Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:00:04 07/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 11, 2004 at 13:52:04, Ingo Althofer wrote: >On July 11, 2004 at 13:40:05, Volker Richey wrote: > >> >>>Round 10: >>>1. The Crazy Bishop - Junior >>>2. FIBChess - Shredder >>>3. Fritz - Diep >>>4. Crafty - ParSOS >>>5. Jonny - Deep Sjeng >>>6. Woodpusher 1997 - Falcon >>>7. IsiChess - Movei >> >> >>Why? >> >>1. The Crazy Bishop - Junior >>2. FIBChess - Shredder >> >>And not: >>1. ParSOS - Junior >>2. Falcon - Shredder ??? > >That happens when there is a CH system for a tournament >with only few participants. The program has to take into >account all participants and only the ones with most points. > >Pairings would look more "appropriate" in some "relaxed CH", for instance: >in the last third of the tournament participants with less then >33 percent of the points are allowed to play more than once against >the same opponent. > >But in Ramat-Gan they play normal CH. >It may even be that also in the last round none of your two >wish-pairings will happen. > >Ingo Althofer. That might all be true now, but then the wrong came into this tournament through the decision prior to this tournament. The participants who agreed last week certainly didn't know that this lack of exactly two rounds for a round robin could badly hurt the whole tournament in the upper ranks as well as the other parts. The conclusion is that this kind of 11 round proposal by the TD of ICGA opened the can of worms for all kind of manipulations. Amir's decent admitting of a wrong in the actual seeding (based on colors for ALL participants) asks for the question why the mathematically talented didn't speak when the proposal has been made. Such contradictions are history in the WCCC. In Graz, with a totally different topic, it was the same. Amir, a really smart guy, let a totally stupid decision pass without protest but then here in CCC he came and showed us why the decision _was_ in fact stupid. With such an attitude of kismet democracy cannot show what it's worth. I don't know the details - perhaps it's useless to argue to these officials of the ICGA incl. TD board. So then it's still a clever decision of Amir to stay silent. Your opinion would interest me, talking about Swiss seedings, if there is an inevitable fallacy in the mathematical system if say a certain number of players are treated with a certain number of rounds. Is there so to speak a zone of a n assured nonsense? And how are the concrete numbers for a safe design? Thanks.
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.