Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 10:17:09 03/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 04, 2004 at 10:08:55, Matthew Hull wrote: >On March 04, 2004 at 02:50:46, Gerd Isenberg wrote: > >>On March 03, 2004 at 21:08:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On March 03, 2004 at 14:43:28, James Swafford wrote: >>> >>>>On March 03, 2004 at 14:17:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 02, 2004 at 15:19:51, Russell Reagan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On March 02, 2004 at 09:53:15, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>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. >>>>>> >>>>>>>What do you think would be better? Standard 11 rounds Swiss (like in Graz WCCC), >>>>>>>or the delayed Swiss as suggested by Gerd? >>>>>> >>>>>>With all of the controversy surrounding the Graz event, you may be better off >>>>>>just aiming for an event that just runs smoothly, as opposed to trying to make >>>>>>significant changes (unless there is a clear improvement where the downside is >>>>>>very little to none). It seems like you are unsure whether the delayed swiss is >>>>>>an improvement. If you're not sure, well...if something can go wrong, it will :) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>the quirk here is that they _know_ they are bleeding (too many rounds for last >>>>>rounds to be interesting) but they persist in trying to decide on whether to use >>>>> band-aid or gauze and tape to stop it. It would be far better to just solve >>>>>the real problem with a long-term fix rather than a poor patch... >>>>> >>>>>otherwise the patient is going to die... >>>> >>>> >>>>Or live on in agony... >>> >>>I suppose that when you consider the insane Shredder/Jonny decision, "agony" is >>>certainly a reasonable word... >> >>Ok i guess for what reasons ever you like to destroy WCCC in it's present form. >>I know all your arguments about allways in europe/asia for the last 12 years or >>so, and the time and costs one need. >> >>It's a World Championship - It's about to find hosts and sponsors - and a too >>short let say 5 or 7 round tournament isn't attractive for them. What is wrong >>with looking for attractive 11-round mode? > > >What's wrong with a 5 day event/conference, with automated interfaces and two or >three rounds per day? Seems that the organizers/sponsors have some interest for a 9 day event. For WCCCC automated interfaces are problematic, since some chess programs/computers may still exclusively play via a human interface.
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.