Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:33:05 01/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2003 at 06:58:42, Sune Fischer wrote: >On January 19, 2003 at 23:00:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>>>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??? > >Well there are several reasons to do it, one is simply to find a quick way to >resolve the situation. For all involved it's not ideal to postpone everthing to >the next weekend and play round robin 45 10, again. There are alternatives, as I mentioned. If more than two tie, just call them "co-champions" and move on, there will be another event in 6 months. If there are just two, flip for colors somehow and play a tie-break game. If it ends in a draw, "co-champions". Or use a normal tie-break, if you _must_ narrow it down to one, which I don't see as an absolute necessity here myself. > >Also one could argue, that if the engines are equally good at 45 10, then the >some kind of second order measurement must be done, ie. blitz strength. > >>>>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 think the more games the better if you are interested in finding the strongest >engine. >Being strong against weaker engines also count. That's ok. But the more rounds, the more likely you end up with multiple people at the top. Yes it can happen with a smaller number of rounds too, but it is more likely with an excessive number of rounds, until you reach the "magic point" where it starts to settle toward the score a full round-robin would produce, which can _still_ have ties of course. However, the difference between 7 and 9 rounds does _not_ improve the accuracy of first place. It can help on the lower places. IE log2 gives the best player if all games are decisive. log2+1 will give a foggier first but a clear second/third/fourth place if all games are decisive. Etc... > > >>>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. > >I agree, one minor slip and you are out, error bars off the scale here. What about the "error bar" for a blitz tiebreaker for a standard-time-control tournament? It is _far_ worse, IMHO. > >>>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. > >Yes, that is solving one problem and introducing another: fewer rounds or two >weekends.... Not necessarily. This adds 2 hours to the 5-game day and 1.5 hours to the 4-game day. That's not overly obtrusive. The first day goes from ten hours to 12 hours. The second day goes from 8 hours to 9.5 hours. I'd even like to have 30 minutes to fiddle with my book if I decide that a particular opening should be avoided against a particular opponent. As it is, there is no time. > > >>>>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. > >Unless he has a good excuse, like winboard didn't want to connect, GRRRR ;) Then we use my suggestion to solve this. I'll write a simple program that will log on automatically for any player that is not logged on, and it will accept a match request but not play any moves. The clock starts when the game is supposed to start. If a player is already present, good. If not, when he finally connects he will displace my "bot" and can take over the game, but with time off his clock. Rounds have to start on time, or everything slides down because of that game, which is bad. > > >>>>It was a fun event, and was well-run, with the mention of the problems >>>>given above... > >Outstanding tournament, really fun :) > >-S.
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.