Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:56:18 01/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 19, 2003 at 21:52:35, Russell Reagan wrote: >On January 19, 2003 at 21:23:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>That's not really done in swiss events. > >I guess I am conditioned by American football tie-breakers to determine who gets >into the playoffs :) First tie-breaker is how the teams faired head to head, >then points scored, points allowed, and so on. Then again, it is not really >reasonable to hold tie-breaker games to see who makes it into the NFL playoffs. > >>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? > >Agreed. > >>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. >> >>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. >> >>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. >> >>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. >> >>It was a fun event, and was well-run, with the mention of the problems >>given above... > >Good points Bob. I also thought someone's idea of holding a blitz tournament >sometime would be fun. How would these issues you talked about differ in a blitz >tournament? For instance, would you still only have log2(entries) rounds? That >would make for a quick tournament, and it seems like you could get a lot more >rounds in and better determine a clear winner. It would be nice to have maybe >one CCT a year, and one CCBT a year, maybe 6 months apart. For blitz, I would probably think about a double-round-robin playoff so long as 3 or fewer are tied. More and it probably needs to be a single round-robin. I like the idea of a 6 month CCT cycle. And perhaps the same for a blitz event, but staggered by 3 months...
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.