Author: Jason Williamson
Date: 10:52:45 05/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2001 at 09:58:04, Frank Phillips wrote: >On May 24, 2001 at 20:08:41, Peter McKenzie wrote: > >>Do we have a rough seeding list? >> >>I'm not too worried about exact positions, but where possible we should use a >>reasonable ordering. Poor seedings tend to upset the first few rounds, for >>example if Fritz played Shredder in the first round then some unfortunate first >>round loser would probably get to play Fritz (or Shredder)... >> > >If seeded I care neither whether I am top or bottom, but do not understand why >one of the best losing to another top program upsets the first few rounds. >Perhaps because I am not even sure what this means. > >As far as I can see from the tennis analogy, seeding would seem to be designed >to ensure that the best only play each other in final rounds for the benefit of >the best, spectators and business interests. > >Why is seeding preferred to random initial pairings for this event. Is it some >necessary feature of the Swiss system. The swiss system works to eliminate the weaker player from the running. Top half plays bottom half. Result bottom half perculates down, top half perculates up, repeat. Until a winner is determined. If you have upsets (and under rating an opponet will make upsets) then colors get messed up very fast since color goes to the highest rated players of the score group. Also byes if any are determined as going to the lowest rated player of any score group. JW
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.