Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:48:35 02/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2003 at 17:27:17, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 22, 2003 at 16:58:12, Robert Hyatt 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 >> >>optimal number of rounds is log2(N) rounded up to the next integer value. >>In this case 4 rounds, is optimal, 5 acceptable. > >I do not agree. > >more rounds give bigger chance that the winner is not by luck. >I do not agree with a theory that claims that less rounds is better. > >Uri The math is easy. A round robin is best. Lacking that, the simple Swiss system is all we have. Too many rounds clouds things up, not clears them up. If you want a _winner_. Which has nothing to do with finding out which program is better.
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.