Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 10:05:12 02/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2003 at 11:41:28, Mike Byrne wrote: >On February 22, 2003 at 09:29:47, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On February 22, 2003 at 09:25:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 22, 2003 at 08:54:30, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>I read 6: Ikarus 3.5 / 6 2b= 13w+ 1w= 4b= 3w- 14b+. >>>> >>>>So that means that Ikarus although playing the placed 1, 2, 3, 4 progs, it could >>>>get full points against the last and pre-last. Placed om 14 and 13. >>>>Is this ok? Something seems to be wrong or biased. Point is that a game against >>>>14 is a SURE win. That is as if a top program after a loss or two draws got a >>>>point for free. Note Ikarus had 2,5 pts before playing Matador with 0.5 pts. >>>> >>>>Could some expert explain why such things are still possible? >>>> >>>>Rolf Tueschen >>> >>> >>>Too few programs, too many rounds. >> >>Also, many progs get a "good" result and that is also a good side-effect we >>should consider. What would be the optimal number of rounds for 14 participants? >> >>Rolf Tueschen > >4 > >The optimize number of rounds for a swiss tournament is in the table below-- >tournaments should not set their number of rounds until thay know how many >participants. It very awkward when you do not follow this guideline as the top >place partipants _usually_ will place each other other in the round indicated >below (based on the number of partipants). After that they start playing lower >rank opponents and then you end up with the situaion that you have. For the >life of me I am not sure why this is not follwowed more often, this concept is >so simple but it seems like is not adhered to in many cases. In a single >elimination tournament with 64 partipants where you have a decisive winner in >each event, it will take 6 rounds to determine the sole champion. College >basketball uses similiar concept in the NCAA tournament. Start with 64 teams >and after 6 rounds, you have the winner - it's based on the same principle. > > ># of participants rounds >6-8 3 >9-16 4 >17-32 5 >33-64 6 >65-128 7 > >Michael Byrne We should work out a similar maths for the SSDF. I am impressed by your data. We see that often the right solutions are against our expectations of common sense! Such stuff is better calculated by comps! :) 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.