Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:39:59 06/20/99
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 the seedings were definitely done wrong. IE Rebel was seeded 3rd based on the results of the Anand match. Which had nothing to do with anything at all since the WCCC was 40/2 and rebel only managed 1 draw against Anand at that time control. And then Shredder was seeded low even after winning the 1996 WMCCC event and playing well ever since. So the sum-of-opponents-scores is pretty random... > > > > >On June 19, 1999 at 22:11:59, Tina Long wrote: > >>On June 19, 1999 at 15:37:20, Gustavo Pereira wrote: >> >>>On June 19, 1999 at 15:30:48, Roger D Davis wrote: >>> >>>>The subject line says it all. >>> >>>To calculate Buchholz just add up all the opponent's scores. If it is Median >>>Buchholz you add up all the opponent's score except for the highest and lowest >>>placed opponent. >>Q: Why did Hiarcs have the highest Buchholz? >>Mainly because Hiarcs had three points from three rounds & therefore played >>opponents who had high scores already. >> >>Then a little luck (good or bad) comes in, as your initial seeding, & the need >>for a fair proportion of White & black games affects each rounds opponents. And >>the scores of your previous opponents adds (or doesn't) to your Buchholz. >> >>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.