Author: James T. Walker
Date: 16:04:31 01/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2003 at 18:10:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 20, 2003 at 16:20:35, James T. Walker wrote: > >>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 I see this as an outdated idea.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 > > >OK.. perhaps I misunderstood your first "implication". "neither will 90 games." > >That seems to be leading into the old "you need a _bunch_ of games to separate >two programs that are very close" discussion. And no tournament ever claims to >identify the "best player". They just identify "the winner" Yes. Exactly. And so all I'm saying is that there is no tournament system which will prove who is best only who won this time. The Swiss system is good for what you guys were doing and I like the format as a spectator. So I'm really campaigning to just keep it the way it is and let all programs hope for a better result next time. Crafty played very well by the way and I really enjoyed the Crafty Ruffian game. 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.