Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 01:15:38 08/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2000 at 04:05:23, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 26, 2000 at 02:16:24, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On August 26, 2000 at 02:11:13, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>>On August 25, 2000 at 23:54:08, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>> >>>>On August 25, 2000 at 22:05:19, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>>> >>>>> PROGRAM CPU MHZ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>>>>------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> 1 Shredder K7 1000 *1 *2 *2½ *3 *3½ *4 *5 *6 *7 >>>>> 2 Fritz PIII 1000 *1 *2 *2½ *3 *3½ *4 *5 5½ 6½ >>>>> 3 Chess Tiger PIII 800 *1 1 1½ 2½ 3 3½ 4½ 5½ 6 >>>>> 4 Rebel PIII 800 *1 *2 2 2½ 3 3 4 5 6 >>>>> 5 Junior PIII 700 ½ 1½ *2½ *3 *3½ *4 4 5 5½ >>>>> 6 SOS PIII 667 ½ 1 1 2 3 *4 4 4½ 5½ >>>>> 7 Nimzo PIII 1000 *1 1 2 *3 *3½ *4 *5 5 5 >>>>> 8 Incomniac PIII 933 0 ½ 1½ 1½ 2 3 4 4 5 >>>>> 9 Zchess K7 800 0 1 1 2 3 3½ 3½ 4½ 4½ >>>>>10 Diep PIII 800 0 0 1 1 1½ 2½ 2½ 3½ 4 >>>>>11 Crafty Alpha 500 *1 1 2 2 2½ 2½ 3½ 3½ 3½ >>>>>12 Francesca Cel 600 0 1 1½ 1½ 2 3 3 3 3½ >>>>>13 XiniX Cel 500 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 >>>>>14 Pacque Cel 333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >>>>> >>>>>* 1st or tied for 1st >>>>> >>> >>>I think all the computer programs can be accomodated. The problem I think is 9 >>>rounds is overkill in a swiss when there are only 14 participants. If they had >>>played only 5 rounds, the top programs would probably have never been paired >>>with the bottom 2 finishers and the pairing problems you have alluded to would >>>never have occurred. If you look at the pairings actually made, none of the top >>>6 were paired with the bottom 2 until the 7th round. >> >>Oops! make that the top 4 rather than 6. > >Wrong >Tiger played against the weakest program in the first round. > >Uri You are correct. That one slipped past me...which kinda kills the point I was trying to make. Curses! ;-)
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.