Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:36:39 12/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2004 at 06:55:34, Peter Skinner wrote: >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. Those accusations were against an automatic program which was manual operated. None of the moves it played ever were reproduced by any version of that commercial program, before nor after the tournament. On average many moves had 0.5 pawn difference in evaluation, both for the versions before the tournament as well as afterwards. Very suspicious. Important is that nowadays things are automatic and programs must kibitz, no way to easily swindle now. Therefore this rule has no relevance now. Basically you want to say: "i'm tournament director and everybody has to shut up whatever decision i take, and no accusations of manipulation can be made afterwards". You really believe many will join your tournament in such a case? >>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.