Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 13:53:48 06/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 08, 1999 at 16:13:28, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On June 08, 1999 at 14:45:29, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>On June 08, 1999 at 13:51:13, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>>On June 08, 1999 at 12:44:04, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: >> >>>>What I most dislike is that nobody knows which are the strongest entries, so I >>>>do not see how the accelerated pairings will help to match them more >>frequently. >>>>I think one of the premises for accelerated pairings to work is to have a good >>>>ranking of the players, like an established ratings list. But I remember >>>>somebody said that in these tournaments the entries are ranked according to >>the TD's guesses. I do not think that is a good ranking. >>>>José. >>> >>>There's plenty of background material to rank the players on, including the >>>result of previous tournaments and, for some entrants, the SSDF list. It's not >>>as good as it would be in a human tournament, but it is acceptable. >> >><snip> >> >>>Upsets happen, but since a reasonable ranking can be made before the event, it >>>is okay to use accelerated pairings. >>> >>>Dave >> >>I don't really agree that 'reasonable rankings' can be determined before the >>event in this case. Any previous performances were from older, presumably >>weaker, versions of these programs, running on slower hardware(?), against >>other, older, weaker programs on slower hardware. Not to mention that some of >>these have NOT performed before. (Please correct if I'm wrong. :) >>How will the TD choose the 'strongest' programs? Will he guess? Pick the >>programs he 'likes' best? I see no clear way to choose. >> >>Jeremiah > >Commercial developers are generally good, amateur programs are generally not as >good. I would not say that Cray Blitz was not «good». > Amateur programs with success in previous WCCC or WMCCC tournaments are >better than those that haven't. And new programs? They can be very strong. > Parallel versions of software running on >multiple cpus can be expected to perform better than serial versions of the same >software and serial software of similar strength. But you can not compare two parallel versions based on the respective results of the serial ones. > SSDF order might be used to >sort serial versions of commercial programs. > This one is true. But I think it is a minority of entries. >The goal is not to rank them perfectly. If that were possible, we might not >even hold the tournament. The goal is to come up with a reasonable ranking for >initial pairing decisions, and this is easily done. If 3 programs out of 30 are >wildly misplaced, it isn't a big deal: the swiss system will take corrective >action, as always. At the end of the tournament, no one will be able to claim >that the winner played a bunch of weakoes. > >Dave The goal of the accelerated pairings in this case is to produce more games among the top entries, if I understood well. I think that a ranking based on guesses will have too many wildly misplaced entries, enough to prevent the accelerated pairings to reach the goal. José.
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.