Author: Tina Long
Date: 21:58:36 06/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 1999 at 22:39:55, Roger D Davis wrote: >Seems that the Buchholz valuation is really an index of how tough your opponents >were, then it seems that to the extent that the index is not correlated with the >ranking (the winner should have the highest, right?), the programs weren't >seeded correctly, and that extra rounds should be run until the valuation and >the rankings can be brought to a certain level of agreement. > >Yes? No? Insane? > >Roger I think: No, impractical. The seeding MAY have been correct & the opponent programs MAY not have performed to their seeding. (in Hiarcs case, it's opponent MChess may have been expected to score a point or so more) The event was scheduled for 7 round + playoff before the entrants entered. You can't tell the World "a couple more days..." Hiarcs played against the final 1,2,3,4,5 placings, and if it had beaten number 3 & 4 it would have won the tournament with a Buchholz valuation of 31.5. Did Hiarcs have too tough a road to go then? I think NO, it just wasn't good enough. It was probably seeded right up near the top & didn't perform to it's seeding. I believe it's relatively slow hardware may have hurt it. It's an only 7 round tournament, and move x in game y MAY have cost Hiarcs 7 places. Sure a longer tournament, 11 rounds would be nice, would continue the entertainment, & give a statistically "more valid" result, but there are costs involved. cheers Tina Long
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.