Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:32:08 10/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2004 at 16:36:14, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On October 24, 2004 at 16:34:04, Uri Blass wrote: > >>I think that it is more fair then what was used. >> >>Diep did not play Isichess. >> >>Isichess is not a weak opponent. >>It beated tiger and draw with the king. >> >>It is clear that Isichess had chances against Diep inspite of the fact that diep >>was the favourite to win in case that they played. >> >>The result of ProDeo and Nexus are simply slightly better than the result of >>Diep because of that reason. > >It's not Diep's fault that he didn't get to play Isichess, so how could it be >fairer to punish him for that? > >-- >GCP Being unlucky is part of the tournament but it is more fair to choose as the winner the program that did better results. Diep could score more points against the opponents that it played and be the winner if it fails to demonstrate superiority by that way then it is logical to choose the winner based on the opponents. As far as I see Diep got the strongest opponent that it could get in the last round(ant) so the decision not to use the normal rule was a decision that helped diep. The tournament director had no way to promise that Diep will be the winner by a different pairing in case that normal rules were used. doing a random pairing between the logical options and using normal rules could be a more logical decision. Uri
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.