Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Could someone explain this to me???

Author: Peter Kappler

Date: 19:23:40 08/14/05

Go up one level in this thread


On August 14, 2005 at 21:49:06, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On August 14, 2005 at 21:45:56, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On August 14, 2005 at 21:30:08, Peter Skinner wrote:
>>
>>>On August 14, 2005 at 21:24:57, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>On August 14, 2005 at 21:02:33, Peter Skinner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On August 14, 2005 at 17:51:50, Theo van der Storm wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>  # Name                   1    2   P    BU   SB     G
>>>>>>  1 Fruit                 6b1 10w1  2.0   1.5  1.50  2
>>>>>>  2 Zappa                 5w1  9b1  2.0   1.5  1.50  2
>>>>>>  3 Crafty                4b=  7b1  1.5   2.5  1.75  2
>>>>>>  4 Shredder              3w=  8b1  1.5   2.5  1.75  2
>>>>>>  5 The Crazy Bishop      2b0 12w1  1.0   2.0  0.00  2
>>>>>>  6 Jonny                 1w0 11b1  1.0   2.0  0.00  2
>>>>>>  7 Deep Junior          11b1  3w0  1.0   1.5  0.00  2
>>>>>>  8 Diep                 12b1  4w0  1.0   1.5  0.00  2
>>>>>>  9 Deep Sjeng           10b=  2w0  0.5   2.5  0.25  2
>>>>>> 10 The Baron             9w=  1b0  0.5   2.5  0.25  2
>>>>>> 11 Fute_MT               7w0  6w0  0.0   2.0  0.00  2
>>>>>> 12 IsiChess MMX          8w0  5b0  0.0   2.0  0.00  2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> # Name                 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12    P    BU   SB
>>>>>> 1 Fruit                X  .  .  .  .  1  .  .  .  1  .  .   2.0   1.5  1.50
>>>>>> 2 Zappa                .  X  .  .  1  .  .  .  1  .  .  .   2.0   1.5  1.50
>>>>>> 3 Crafty               .  .  X  ½  .  .  1  .  .  .  .  .   1.5   2.5  1.75
>>>>>> 4 Shredder             .  .  ½  X  .  .  .  1  .  .  .  .   1.5   2.5  1.75
>>>>>> 5 The Crazy Bishop     .  0  .  .  X  .  .  .  .  .  .  1   1.0   2.0  0.00
>>>>>> 6 Jonny                0  .  .  .  .  X  .  .  .  .  1  .   1.0   2.0  0.00
>>>>>> 7 Deep Junior          .  .  0  .  .  .  X  .  .  .  1  .   1.0   1.5  0.00
>>>>>> 8 Diep                 .  .  .  0  .  .  .  X  .  .  .  1   1.0   1.5  0.00
>>>>>> 9 Deep Sjeng           .  0  .  .  .  .  .  .  X  ½  .  .   0.5   2.5  0.25
>>>>>>10 The Baron            0  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  ½  X  .  .   0.5   2.5  0.25
>>>>>>11 Fute_MT              .  .  .  .  .  0  0  .  .  .  X  .   0.0   2.0  0.00
>>>>>>12 IsiChess MMX         .  .  .  .  0  .  .  0  .  .  .  X   0.0   2.0  0.00
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Fute_MT = Futé Multi-Threading by Jean-Louis Boussin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Theo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>PS: For more results and background information do not go to:
>>>>>>http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/icga/news/wccc/2005/results.php
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Did you use Swiss Perfect to generate this? or PGNExtract?
>>>>>
>>>>>Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I did not realize that Crafty had had two blacks in a row.  How in the hell is
>>>>that possible after only two rounds have been played?  Is someone on drugs over
>>>>there or what???
>>>>
>>>>Even worse, why would Crafty have two blacks in a row, against the two top
>>>>seeds?
>>>>
>>>>Seems a bit strange, to say the least.
>>>>
>>>>The TD apparently needs a brain transplant...
>>>
>>>I questioned the initial pairings as well. How did Crafty get black against
>>>Shredder in the first round? It would have had to be seeded 11 or 12 to get
>>>that?? No??
>>>
>>>Peter
>>
>>
>>Jaap has never used normal pairing rules.  In a 12 player Swiss, round 1 should
>>see #1 play #7, #2 vs #8, etc.  Assuming Shredder was #1, Crafty would have to
>>be #7 which is pretty funny.  Or assuming Junior was #1 and Shredder was #2,
>>then Crafty would have to have been seeded #8 which is even funnier.
>>
>>who knows what happens over there?
>
>In thinking about this, this pairing seems to be totally impossible.  There is
>no way to be paired against #1 and #2 on rounds 1 and 2, no matter where Crafty
>was seeded.
>
>As I said, "can someone explain this to me, using reasoning that I as a TD would
>be able to follow?"


There are 12 players and 11 rounds, so I'm sure they've paired the event as a
round-robin, making seedings irrelevant.  That said, the organizers would have
been smarter to fiddle with the schedule so the top programs faced each other
near the end, not the beginning.  But this is the ICGA - they aren't that
clever.

As for two blacks in a row, I would have expected the colors to alternate, but
given that some program are going to get 5 whites and 6 blacks, maybe it's not
totally unexpected.

I think it's great that you've played the top two programs with black and scored
+1.  Your remaining schedule is easier than everybody else's now.  :)

-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.