Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: CCT #2 - General Discussion

Author: Peter Kappler

Date: 10:54:03 08/26/00

Go up one level in this thread


On August 26, 2000 at 07:41:10, Steve Lim wrote:

>  Hi all.
>
>  First off, congrats to Stefan for winning the WMCCC 2000!
>
>  ICC was due to have its 2nd CCT in late July following a 6 month (bi-annual)
>schedule. However, it was brought to my attention that since the WMCCC was in
>august, September might make more sense. (programmers wouldn't want to expose
>their tournament books etc).
>
>  Well, September is just around the corner. I'd like to take a general survey
>as to the type and dates of CCT #2.
>

Hi Steve,

Here are my thoughts:

45 10 sounds pretty good to me, though a shorter increment (5 seconds) might be
a good idea to keep the duration of each round more predictable.  With large
increments, one long endgame can make a round last forever.

I personally don't mind if the event lasts two weekends like last time, but I
worry that some people find that inconvenient.  Should we try to finish in one
long weekend?  A good topic for discussion.

The idea of playing each opponent 2 times is interesting, but I'm not sure it's
feasible unless we adopt the two-weekend format.  Last time we squeezed 8 rounds
of 60 10 into two weekends.  At 45 10, we could probably play 10 rounds.
Personally, I would rather face 10 different opponents than 5, but it's a good
topic for discussion.  (Remember that there were 22 participants last time, and
I think we'd get at least that many again.)

Finally, the date:  I don't care when we play, as long as enough advance notice
is given.  I think one month is the absolute minimum for this, and 6-8 weeks is
probably better.  You need time to announce and promote the event, and the
programmers need time to arrange their schedules and tweak their code.  :)


--Peter



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.