Author: Arnold Gove
Date: 11:56:53 12/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
I'm not sure how much we can conclude from just a handful of opinions like these. On December 27, 2005 at 14:53:12, stuart taylor wrote: >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.