You're absolutely correct, but flashy tournaments catch more headlines than slowly moving rating lists. There IS a reason why the web sites of most commercial engines strongly emphasize their results in past WCCC events - even from more than 10 years ago!BubbaTough wrote:For people from the computer chess community, it sure seems amazing. We are used to testing things with thousands upon thousands of games, and laughing at those who draw conclusions with less. To see the power of the press and its ability to influence thoughts based on what those who post here would generally consider meaningless results, is amazing!
I am not claiming anything about what engine is best, just that there are far better sources to draw such conclusions than this 6 round tournament (or whatever length it is). Many of them posted here. I have not looked at the results, but I hope critter ends up in first (not impossible in such a short match) just to watch those trumpeting these results either have to exclaim it is the best engine, or decide maybe the tournament is not so meaningful after all .
From a spectator's point of view the TCEC tournaments are very well organized. Games can be followed live in the Chessbomb chat room where you can discuss with other amateurs and even the engine authors. And there's the added bonus that all strong engines participate in a fair way by using the same hardware and opening book.
The TCEC tournament certainly deserves all the attention it gets, it's a pity that some sour souls feel the irresistible urge to degrade it...