Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 21:15:56 06/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 08, 1999 at 23:41:47, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On June 08, 1999 at 23:09:07, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>The problem with accelerated pairings is that it assumes you know the ELO of the >>opponents. In this case, for each and every entrant, it is not known. >>Therefore, the judges choice of which programs are "top programs" and which are >>not is not only arbitrary, but detrimental. >> >>If the contest were for SSDF programs on SSDF hardware, it would make sense. >>For this type of contest, it clearly shows that the tournament director does not >>understand the mathematics behind it. Period. > >Non-accelerated pairings assume as much information about the relative ELO of >each player as accelerated pairings do. The same information is being provided: >there is no more or less "information content" provided for accelerated >pairings. > >A round-robin isn't feasible, so a ranking is going to have to be made. It's not a tragedy, but it is less fair than a normal swiss pairing. You are right that both formats are unfair, but it is accelerated with accelerated pairings. If they don't have the time to play enough games, well, I don't know what they can do about that. How many games per day does each program participate in?
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.