Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:21:08 06/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
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: > >>On June 08, 1999 at 09:36:12, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>>On June 08, 1999 at 08:13:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On June 08, 1999 at 03:00:22, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>On June 08, 1999 at 01:36:33, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>The web page http://www.uni-paderborn.de/~wccc99/ reports that standard >>>>>>(non-accelerated) pairings will be used, but from my conversation with some of >>>>>>the ICCA executive, they do intend to use accelerated pairings (mainly because >>>>>>it will force more games to be played between the strongest opponents.) >>>>>> >>>>>>So I am writing this so that everyone is not shocked when they get there. :-) >>>>> >>>>>I predict a big fight. >>>>> >>>>>bruce >>>> >>>> >>>>I don't know who the TD is, but you can tell him for me that this is _stupid_. >>>>All he has to do is ask _any_ legitimate TD and he'll discover that accelerated >>>>pairings are _wrong_ when you have more than log2(players) rounds. And since >>>>2^7 (7 rounds) is > number of players, this is useless... >>>> >>>>Some people never learn. Or they refuse to learn. :) >>> >>>I specifically gave this argument, Bob. But David Levy replied that they wanted >>>to maximize the number of games between strong opponents, and that using >>>accelerated pairings would do that. I went and researched this a bit, and >>>here's what I found in the Chess Federation of Canada handbook (at >>>"http://www.chess.ca/section6"): >>> >>>Accelerated Methods of Pairing Early Rounds (Variations) >>> >>>633. In a tournament where the players-to-rounds ratio exceeds the optimum >>>(16:4, 32:5, 64:6, etc.), the chances of producing a clear winner are decreased. >>> >>>Accelerated pairings increase the frequency of meeting of the higher ranked >>>players and are therefore also useful in longer tournaments where the winner is >>>unlikely to have a perfect score. >>> >>>The effect of these variations decreases when the players are of about the same >>>playing strength (as in a tournament divided into sections by playing strength). >>> >>>[after this, specific VARIATIONS 633.1 and 633.2 are discussed] >>> >>>They are using accelerated pairings to "increase the frequency of meetings of >>>the higher ranked players" because that is "useful in longer tournaments where >>>the winner is unlikely to have a perfect score." I thought about it, decided >>>that this description fit the WCCC very well, and consequently was persuaded by >>>David's argument. >>> >>>Dave >> >> 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. > >One time I played in the Quebec open: they use a different rating system in >Quebec (FQE) than in the rest of Canada. So they took my 1927 CFC rating and >subtracted 100 points, and paired me as an 1827. The young 2100+ FQE player who >I beat left without resigning in person: I went to look for him, and found him >crying in another room. How could he have known that I was a little bit better >than a weak 'A' player? I was already underrated at 1927, and there apparently >wasn't really a 100 point difference between the two rating systems. He went on >to became Quebec's junior champion the next year. > >Upsets happen, but since a reasonable ranking can be made before the event, it >is okay to use accelerated pairings. > >Dave You only have to go back to 1997's event to see why this isn't a great idea. By the time the final round gets there, all the top programs have _already_ played. And the tournament is essentially over. you just move the final (important) rounds up one level by doing this... and with < 32 teams, there is _no_ reason. check the math on what happens if you have 16 weak programs, and 16 strong programs... with 5, 6 and 7 rounds... with and without accelerating the pairings...
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.