Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 04:27:54 01/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
There is a degree of uncertainty, but I don't think you need 1000 matches of 200 games each to have an idea of who is best. Fischer became a chess legend for the games he played between his comeback in 1970 to the Spassky match of 1972. In this period of time he played 157 games that proved to all of us without the hint of a doubt that he was the very best chess player of those times. Kasparov has been the undisputed best for many years. From 1984 until now, he played a total of 772 rated games. He needed less than half these games to convince everyone about who is the best chess player. This makes more sense to me than the probability stuff of your Qbasic program. Otherwise we would reach the absurd of believing that all the rankings in the history of chess are meaningless, and Capablanca, Fischer and Kasparov had long streaks of luck. You must have thought along these lines too when you proposed the matches Tiger-Diep and Tiger-Crafty as being meaningful, in spite of not being 200,000 games long. Enrique
This page took 0.01 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.