Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:00:38 01/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 19, 2003 at 22:10:53, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >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. > > >But I like the blitz playoffs! Between humans players they're too random, but >chess engines get plenty of depth to be able to play some decent chess. > However, an engine can be tuned for blitz or tuned for longer games. Is it fair to have the engine play the main games at a slow time control, then when a couple tie, to use a totally different time control? Does that _really_ show which of the two should have won the tournament??? > >> >>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. > > >Log2(entries) is the correct formula if all the games are decisive, but the >draws changes things significantly. Even fewer rounds are enough to >differentiate the contestants. > >For example, in all 5 CCT events, there was a contestant in clear first after >just 5 rounds. That's the point. If you go beyond log2, you run into problems. It might seem like a good idea, but it introduces a problem with the "logjam" issue. > >Also, consider that major swiss events typically have fewer than log2(entries), >so even fewer rounds than log2(entries) works. no doubt at all there. The ACM events were 4 rounds for years, and the last few years were expanded to 5. The WCCC events were 5 rounds, at least through 1989, the last one I played in. > >What I don't like about a small number of rounds is luck is too big a factor. To >me, 9 rounds is a kind of minimum. The old WCCC events with just 4 rounds were >ridiculous. You might as well draw names out of a hat. > >This is all why I still like the 5 round double RR idea. > > >> >>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...
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.