Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:02:29 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. In a Swiss, tie-breaks are pretty common. If you miss the seedings badly, then the tiebreaks are bad. IE the #1 seed will (if the seeds are 100% accurate) have the highest tie-break since he will always be paired with the strongest possible opposition (unless you have too many rounds as we do in CCT [with 32 players, 5 rounds is optimal]). If the best program is seeded as the bottom player in the top half, he will have weaker opponents round by round than the #1 seed, assuming both win until they meet. > >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.
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.