Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:23:45 02/16/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2006 at 03:48:53, Vincent Lejeune wrote: >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 According to my stats, if A is 200 points better than B, A will win 3 of every 4 games. or 6 of every 8, or about 7+ of every 10. There will always be a few surprises along the way, which is why a _couple_ of extra rounds is useful (log2(#players)+2 rounds, say). but +4 is pushing it and the last rounds are _always_ anti-climatic... > > >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>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.