Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 21:04:39 08/14/05

Go up one level in this thread


On August 14, 2005 at 23:30:47, Ricardo Gibert wrote:

>On August 14, 2005 at 21:44:13, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On August 14, 2005 at 21:37:39, Stephen A. Boak 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...
>>>
>>>Is it a Round Robin (read that somewhere), since 12 programs & 11 rounds?
>>>
>>>Each program must receive an extra Black or extra White across all rounds.  Not
>>>sure if it is guaranteed that colors always alternate perfectly for all
>>>entrants.
>>>
>>>If you don't get at least 5 Whites in the last 9 rounds, there could be a
>>>definite problem.  :)
>>>
>>>--Steve
>>
>>
>>actually, according to the official rules it is an 11 round swiss, which just
>>happens to turn into an 11 round round-robin since there are just 12 players.
>>No reason to (a) not alternate colors and (b) get two blacks against #1/#2 seeds
>>in the first two rounds.  That's just broken, period...
>
>That can happen in a round robin, but the rules clearly state that it's supposed
>to be a swiss as you point out.
>
>One thing I do know if things are screwed up is that it can happen that the
>final pairings become impossible to make, which is why round robins cannot be
>conducted in an ad hoc way. IIRC, this can happen with as few as 6 players.
>
>Come to think of it, this possibility forces the TD to abandon swiss pairings in
>favor of conducting a round robin. This must be the explanation.


Then the obvious question, why would any program get paired as black against the
1 and 2 seeds in the first two rounds?  With 12 programs, the most logical
approach from a spectator point of view is to divide the players into two
groups, and have everyone in the top group play everyone in the bottom group in
the first 6 rounds.  Then the last 5 rounds start to become interesting.

But I can't see any justification whatsoever for not alternating colors for most
of the rounds until the odd number of rounds causes the inevitable extra white
or black for 1/2 the field...

Of course, there is never any information on the web site explaining what is
being done, pairing information, etc...  Which  is another big criticism.
Compare this to the CCT events where the pairings are posted publicly between
rounds and well prior to the first round on the next day also...



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.