Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 13:40:32 11/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 12, 2003 at 16:14:45, Sune Fischer wrote: >On November 12, 2003 at 14:51:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 12, 2003 at 01:36:03, Hans Meiser wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>http://www.vrichey.de/cct6/ >>> >>>The Problem of the tie-break: >>> >>>Suggestion: >>>(1) two programs tied for the first place >>> a normal game 45 15 between the two leaders. >>> if draw two games 5 3 round robin >>> >>>(2) three programs tied for the first place >>> Six games 5 3 round robin >>> >>>best regards >>>volker >> >> >>My suggestion: >> >>two tied, a normal 45/15 game. If draw, we just have "co-champions". >> >>three tied. three rounds of 45/15. a plays b, b plays c c plays a. >>If any ties are left, we have co-champions. >> >>Otherwise, let's play blitz from the start. I see no valid reasoning to >>use blitz to tie-break a "standard time-control" event. Having co-champions >>is (IMHO) better than a crap-shoot blitz match, where quick searches often >>lead to wins/losses that have little to do with the actual playing skill of >>the programs being used.. > >What is the fundamental difference between searching to ply 11 and ply 15? >IIRC you have sad you _don't_ believe in "tactical barriers" :) > >Anyway, I see no difference and I don't believe blitz would be any more of a >crap-shoot than longer time controls Then just make it a blitz tourney, right? If it makes no difference, then make it a blitz. Then you could do a double round-robin and make it more statistically significant or something. But that's not the point, is it. It must be slow time controls for a reason. That reason is that search speed differences get evened out, and quality of evaluation becomes more important that it would otherwise. Am I right or wrong? MH >(unless you can prove variance is smaller >at longer TC?). > >-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.