Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 14:35:06 02/15/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2006 at 17:13:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 15, 2006 at 16:24:20, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 15, 2006 at 15:18:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 15, 2006 at 13:19:35, George Tsavdaris wrote: >>> >>>>On February 15, 2006 at 12:59:32, Peter Skinner wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 15, 2006 at 12:55:56, Peter Skinner wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Hello all, >>>>>> >>>>>>As promised by Vincent last week, he has entered Diep into CCT8. >>>> >>>>Nice but what hardware he will use? Any huge one or normal(fast).....? >>>> >>>> Also is this the most large number of participants for a CCT or there have been >>>>and any larger....? >>>> I remember very recently Hiarcs and an experimental Junior participating. Did >>>>that happen in the last CCT or in another different than CCT tournament.....? >>>> >>>> Also 9 rounds with so many participants seems a bit short for me. Do you >>>>consider increasing the number of rounds.....? >>>> >>> >>>9 rounds is enough to find a clear 1st place for 512 opponents. :) >> >>This is correct if one program wins all the games but it will probably not >>happen. >> >>> >>>By the time this event ends, the top group will have all played each other. >> >>I am not sure of it. >>In theory it is possible to have 10 winners with 6 out of 9 and in this case it >>is clear that they need to beat weaker programs to get more than 4.5 out of 9 so >>not every pair of winners played. >> >>Uri > >In practice this doesn't happen. The real problem is that by round 6, the >winner is pretty certain, although three games against weaker opponents are >left, and there the luck factor often lurks behind a pawn and jumps out to >present a surprise and knock one of the top players off. > I have to believe that you're half-kidding here. Surely you don't believe that adding 3 more rounds increases the variance of the final result? -Peter >log2(#players) is a good number of rounds for starters. one more gives a couple >of more top finishers a better final result. But too many and many of the final >rounds are simply meaningless, as we've seen multiple times. For example, at >the last WCCC they tried to fudge the round-robin pairing to put a few of the >"interesting games" on the final few rounds. Didn't work out at all and the >event was over early... > >There can always be too many rounds in a Swiss. > >9 is on the edge. Both in final results and in total time required to play 9 >games...
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.