Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 08:57:44 03/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2004 at 11:25:33, Geert van der Wulp wrote: >On March 01, 2004 at 10:46:32, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On March 01, 2004 at 04:36:28, Geert van der Wulp wrote: >> >>The SSDF is a paid list which does not publish all the games they play. >> >>I do not say that they deliberately influence results, but we cannot check it. >>Just one SSDF tester seems to publish all games he played and is therefore a >>transparant tester. >> >>To get on the SSDF list within 1 list, the only way to garantuee that is by >>paying them 2 machines. >> >>That would make the entry fee for the world champs a lot higher. >> >>So please remove all ideas that link SSDF to ICGA. They are 2 independant >>organisations and i feel they should keep like that. >> >>>On March 01, 2004 at 03:36:11, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >>> >>>>On February 29, 2004 at 21:49:41, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>> >>>>>The tournament format for WCCC that was originally decided was: >>>>> >>>>>-------- >>>>>http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/icga/news/events/Israel/event.html >>>>> >>>>>The format for the 12th World Computer Chess Championship WCCC2004 will be: >>>>>5-round Swiss, after which the top 4 + 4 teams get to play a 2-round elimination >>>>>at each stage, and the bottom teams continue to compete for the 9th spot playing >>>>>a 6-round Swiss. >>>>>-------- >>>>> >>>>>However, since a large number of amateur programmers expressed their disapproval >>>>>of this system, we have decided to change the format so that it will attract the >>>>>largest number of programmers. Currently the two options are: >>>>> >>>>>A) Like the original format, but with re-entry: >>>>> >>>>>Divide the participants into two groups. Conduct 5 rounds Swiss, and top 4 from >>>>>each group (total of 8) will qualify for next stage, which will be a knockout (2 >>>>>rounds quarter-final, 2 rounds semi-final, 2 rounds final). The other programs >>>>>will continue with 6 more Swiss rounds. However, the *difference* is: the losers >>>>>in the knockout will join the other programs (who haven't qualified for knockout >>>>>phase) in continuing with additional Swiss rounds (with all the points they >>>>>scored in the first 5 rounds and in the knockout phase). >>>>> >>>>>The advantage of this method over the original one is that the amateurs will get >>>>>more chances of playing against commercial programs after the first 5 rounds. >>>>> >>>>>B) 11 rounds Swiss. >>>>> >>>>>In Graz WCCC everything was basically over after 7 rounds. The last 4 rounds >>>>>didn't change anything at all. That is the reason why we are trying to choose a >>>>>more exciting format. >>>>> >>>>>However, our primary goal is maximizing participation. So, if 11 rounds Swiss >>>>>will attract the largest number of participants, then we will opt for it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>We are interested in hearing your opinion, especially the opinion of programmers >>>>>who are considering participation in WCCC. >>>>> >>>>>Thanks, >>>>> >>>>>Omid David Tabibi (davoudo@cs.biu.ac.il), >>>>>Bar-Ilan University. >>>> >>>>Hi Omid, >>>> >>>>I prefere option B) but i see the problem with 11 rounds if the number of >>>>participants if rather less, let say <= 16. Therefore my suggestion is to play 9 >>>>rounds only, which is also fine for 17..32 participants. >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>>Gerd >>> >>>Hello to all, >>> >>>Why will it not be a single or double all-play-all tournament? The (large?) >>>disadvantage is that if you want the tournament to be open for all programmers, >>>then it will be unclear how many rounds the tournament will have. >>> >>>On the other hand I believe that it is more fair (certainly a double >>>all-play-all tournament) than a Swiss Tournament in which one always has a >>>certain factor of pairing luck. In my opinion the double all-play-all will be >>>best. >>> >>>Maybe there is a way to limit the number of contestants. For example by allowing >>>a maximum of 12 or 15 participants only. The teams that want to compete will be >>>put on a list and only the highest 8 or 10 on the SSDF list are directly in the >>>main tournament. The others will play a preliminary tournament. >>> >>>Of course there are 2 other disadvantages to this system: >>>1) It will cost more money. >>>2) Strong programs that are not yet on the SSDF list, such as Shredder 8 would >>>not be placed directly. One can of course say that this is no problem because >>>the program will have to place itself via the preliminary tournament. But I >>>believe that this is not fair towards the others in the preliminary tournament. >>>They get a much stronger opponent than they "deserve". >>> >>>Maybe anyone has thoughts about this (or objections against it? :-)) >>> >>>Regards, >>> >>>Geert > >Okay Vincent, > >Fair enough. We don't use the list of the SSDF. >Then in order to avoid having to play in the preliminary tournament one must >have participated in one of the previous WCCC tournaments. With this engine, or >an older version. > >Hmmm, I see how this can give difficulties as well. Because one could easily >name his new engine to be the successor of an engine that competed in the 1st or >2nd WCCC. Maybe it should be restricted to participants in the last 5 WCCC >championships. > >Regards, > >Geert Generally, Swiss System is best IMHO, if you have a large number of participants. Best results are obtained in a Swiss System tournament if the strengths of the participants are realistically estimated prior to the first round. Otherwise, bad/poor pairings may occur right from the beginning. The better the strength estimates, the better the tournament. This is fundamental. If you do not use SSDF ratings for the purpose of estimating pre-tournament strengths, then some other "better" method should be used. Where would you find something better???? In a round robin tournament, it is not necessary to use ratings for pairing purposes. 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.