Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:26:38 07/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2004 at 20:57:25, James T. Walker wrote: >On July 09, 2004 at 18:28:41, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On July 09, 2004 at 16:27:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On July 09, 2004 at 15:57:15, Amir Ban wrote: >>> >>>>On July 09, 2004 at 09:59:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 09, 2004 at 02:23:28, Amir Ban wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 08, 2004 at 17:06:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 08, 2004 at 16:59:07, James Robertson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On July 08, 2004 at 16:50:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On July 08, 2004 at 16:30:07, Ingo Althofer wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On July 08, 2004 at 15:07:14, Anson T J wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>WCCC 2004 Cross Table After Round 6 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 >>>>>>>>>>>1 Deep JuniorEY * ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 5.0/6 >>>>>>>>>>>2 Shredder ½ * ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 4.0/6 >>>>>>>>>>>3 Deep Sjeng 0 * ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 3.5/6 11.00 >>>>>>>>>>>4 Jonny 2.64 ½ ½ * ½ 0 1 1 3.5/6 10.25 >>>>>>>>>>>5 ParSOS 0 ½ * ½ ½ 1 1 3.5/6 9.75 >>>>>>>>>>>6 Fritz ½ ½ * 0 1 ½ 1 3.5/6 9.50 >>>>>>>>>>>7 Diep 0 0 ½ * 1 1 1 3.5/6 9.25 >>>>>>>>>>>8 Falcon Bar-Ilan 0 1 ½ 1 0 * 1 3.5/6 8.75 >>>>>>>>>>>9 Crafty 19.15 0 ½ ½ 0 * 1 1 3.0/6 >>>>>>>>>>>0 ISIChess 0 ½ ½ 0 * ½ 1 2.5/6 4.75 >>>>>>>>>>>1 WoodPusher 1997 0 0 ½ * ½ ½ 1 2.5/6 3.25 >>>>>>>>>>>2 Movei 0 0 0 ½ * 1 1 2.5/6 2.75 >>>>>>>>>>>3 The Crazy Bishop 0 0 0 ½ 0 * 1 1.5/6 >>>>>>>>>>>4 FIBIChess 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0.0/6 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Thanks for the good presentation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>And now it becomes clear, why Fritz has to play against FIBIChess: >>>>>>>>>>FIBI has played already against all on ranks 8 to 13... and Fritz is on >>>>>>>>>>shared rank 3 to 8. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Ingo Althofer. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>This obviously caused by _way_ too many rounds for 14 participants. It will >>>>>>>>>almost end up a round robin, lacking only two games to make that happen... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I don't see why this particular pairing is caused by the large number of rounds. >>>>>>>>If there were only 7 rounds instead of 11, wouldn't the pairings up to this >>>>>>>>point be exactly the same? Does the pairing program take into account the number >>>>>>>>of rounds? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No. The point is that the top programs have _already_ played. Now all that can >>>>>>>be done is to pair them down. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>A glance at the cross-table shows that this is not true. There are still many >>>>>>games missing among the top 8. E.g. Rank 2 & 3 have not played yet. >>>>>> >>>>>>Amir >>>>> >>>>>The "top eight" really doesn't matter. I was specifically referring to Junior, >>>>>Shredder and Fritz... >>>>> >>>>>They were the obvious picks to win. They've played. >>>> >>>>Well, you have 2 out of 3 right ... Junior vs. Fritz will probably be played in >>>>the 9th or 10th round. >>>> >>>>Amir >>> >>> >>>when one stumbles, one often falls. I can remember ACM events where I didn't >>>get to play Belle because it lost in an early round. But be that as it may, the >>>rest of the event is a "let's see if there is an upset..." Or "let's see who >>>can avoid drawing lower-rated players..." Because the games that really matter >>>are behind us... >>> >>>Not that the remainder of the games won't be interesting, of course. But if the >>>final standings change, they will likely change due to the random effect of an >>>unexpected draw... >> >>Some comments: >>1)Junior vs Fritz is not a game when there is a clear favourite. > >I wish I could figure out what you are trying to say in the above sentence. I say that it is not clear who has better chances between Junior and Fritz. > > >> >>2)I am not sure about unexpected draws from the weaker programs. > >Again another vague statement which makes no sense to me. I said that the fact that a player is weaker does not mean that the expected result is win for the stronger player and it is possible that the probability for a draw is higher. > >> >>The probability for draw may be higher when the level become higher so it is >>possible that the winner will be the program with more unexpected wins against >>weaker players because the probability of commercial program to beat weaker >>programs is in part of the cases 40% to win and 10% to lose when draw is the >>most expected result with probability of 50% >> > >"Unexpected wins against weaker players". Why would a win vs a weaker player be >unexpected? The 40%/10%/50% figures seem to come from nowhere. Where did you >get those. What is the point you are trying to make in your post? The point is that draw may be the most expected result between stronger player and weaker player(at least in part of the cases). Uri
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.