Author: stuart taylor
Date: 11:53:12 12/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 27, 2005 at 14:40:57, Joseph Ciarrochi wrote: >I enjoy this tournment, but the standings are based on only 20 games or so. This >means the final ranking is probably unreliable (and would probably change if >another 20 games were run). > >So im not sure how much we can conclude from this tournment I think it is obvious that it is not worth all that much, except for publicity. Humans like publicity, and festive moods. But that doesn't always say what the actual value of something is. I'm not even sure either if human world championships mean much either. Well, maybe they ARE worth more with fewer games, than with machines. I'm not sure. But, in this forum, for a few years already, it's always been strongly claimed repeatedly "not enough games". Yes, I don't agree it should have to be like that. A game isn't a potato, that you say that less than 500 kilo's is wortheless to me (to open a warehouse, or so). But for sure, these few games don't give much of a chance. BUT they DO say SOMEthing. And even that, is only my own opinion, and even that opinion means more, if you can study the games in depth, to see where each program is really "coming from". S.Taylor
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.