Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: DIEP in WMCCC2000 London - long story

Author: Pete Galati

Date: 16:31:07 08/30/00

Go up one level in this thread


On August 30, 2000 at 11:13:07, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On August 30, 2000 at 05:29:35, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On August 30, 2000 at 05:20:51, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>
>>>On August 29, 2000 at 19:03:52, Amir Ban wrote:
>>>
>>>>On August 29, 2000 at 13:26:36, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The whole pairing was changed because of AMIRs fear for SOP. Now the last
>>>>>round SOS gets the world title for free, the rest simply doesn't
>>>>>count.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why don't you take your lunatic ramblings elsewhere ?
>>>>
>>>>Amir
>>>
>>>If you don't show them in world champs anymore sure.
>>>
>>>Note i'm not lunatic you are. You even protested against a free point
>>>against Pacque expert because it *might* influence your SOP.
>>
>>
>>
>>If you are right about it then the protest did not help so
>>I do not think that the pairing was changed because of Amir.
>>
>>Junior did not enjoy from playing better players.
>>The opposite Junior suffered from it because it scored less points(it could only
>>draw against tiger and by playing against xinix in the last round Junior could
>>probably get a better place.
>>
>>Uri
>
>
>I don't understand the pairing issue at all.  This is a mathematical process
>that is finite and has rules to cover _every_ possible case.  It is just like
>teaching someone to do long division.  The steps are cast in stone, there is
>no room for varying at all.
>
>Why can't the pairings at WMCCC events be done the same way?  There is no room
>for "A really ought to play B".  It is either "A must play B here" or "A must
>play somebody else and B must play somebody else here."
>
>I learned to follow a simple recipe of instructions 45 years ago.  It isn't
>hard.  Or is it?  Based on some pairings over the past few years, you would
>assume there is great flexibility in who plays who in each round.  I have
>run many tournaments (human) and there is zero flexibility.  _if_ the pairing
>rules are followed to the letter.
>
>The only flexibility is in which 'system' you will use.  IE if you have three
>players with a score of 4/5, what do you do?  (a) bring up the highest rated
>player in the next-lowest pool to fill this group out to 4?  (b) pair the top
>two players in this group and pair the third with the highest seed in the next
>lower group?  (c) drop the lowest player in this 4.0 group down into the next
>group?  etc..
>
>There are options, but they are to be chosen _before_ the first round is paired,
>and then the same rules are to be used for the entire tournament.  Somehow this
>doesn't get done at WMCCC events.  At least not since Mike Valvo stopped
>directing them.

If by some odd miracle the next WMCCC _does_ end up getting held in North
America (I'm not holding my breath), then maybe the program's pairings will be
taken care of better.  Maybe.  I never tried to understand how it's done myself.

Pete



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.