Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 08:50:30 08/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 15, 2005 at 00:19:44, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >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. Aha! Now I remember how there can be a pairing problem: In any tourn with n players where n = 2*m and m is odd, there can be a problem in round m + 1 if all the even numbered seeds have only played the odd numbered seeds in rounds 1 through m. It is easy to see that it is always possible for the even numbered seeds to play only odd numbered seeds in rounds 1 through m by pairing even seed x with odd seed (x + 2*r - 1)%n, where r equals the round. Now since in round m + 1 the even numbered seeds have only even numbered seeds to play yet and there are an odd number of them. This means one of them will be without a viable pairing i.e. he can only be paired with someone he/she has already played. QED In fact, the problem becomes a persistent one in all the rounds m + 1 through n - 1. Also, note that the division of odd numbered seeds from the even numbered is an arbitrary one. Any division into two m sized sets can have the same problem. > >>> >>>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.