Author: David Blackman
Date: 19:14:34 11/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 30, 1999 at 05:35:08, Dann Corbit wrote: [ cut ] >You make an excellent point and I will even concede that the method works. >However, the problems that I mention (top players facing each other etc.) still >hold. Further, what is the precise number of rounds required for an accurate >rating? I think that is very much in doubt, especially if the seeding is really >random. Depending upon the "badness" of the seeding, a much greater number of >rounds could be required. Don't get too worried about top players meeting early. They have to meet sometime. With a accurately seeded Swiss, it usually starts happening round 4 or 5. With a random Swiss it can happen just about anytime. Try running Swiss tournaments for a game where the higher rated player always wins. If you simulate this on a computer, you should be able to run a large tournament in about a second (but it takes longer to understand the results :-) You'll find 6 rounds is enough for 50 players if you seed correctly. With random seeding 6 rounds is still enough! The trouble starts if you have a more complicated game, like chess, where draws are possible, and even the lower rated player can win occasionally. In that case you need more rounds, and the seeded Swiss is a bit more efficient than the random one. The number of rounds you need to be really sure is enormous however. A round robin is not enough! The SSDF plays hundreds of games per program, and still they are not sure who is really number 1. Usually with the uncertainties they quote it could be any of half a dozen programs.
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.