Author: Sylvain Renard
Date: 10:52:31 11/09/97
Go up one level in this thread
On November 07, 1997 at 14:58:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >2. A few TD decisions seemed oddball. The initial two rounds that were >accelerated made no sense, and caused a few problems later on. IE, >you'd >really like to see things decided near the end with the two leaders >slugging >it out, rather than having the two leaders play others because they had >already met earlier. The explanations on this sort of pairing have >always >been quite clear, "they are appropriate when log2(n-players) is greater >than >the number of rounds." That didn't fit this tournament at all, since 6 >rounds >was more than enough to produce a clear winner, and there were 5 left >over for >good measure. I have tried to explain thoses things to Mr Van den Herik before the beginning of the Tournament. But there was nothing to do, his decision was made long before. To justify accelerated pairing, he said that there was a real gap between the strongest programs and the weakest ones. After the tournament, many games prove it is not true (between the parenthesis, the final rankings of the programs): Stobor (24 ) won against Fritz 5 (16), Chess Tiger (27) made a draw against Dark Thought (6) , Chess Guru (14) won against Shredder (3), etc... During the tournament, I have heard Mr Marsland himself say to Bruce Moreland that the accelerated pairing was not necessary... Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum
This page took 0.01 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.