Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 09:46:32 06/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 09, 2004 at 12:17:05, Peter Berger wrote: >On June 09, 2004 at 11:23:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>The _real_ problem with this is that 11 rounds, 13 players, means that 1/2 way >>thru the event, the top programs have played each other. The rest of the event >>is just burning CPU cycles, burning operator time, and providing no drama or >>interest for the last half of the event. Yes there can be an "upset" with a >>weaker program. But who really cares? Should interest in the last half of the >>unnecessary rounds be dependent on the hope of an upset? > >I agree, but when organizers were preparing the event, they couldn't really know >how many programmers would take part. And they did in fact suggest a solution by >planning a two-stage-tournament - only that it was very unpopular with potential >amateur entries posting here, so they abandoned it. > >It's still too early to tell as people could sign up shortly before the deadline >of course. > >I agree that most potential spectators will probably lose interest once Fritz, >Shredder and Junior all played each other which should be done by round 6 the >latest. Maybe a bit longer if some other entry does surprisingly well. It seems trivial that an algorithm could be constructed to fill an allotted time period with meaningful chess based upon the number of entries, with numerous entries transforming a round robin into a swiss. This is much easier if the tourney is an automated event, where two or three rounds can be completed in a day. Then the entire event could be automated right down to the type of event it will be based upon number of entries. Even for a non-automated event, this should still be possible. It's either a round robin or a swiss, whichever fills the time allotted most meaningfully, according to the built-in logic of the algorithm. > >But although it's an anti-climax it might well happen that the tournament is >decided during the last rounds this year IMHO. Whoever wants to win, will have >to score near perfectly against the rest of the pack. > >Except for FIBChess that no one seems to know so that it is impossible to tell, >there are no free points as all amateur entries are very respectable and mature. >It might even happen that the huge number of rounds makes luck a *more* >important factor (e.g. one non-optimal opening or move by one of the leaders >loses half a point and the title - to some extent this already happened to >Junior in Graz). > >Peter
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.