Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 10:13:24 01/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2003 at 22:49:36, Russell Reagan wrote: >On January 20, 2003 at 19:34:25, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: > >>The more the merrier. Less chances for a fluke. > >I guess it depends what perspective you are coming from as to whether this is a >good thing or a bad thing. You obviously think a fluke is a bad thing. I think >it would be exciting to see an engine that wouldn't normally be a contender to >be in the hunt. I believe a lot of other people share this view, since people >get excited when (for example) Quark has a chance to win going into the last >round, in a strong CCT4. Plus it gives more incentive for people to join if >there are fewer rounds, for more than one reason. Besides, if you are hoping to >avoid a fluke (which to me means that you want the best engine to win), you will >need a LOT of rounds to really determine the "best". Let's define for the sake of explaining what I mean "unexpected good performance" and "fluke". The latter could be a winner that reached 1st place without playing a lot of good opponents. Some player that "sneaked" into the elite packed, one lucky game in the last round and that's it. The performance was not really super despite winning the tournament. That is not good and can happen when the number of rounds is few, too few. Another thing is a player that defeated "supposedly" better contenders. That is an unexpected good performance. That is ok. Miguel
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.