Author: Peter Skinner
Date: 03:55:34 12/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2004 at 06:28:20, Richard Pijl wrote: >Just like others I would like to have 9 rounds to make the results less random. >With 7 rounds and 1 bad game (e.g. bad book line) the tournament is over. Some feel that 9 rounds were to much last time, and playing 5 games in one day was to much. Since the general consensus is a 9 round tournament, it would be best to choose a time control that would allow each round to be finished in 2 hours. Then a break of 15 mins or so to allow reboots, and to allow pairings to take place and the checking of the pairings to ensure accuracy. > >> >>Time controls: >> >>45 + 10 > >Others pointed out that a shorter increment is preferable. So lets do 50+3 >instead (shorter increment but slightly larger base time. A round should be >well over within two hours then. Addressed above. >>All games to be played in one weekend. 4 games on day 1, 3 on day two. > >For 9 rounds: 5+4 Addressed above. >In the unlikely case that the Baron ties for first place, it is already midnight >here when playoffs start. And the next day I have to work again. So I would >prefer no playoffs at all. Let's have joint champions and decide the rest on >Buchholz and SB. This seems to be the most popular way of doing tie breaks. So we will adopt this format I believe. >I agree, but all in moderate amounts please. In the past there was one program >that printed a page of info for each move :-). One or two lines per move should >do just fine. I agree. Book moves 1 line, eval 1 line, and possibly showing the expected moves /evaluation in 2 lines like Crafty does. >Any accusation should be backed up with proof, whether in public or not. I don't >think it really makes a difference. Of course wild accusations (so without >proof) in public can not be tolerated. Of course, but my intention is in case a false claim is made that the individual being accused is not harmed personally in public. >I can imagine that arranging e.g. an ICC account for the author may be a problem >when entering late. I don't think this should be a problem when the author (or >authorized operator) already has such a connection. Anyway, I rather see >additional surprise entries (increasing the number of participants) than people >registering just in case and dropping out a few days before the event (or not >showing up). Perhaps trying to get an even number of participants could be >another reason though, but I doubt whether that would be very successful (or >even needed). >> >>If everyone is agreeable to this, or has any recommendations please post here or >>email me. > >One thing Volker did was arranging temporary ICC accounts (1 month) for the >authors that didn't have one, so they could participate and test their setup. It >would probably increase the number of participants if you could facilitate that. >(not for myself as I already have an account :-) ) I plan on doing the same thing. In fact I have put an area on the sign form whether the user has an ICC account already, and if not what they would like the handle to be. >Thanks for stepping up. Someone had to... 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.