Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 09:36:35 11/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 05, 2003 at 12:25:17, Peter Kappler wrote: >On November 05, 2003 at 04:17:06, Steven Edwards wrote: > >>On November 05, 2003 at 00:03:06, Peter Kappler wrote: >>>On November 04, 2003 at 19:24:25, Steven Edwards wrote: >>>>On November 04, 2003 at 18:47:02, Peter Kappler wrote: >> >>>>>Are you aware of the CCT tournaments that have been played on ICC? We've had 5 >>>>>of these since 2000, with increasingly good turnouts each year. The last event >>>>>had 45 entries. >>>> >>>>Yes. But not everyone has an ICC membership. They are not free. I want this >>>>to be a free event without any commercial interests upon the part of the >>>>organizer. The entrants will be playing solely for their own benefit, not for >>>>spectators who've paid an organizer who in turn does not pay the entrants. >> >>I note that there is no suitable reply to this concern. >> > >My "suitable reply" is that I think it's a non-issue, given that they have >provided free accounts to CCT participants. But FICS seems like a fine >alternative. FICS would be good spectator-wise, too. The private server is fine, but I wondered how the games could be watched by non-programmer devotees. MH >This same debate came up before CCT1, and the consensus was to >play on ICC because that's the server most of the authors use on a daily basis. > > >>>>>1) Why limit participation to 24 programs? I think it's much better to take as >>>>>many entries as possible, even if it means playing a Swiss instead of a >>>>>round-robin. >>>> >>>>A round robin event produces a much clearer picture of the relative playing >>>>strengths of the entrants. The limit of 24 entrants should be sufficient to >>>>cover all the active authors with a few slots in reserve. >>> >>>Really? How did you determine this? Be careful when making assumptions. >> >>I suppose in part it depends on the definition of "activity". Note that I said >>active authors, not active programs. >> >>>> All of the great human tounaments have been round robins. >>> >>>That won't be much consolation to author #25. >> >>And if the limit were 1,000, it would be no consolation to author #1,001. A >>line has to be drawn somewhere, just as a line is drawn for human tournaments of >>fixed size. > >Since you're excluding the rest of the world, 24 will probably be more than >enough. Actually, you'll be lucky to get half that. Only 11 of 45 CCT5 entries >were from North America. > ><snip> >>> >>>So entry is restricted to programs authored in North America? If so, that's a >>>shame. It will seriously weaken the event. >> >>Some may take your last comment as an insult while others will take it as a >>challenge. > >It's a statement of fact, nothing more. Anyone who has seen recent SSDF or >Winboard rating lists will agree. > >-Peter
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.