Author: Vincent Lejeune
Date: 00:48:53 02/16/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2006 at 23:26:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 15, 2006 at 17:35:06, Peter Kappler wrote: > >>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 >> > >Yes, it absolutely does. Simple example: 4 strong programs, 12 weak ones. >after round 1, you have 8 with 1, 8 with 0, the 8 with 1 include the top 4. >After two rounds, the top four have two, the bottom four have 0, and the rest >have 1 (assuming no draws). after 3 more rounds the top four have played. What >now for those other 4 rounds? Other programs? With the luck factor increasing >variance? You assume that the strong programs always win against weak but it's not the case : If program1 is 200 elo stronger than program2, program2 score 3 points against program1 in 10 games. It's a lot of noise to find the stronger. > > >> >> >> >> >>>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.