Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 21:19:44 08/14/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 15, 2005 at 00:04:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. BTW, thinking about it now, I don't see how the above can happen. My recollection must be off there. >> >>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. I think that in a RR, the seeding is done randomly by a drawing of lots. Otherwise, it could happen that the #1 player in the world would almost always get White against the #2 player in the world from tournament to tournament. > >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... My recollection is a bit hazy, but I think the way it works in a RR is there is at least one player that repeats colors in every round (except the 1st of course) and only one player in the tourn always alternates colors while everyone else repeats once but only once. > >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.