Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 22:23:45 01/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 19, 2003 at 23:20:42, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >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." I don't follow. log2(64)=6, and you have to round up to the next value, for obvious reasons. log2(32)=5 so log2(48) is between 5 and 6, and since I don't know how to do a "partial round" I round up. :) > >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. > > Less works, but you generally have to rely on tie-breaks. Which means seeding order is important. >> >>> >>>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.