Author: Milorad Madjar
Date: 15:40:37 07/25/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 2003 at 17:41:05, Dann Corbit wrote: >On July 25, 2003 at 15:28:48, Milorad Madjar wrote: >[snip] >>Hi Dan, >>Result of Tournament- 7/03, 60 min +2 sec is result only of this tournament. >>And what I say is the judgement about this tournament , and 78 games in this >>tournament .Maybe 2000 games or raundes not enough for some people, maybe thay >>want 4000 games or roundes ..... >>On World Cup ,or any other tournment on the world ...., we have fixed number of >>games and winner is victor of this tournament and you or I or anybody can make a >>judgement only about this tournament.We don't know what can happen after 200 >>games or 2000 .... And we must congratulate to winner in this moment. >>Maybe you not arrange about condition , but I'm explain about that in the past. > >And there is nothing wrong with a contest with as many or as few games as we >like. After all, a contest determines something: A winner. > >That does not mean that the winner was the strongest. But it does mean that the >winner won that particular contest. That in itself is always interesting. > >The problems arise when we try to read to much into a given result. > >IMO-YMMV. Yes. But if you have only condition that is the winner who victory after 600 games or 1000 you lose tournamentes : World Cup, or any tournametnt on the internet or in the World,...., for example : do you can plan much Kasparov - Kramnik whith 600 games, it is not chess , it is deverb. Chess (and Life) on this way is not perfection , on this way we lose charm of chess (Life). Regards Milan p.s. I must go to sleap.See tomorrow. Regards Milan
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.