Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 23:06:16 06/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 09, 1999 at 01:09:33, Ed Schröder wrote: >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 It disturbs me that they "won't listen"... if a large majority of the entrants prefers non-accelerated pairings, I think that they should be used, any technical merits or demerits notwithstanding. Isn't there a meeting where this sort of thing is discussed before the competition gets under way? 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.