Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 20:20:42 01/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 19, 2003 at 23:00:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. I was assuming you were were rounding log2(entries) up as per your, "For 48 players, that would be 6 rounds." BTW, that's "beyond log2." To be precise, if all games are decisve, then ceil(log2(entries)) is correct, but less works for chess. My first guess would be ceil(log3(entries)), but that seems too low to me. Certainly, it is too low for weak events where it is likely that almost all the games are decisive. I don't what the real formula should be, but I think it should include an estimate of the drawing rate for the event. > >> >>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.