Author: José Carlos
Date: 02:37:34 12/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2004 at 01:47:47, scott farrell wrote: >On December 11, 2004 at 22:55:45, Peter Skinner wrote: > >>On December 11, 2004 at 21:50:46, James Swafford wrote: >> >>>On December 11, 2004 at 20:42:21, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>> >>>>Not on this front. I was just about to post something myself, actually. >>>> >>>>anthony >>> >>>Seems Volker is MIA. It's time to move one and find another >>>organizer. How about you Anthony? >>> >>>The most difficult tasks will be pinning down a date and time >>>control everyone can live with. You could draft someone on >>>ICC to be the TD, put up a simple website with the latest >>>info, and maybe even get a commentator. >>> >>>It's a lot of work, but if you really want to get "the stupid >>>tournament scheduled" so you can get your sponsor, then how about >>>it? :) >>> >>>-- >>>James >> >>I already stated I would be willing to do it. >> >>I have everything needed. Swiss Perfect, account on ICC, website. >> >>February 19-20 would be a fine time. >> >>Time control: 45/10 >>Rounds: 7 >> >>In the event of a tie break: >>2 games at the same time with alternating color. >> >>If both programs are still tied after the breaker games then: >>30/0 games with alternating colors until a program wins. >> >>If that is not agreed to, then Buchholtz scoring would be fine as well. We could >>use the rankings from the last tournament for seedings. Or even the last 3 >>averaged out for seedings. >> >>As before, all programs must be able to kibitz their evaluation during games. >> >>That is just for starts and just off the top of my head *rolls eyes* :) >> >>Peter > >I think 9 rounds is good. > >Let's just get rid of the tie break, and have a few champs instead - I think its >more fair, and doesnt pressure the timings for other rounds. > >I like the idea of the few previous events for seedings. > >I'd also like a rule to force a win/draw on any game where egtb says its >drawn/won/lost ... to avoid the very drawn out 10 secs/move issue (remember Uri >last cct?). > >Scott I agree with all you say, except maybe the last point. If it's a tablebase win and the loser side doesn't have TBs, I'm ok to give the win, but the opposit case no. And if drawn, well it must be very clear, or the non TB program could still make a mistake. José C.
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.