Author: Charles Unruh
Date: 08:30:50 01/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2000 at 07:27:54, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >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 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.