Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 12:35:31 03/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 02, 2004 at 15:18:46, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On March 02, 2004 at 14:22:35, Gerd Isenberg wrote: > >I feel the basic point made is that swiss pairing is already a very complicated >way to do pairing. Pair first 3 rounds upon seeding and rounds 3..11 upon sum of >opponents (buchholz in german called or weerstandspunten in dutch). > >The swiss rules are so very complicated already and take *so many* fair >considerations into account that it is very complicated to write a correct >pairing swiss program. It's more difficult than writing a perfect mate solver >that solves all mates up to 20 moves at current hardware. Yes, very interesting search application. What about some heuristics, to choose that pairings with max thrill for the further rounds, if all other swiss system restrictions fit ;-) > >>On March 02, 2004 at 09:53:15, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>Based on the feedback to the previous thread >>>(http://talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?352100), it seems that the majority >>>prefer 11 rounds Swiss to the knockout with reentry option. >>> >>>Gerd Isenberg suggested an interesting modification to standard Swiss: >>> >>>-------- >>>http://talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?352264 >>> >>>What about following slightly modified [Swiss system], a kind of "delayed" swiss >>>system to keep the tension a bit longer? >>> >>>For the first (4-6) rounds playing swiss with two about equal strong groups with >>>about (even) quantity and quality, eg. >>>(1,4,5,8,9,12,13,16)<->(2,3,6,7,10,11,14,15) or similar. >>> >>>Then reunion both groups and continue with standard swiss, and there are still >>>some thrilling rounds to go. >>>-------- >>> >>>In other words, a simple 11 rounds Swiss, but keeping some stronger pairings for >>>the later rounds. >>> >>>What do you think would be better? Standard 11 rounds Swiss (like in Graz WCCC), >>>or the delayed Swiss as suggested by Gerd? >> >>Obviously there are some practical considerations, as Vincent pointed out. >>One problem might be the initial ranking (even in the lower part of the field), >>the other problem is whether a pairing program is able to handle such pairing >>restrictions during the first m of 11 rounds. >> >>Next problem is to determine the "optimal" m, the number of rounds with disjoint >>groups, to delay important matches - or whether it introduces more dependencies >>as suggested. And as already mentioned, all is dependent on the number of >>participants N. >> >>If N is 16, both groups are even (8) and there is no group internal "by". >>Then m == 7 is the maximum because it's already group internal round robin. >>If N is not divisable by four it becomes complicated, odd/even groups, one or >>two internal "by" (in case of two they may play each other as an other >>exception). >> >>Seems all too complicated and probably exhausting for the TD ;-) >>Anyway, thanks for considering the idea. >> >>I strongly consider to participate, independent on delayed or classical swiss >>system. >> >>Regards, >>Gerd
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.