Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 05:51:16 01/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 2004 at 01:05:12, Slater Wold wrote: >On January 24, 2004 at 00:48:13, Thomas Mayer wrote: > >>Hi Slate, >> >>>>well - it's near... :) And it seems to be the biggest CCT ever, so far 46 >>>>participants and maybe some more will be on the list tomorrow night. >>>> >>>>How will the seeding be done this year ? Two possibilities get in my mind: >> >>>Seed according to Leo's list! >> >>well, same problem - not every engine is on that list. Engines that miss on >>Leo's list as far as I know: >>Searcher >>Rybka >>Falcon >>Chepla >>Matador >>Hossa >>Zappa >>SpiderChess >>Rascal >>Cheetah >>Bodo >>Chompster >>Messchess >>Homer >>Tohno >> >>So this is not really working... >> >>Greets, Thomas > >That's only 14 out of 46. Throwing them in 'random' would be an idea. > >I think! Yes, that sounds very reasonable. To maximize the chances of determining the "true" best engine one should properly utilize all available credible information. For Swiss System human vs human tournaments, it is customary to use the last published rating for contestants who have them and put the rest at the bottom of the rating list. This is painless but not optimal. Better would be to adjust known ratings to take into account any additional credible information which may be available. Generally, the placement of weaker contestants in the rating list for a Swiss System tournament is not critical in the sense that errors made at the bottom of the list are less likely to cause errors in determining the strongest player. Although the true purpose of a tournament is entertainment [and the gathering of data for future study], the determination of the currently strongest contestant is the "official" objective and it is this which adds excitement to the event. There is the unknown factor about whether or not a given contestant is "on a high" or "on a low." Sometimes, in human vs human tournaments, a contestant is "really up" for the tournament and then we see those exciting upsets. Computers may not be "on a high" or "on a low," but the programmer may have added some surprises to his/her software so it is never known for sure exactly what will happen. Would anybody want it to be otherwise? Get excited! Bob D.
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.