Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 19:53:15 06/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 08, 1999 at 16:53:48, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: >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». Right, you would notice that it did very well last year (like winning), and put it at rank #1. >> 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. Yes, but without some prior evidence, it's tough to know that. What are you going to do? Not rank the opponents? The swiss system works best with a good ranking, accelerated pairings or non-accelerated pairings. I think there's enough information that using the former is a good idea instead of a disaster. >> 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. Yes, but if you were writing constraints for a CSP you could use this information, and let it calculate from there. >> 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. An important minority, but okay. >>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. You might be right. It's tough to know this in advance! :-) My opinion is that it will be okay, but if yours is different, that is okay. Dave
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.