Author: James Swafford
Date: 12:42:35 11/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 24, 2004 at 15:29:45, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >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 > >My point is that having a big increment results in a lopsided distribution of >time: most people will finish quickly and wait around for the big 150 move game. > Front loading most of the timecontrol will reduce this. If you use all your >time in the beginning, that is up to you, of course :) > >anthony I tend to agree with you, but I don't feel strongly about it. I'm sure you'll share Volker's response when you get one, or lack of response (say, within a week) so we can continue to plan? -- James
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.