Author: stuart taylor
Date: 12:09:13 12/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 27, 2005 at 14:56:53, Arnold Gove wrote: >I'm not sure how much we can conclude from just a handful of opinions like >these. It's not really my opinion. The testers know better. But I think that Kasparov can give more information (than the testers) about the strength of any engine, after only a few games. S.Taylor > >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.