Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 22:09:33 06/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 08, 1999 at 23:00:55, Dave Gomboc wrote: >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... > >If the goal is to find the appropriate winner, then 1997 was excellent. Junior >played many strong programs, and no one was questioning its ability by the end >of the 11th round. It was very clear that Ban and Bushinsky had a very good >program. > >We only have 7 rounds this time, so I think there will be more suspense this >time around. 11 rounds for ~32 players might not have left any suspense even in >a regular swiss, Bob. > >I know that it's not the standard practice for accelerated pairings to be used >where I play chess unless the 16:4, 32:5, 64:6 entrants-to-rounds ratio is >oversubscribed, but this is probably something that David Levy picked up in his >internation chess playing experience (he is an IM after all, as I know you are >aware of). But it isn't just an off-the-cuff decision, it is being made >deliberately with the understanding of the factors involved. To me, the >tournament will be either the same or slightly better because of it, so why not >do it? I don't think it will lead to a disaster, though maybe some commercial >entrants will dislike it because they could be knocked out of contention for >first place in round one instead of round two (big deal). > >Dave Accelerated pairings was introduced in Madrid 1992. And that tournament had only 5 rounds. Go figure. It's a bad ICCA policy but they won't listen. The only plus is that it will make the tournament more attractive as there will be a lot more games between the favorite programs but maybe that is just the goal, a nice show. Ed Schroder
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.