Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 11:06:56 03/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2004 at 12:15:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On March 01, 2004 at 01:18:17, Peter McKenzie wrote: > >>On February 29, 2004 at 23:29:05, Robert Hyatt 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. >>> >>> >>>Why don't you address _the_ problem, rather than trying random solutions that >>>won't do anything useful. >>> >>>"the problem" is too many rounds for too few participants. >> >>That doesn't seem like a problem to me. Hell, if you take that attitude then >>World Championship matches would only last 1 game. Then Fischer would have lost >>to Spassky! > >Let's come back to reality. For Fischer/Spassky +I+ didn't have to travel >there, and stay for two weeks. > >11 rounds is too many with 16 players. It would make _more_ sense to add >another 4 rounds and make it a pure round-robin. > >But it is the _length_ that is the problem. The number of rounds is an issue >Omid brought up because the last four rounds were completely meaningless to the >final outcome. That is one issue. The overall length of the tournament is too >long for me (and others) to attend. That is another issue. It's ironic that with the advent of fast, stable, commodity interconnectivity, and the development of tried-and-tested automation interfaces, that the so-called "world championship" has only gotten slower, longer, more expensive and more colloqial. Once again, the most awesome power on earth (stupidity) triumphs over technology. > > > >> >>> >>>There are two solutions: >>> >>>(1) get more participants. Not very likely. Particularly in light of other >>>issues already beat to death in the past. Event is too long, making it a >>>problem. Always hosting it in Europe, with a visit to the Middle-East, is >>>another problem. Etc. >>> >>>(2) reduce the number of rounds. >>> >>>There are other alternatives: >>> >>>(3) do a good job of seeding. Then only pair the best score vs the worst score, >>>and so forth, for 5 rounds. That way no top competitors will play each other, >>>to make the last rounds more exciting. >>> >>>(4) Same as 3 but first 6 rounds are double rounds, where in rounds 1 and 2 the >>>same two programs play, but they reverse colors. >>> >>>(5) For the first 5-6 rounds, flip a coin to see who wins, then play the last 5 >>>rounds normally. >>> >>>IE there are a nearly infinite number of stupid ways to make the last N rounds >>>more important. There is only one _reasonable_ way. Reduce the number of >>>rounds.
This page took 0.01 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.