Author: Greg Simpson
Date: 01:51:17 10/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2005 at 03:53:50, Graham Banks wrote: >In EVERY match of the 32 played to date, the engine that was first to 10.5 (best >of 20 games) was also first to 15.5 (best of 30 games). > >If this trend continues, it will be good proof that 20 game matches are long >enough in most cases to show up the stronger of the two participants. > >Any comments? I don't find the trend surprising. Some of these engines are quite a bit better than others, so it makes sense that the better program would usually be first to 10.5 and 15.5. If there a large difference in the strength of the programs, twenty games will usually be enough; if there is a small difference thirty often won't be. Still, in intermediate cases the thirty game matches will make a significant difference. All that said, I was slightly disappointed when you changed to thirty game matches, mainly because I liked the inferior programs to have a slight change to win: it made the matches more interesting. Now that we've seen them, I also dislike that so many matches are effectively decided long before all the games are finished. Not that it makes a big difference either way, all the tournaments have been fun. My vote would be to go back to twenty game matches though.
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.