Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 17:28:13 11/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 24, 1999 at 19:04:52, Dann Corbit wrote: >On November 24, 1999 at 18:14:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>On November 24, 1999 at 14:41:53, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On November 24, 1999 at 08:25:18, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >>>[snip] >>>>Furthermore we can not play with all engines. >>>>Phalanx, Bringer, LambChop, Gromit, InmiChess, Crafty, Arasan, NUTx (not running >>>>under Windows NT -for Kai-) and other be missing. >>>> >>>>10 engines = 540 games ! >>>>One games ~ 2 hours = 1.080 hours !!! >>>> >>>>I hope that the programmer (+ Kai, Christian and myself) can find mistakes and I >>>>think this is an good tournament. >>> >>>0. Why no pondering? What's wrong with TOOT for a winboard tournament? >>> >>>1. Why not make it a round robin tournament? That way, if you have 50 programs >>>you only need 50 games total. I have a round robin scheduling algorithm if you >>>want one. >> >> >>Ahem, your math went south. :) >> >>50 programs == 49 games _per program_. == 50 * 49 games... which is a bunch. >Yes, I meant per program (and was off-by-one anyway). I think I may have the >context all wrong. I was thinking of an internet tournament where ICC or FICS >is used. I think this is probably some kind of internal one, though. But with >20 entries, each person would have 20 games total. > >It might be interesting to do a round robin, then a swiss of the top ten. Is that your English going south? :) Usually, it's the swiss that's done with the big field, and the round-robin with the small one (e.g. the contestants that succeeded in the swiss.) Dave
This page took 0.01 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.