Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:39:02 01/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 19, 2003 at 21:23:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. > I would like to see more about this point. Because I doubt that people do fully understand it, because it's simply against common sense. Normally you would, and I did it till this very moment, believe that the more rounds you had, the better you could see who's the best and in what ranking order. That is why - I must admit - I always thought with doubts about the earlier classic ACM tournaments. But also because we had very few concurrents at the time. So, I would really like to read a bit more about the astonishing math. Could someone explain in words what places, results, differences etc could only be regarded as 'telling' while the rest is just a result of the maths of the mere numbers, rounds, participants... For instance I was well aware of the strange fact that almost all progs got a lot of points and that the differences were seldom higher than half points. So one could conclude both. One time you can say that ALL are almost equal in strength or you must say that one half point in such a race is like three points or such in real strength. Please give your opinions. Rolf Tueschen
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.