Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 18:46:47 01/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 19, 2003 at 21:23:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 19, 2003 at 18:31:55, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On January 19, 2003 at 18:18:00, Sune Larsson wrote: >> >>> means Ruffian/Crafty/Yace sharing 1st place with 7/9 >> >>Crafty beat both Yace and Ruffian. Ruffian beat Yace, and Yace lost to both >>Crafty and Ruffian. So, Crafty should be the winner. Or are they playing tie >>breakers? > > >That's not really done in swiss events. The tie-break for this event >was (IMHO) not very well thought-out. IE who wants to use blitz games to >settle the final standings of a long time-control tournament? > >I would suggest the following for future CCT events. > >If two are tied for first, have a play-off game, same time control. > >If more than two are tied, either use a traditional tie-break or forget >about it. IE at the ACM events, we had "co-champions" that were ranked by >the tie-break scores. We never had playoffs at any ACM event, nor at any >WCCC event I attended although I do remember at least one tie-break with >Belle playing, probably in 1980. > >But in any case, blitz games for a standard time control tournament makes >no sense, no matter how you look at it. If nobody is happy using the >normal sum of opponents scores, which is really pretty useless when you have >too many rounds as we do, then co-champions would be the simplest and most >accurate outcome. They should be at the same time control - but with 9 rounds and < 64 particpants -- having co-champions is appropriate. > >Other points to ponder: > >1. too many rounds. You really want to have log2(entries) rounds, rounded >up to a integer. For 48 players, that would be 6 rounds. The more rounds >held _beyond_ that, the more likely there is to have a log-jam at the top >since the top players can not play each other a second time, and they will >end up playing lower rated players, giving more a chance to join them. Although many rounds might make it seem more fair, IMO it has the opposite effect. 8 players 3 rounds, 16 players 4 rounds, 32 players 5 round and 64 players 6 round, etc. If you exceed, you go higher as you mentioned. 9 rounds is good for 512 players. It increases the odds of having the top 2 players battle for the Championship in the last round. > >2. More time between rounds. It makes little sense to end a round and 1 minute >later start the next. Hardly anything started on time, suggesting the start >times were too optimistic. I'd suggest 2.5 hours per round rather than 2, which >would make it more relaxed. agreed > >3. If a player is more than 10 minutes late, he forfeits that round, period. >If he is more than 10 minutes late in two rounds, he is kicked out of the >event. agreed > >It was a fun event, and was well-run, with the mention of the problems >given above... Tournament are always hard to run and even more so over the internet. They did a good job!.
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.