Author: José Berdiñas Bonefua
Date: 18:55:17 06/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 08, 1999 at 18:21:08, Robert Hyatt 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: >> >>>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... Paris 1997 is very diferent to Paderborn 1999. In Paris i can see only 6 or 7 programs with real possibility to win in 11 rounds., and now in 1999 I can count 14 strong programs ( IMO at the same level) with the same possibility to win in only 7 rounds. I do no see which is the problem?? 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.