Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Peter Berger explained it!

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 06:58:50 08/15/05

Go up one level in this thread


On August 15, 2005 at 07:08:49, Theo van der Storm wrote:

>On August 15, 2005 at 05:42:36, Peter Berger wrote:
>
>>On August 14, 2005 at 21:24:57, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>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???
>
>Bob, maybe you should drink less coffee.
>
>>>Even worse, why would Crafty have two blacks in a row, against the two top
>>>seeds?
>>>
>>>Seems a bit strange, to say the least.
>
>Agreed.
>
>>>The TD apparently needs a brain transplant...
>
>Now isn't that jumping the conclusion a bit?

No.  Can you spell "Jonny vs shredder" last year?  Pairings are now looking
perfectly normal.  But with the ICGA not posting a single thing about the
pairings, except for the rules printed in the JICGA which say clearly "Swiss
pairings" I think this conclusion was perfectly justified.  Certainly wrong as
it turns out.  But I wonder who's fault that is?  A simple explanation on the
web page would have eliminated all the wondering.  Without that, after seeing
decisions made in past years, I think the conclusion was not off-base.  IMHO.
:)

>
>>It's an ordinary round robin schedule , where the order of the rounds was
>>altered to have some interesting pairings in the final round.
>>
>>Everything was done with the approval of the participants, including that of the
>>Crafty team, represented by its operator.
>
>Can you also explain why this was kept secret to the outside world?
>
>>Why not just ask per email next time :) ?
>
>Not funny.
>This is a world championship for crying out loud.
>
>>Peter
>
>Theo



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.