Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 15:20:10 10/21/98
Go up one level in this thread
Hi dan: Very smarts comments you have made to probe your point, but maybe there is another angle to see this issue about the meaning of champion of anything. The clue, I suppose, is the difference between to be proclaimed champion in a determinate event and to be the very best. The first thing happens in a singular event, like to play the final game in the soccer championship or to win or lose against Deep Blue in an specific match of only half a dozen games. But also when we talk of a champion we are not just makinfg reference to the guy that got the cup, but just to the performer that in average has a better perfomance than the competence. In this last sense statisc results are the core of the matter and surely the statistics asociated to human beings are so good or bad to that than the statistics asociated with chess computers. We tend to forget that when we clasify a chess player as GM or IM we are not saying that he got a title of such kind in this or that tournament, BUT that he has such rating and title after hundred, perhaps thousands of games. Anothet things we forget -it seems to me Smir forgot it - is that strenght is something very different to relative force, such as that measured by Elo ratings. Strenght could be and surely is permanent, as Amir say, but not so the rating because thais last one depends of a relation of forces with changeable oponents. It is not matter of you changing your strenght, but also how the oposition change yours. That's the reason computers that in the middle of the 80's had a 2000 elo now appear with a very much degraded one; they now compete with a lot stronger programs. Cheers Fernando
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.