Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 17:51:11 10/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2004 at 19:35:58, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On October 24, 2004 at 19:08:41, Uri Blass wrote: > >>I think that the results are the same if you played against the same opponents >>and scored the same. >> >>Diep won weaker opponents so diep's result is worse. >>I do not think that there is logic in deciding about winner based on result when >>the players scored the same and played against the same opponents. >> >>I see no reason to decide that beating a strong opponent and losing against a >>weak opponent is worth more than losing against a strong opponent and beating a >>weak opponent. >> >>People needed way to decide about a winner when everywhere else was equal in the >>opponents so they used that method but when not everything else is the same then >>the most logical decision is to decide based on strength of the opponents. > >You are claiming that it is more logical to decide the title on a random pick >(since that is effectively what SOP is in a small tournament with a lot of >rounds), than to define in advance that a win over a stronger opponent (and >losing vs a weaker one) is worth more than a win over a weaker opponent (and a >loss against a strong one), and decide the winner that way. > >The fact that nobody agrees with your "logic" is why the rules were changed >since last year. > >-- >GCP There is no real good way to do tiebreaks. In fact, after my CCT experience I'm not sure they are even necessary - why not just let X people claim "shared first". However, I suspect that there wouldn't be nearly as many people complaining if Vincent hadn't won. Granted some of that is his fault, but its still pretty pathetic. anthony
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.