Author: Chessfun
Date: 13:51:41 04/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2001 at 14:28:56, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On April 20, 2001 at 12:26:31, Chessfun wrote: > >>What? that means Junior can't participate in ANY other events except those >>sanctioned by the ICCA? > >Of course they can. But it isn't ethical to help establish another championship >title because you're unable to win the one available. It should be obvious why >numerous championships hurt credibility for computer chess in general. Just look >at the current human chess situation and professional boxing. Well I'm not sure it's unethical to play for two titles, but since I don't read the issue of Championship or words to that effect anywhere, it's mute. >Not if it isn't organized as an ordinary round robin tournament. With knockout >or smaller pools, it's possible to increase games between programs without >increasing the number of days. That is because they don't all meet each other. >Similar to say Tennis. > >>All the programs you named are non >>commercial although maybe not a requirement, I am sure BGN would have thought >>it was. > >I imagine that Bertil would have said something if that was the case. > >As far as we know: >1) Nothing prevented him from suggesting a non-commercial program. >2) Nothing prevented him from making inqueries to other commercial authors and >hear if they had something up and running. >3) Nothing prevented him from posting a notice here or somewhere else. That's again all speculation. We can't expect to be told every aspect and every conversation the man had. >>Agh this I agree with a little more than the tournament. You originally wrote >>about the thing taking a week or so. To play as you just wrote say 30 games >>with 5 engines is 300 games at about 8 day. So even then we are left with 6 >>weeks. I can't see BGN wanting a 6 week tournament to decide which program >>should play. > >I see that I need to write my original idea about a knockout out in detail. >Darn. > >Let's try an example (knockout): > >We have eight participants that wanted to play for the match against Kramnik >after reading the public announcement. Let's say that we seed these programs by >ICCA tournament results, a RR tournament with reduced timecontrol (at ICC?) or >maybe just straws :-). One plays against eight, two against seven and so on. > >We have eight dual comps (lucky us), so it is possible to start all four matches >at once. They play 40 games against each other. After 7-8 days it's over and >there are four left. The winner of 1-8 meets the winner of 3-4 and the winner of >2-7 meets the winner of 3-6. After another 7-8 days there are only two left. >After another 40 matches we have a winner. LOL eight duals, where did these come from. Can I take it you agree running your above proposal on a single dual machine is not viable?. >That means 8+8+8=24 days at most (except the possibility for tiebreaks) and the >winner has played 120 games. Taking the timeframe into account, these can be >expanded or reduced. That is fewer games than the current arrangement obviously, >but there is fairness and diversity. 24 days? thats with 8 dual machines?. So what single dual 1/2 yr :-) giggle. Sarah.
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.