Author: Brian Richardson
Date: 12:05:17 11/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 24, 2004 at 12:15:44, Will Singleton wrote: >On November 24, 2004 at 09:37:21, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>On November 24, 2004 at 09:04:11, James Swafford wrote: >> >>>I've seen a couple of attempts to get some discussion started about >>>CCT, but AFAIK nothing's on the books yet. >>> >>>Anthony- did you ever get up with Volker? He's fantastic at >>>organizing these things; I hope he's willing to do it again. >>> >>>Was a date /format ever decided on? I'd like to play again this >>>year, but that depends on the date (I can't play the weekend of >>>the Jan 22nd/23rd). Of course, majority rules... >>> >>>I think a lot of folks will want to start lobbying for their >>>favorite time control, but maybe we can start by agreeing on when >>>we can play: >>> >>>1. If you are interested in playing, what weekend(s) would >>> work for you (or wouldn't work for you) in the Jan/Feb >>> time frame? >>> >>>2. What are your thoughts on stretching the event out over >>> two weekends? Would you be less likely or unable to play? >>> >>>-- >>>James >> >>I just got Volker's email from Ralf, and sent him an email not 5 minutes ago. I >>agree he did an excellent job last year. Anything in January _or_ February is >>fine with me; I have no social life worth talking about ;) >> >>I'd like to propse 60 2 as the timecontrol for CCT. The problem with a large >>increment is that since we are playing with computers, there will always be *at >>least one* game that goes out to 150 moves. So a 10 second increment will give >>the average game 60*10 = 10 minutes, while delaying the tournament 150*10 = 25 >>minutes. Therefore, I think keeping the increment small is a good idea, and if >>you screw up your time allocation, that is your problem. At 60 2, we can pretty >>much guarantee all games will be finished in 60 + 60 + 4*150/60 = 2:10, which is >>about right IMO. >> >>I'd also like to point out (again) that I don't like tiebreak blitz games. :) >> >>anthony > >With a 60 2 time control, you might get more than tiebreak blitz games. :) > >45 10, with 9 rounds over one weekend, seems to have worked well for the last >two events. CCT4 had 2 weekends at 60 10. 2 weekends makes it tough for some >folks to participate, and I think we ought to try to continue to make it as >accessible as we can. > >So I would vote for keeping the same format as last year. Late January or early >Feb is fine. > >Will I also would prefer only one weekend. Also, I don't think there is a significant difference in what moves most engines would play between 45 and 60, but I do think it is very important to try to finish each round in under 2 hours so the maximum number of rounds per day can be scheduled. Brian
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.