to be great for spectators like me. Programmers who lost should just get >over it since they might be the lucky winner next time. The playoff format has >been used in world championship competition so it's also fine by me as a >spectator. I thought you were saying that the format chosen was not the best one to find which program is strongest. It is the best for that. >>No contest can truly tell us which program is strongest. Not even a trillion >>rounds of round-robin. >I disagree again. I believe a trillion rounds will show which program is >strongest. You're wrong. >>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. > >I agree. >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.