CCT 2009 - Input Needed

[michiguel]

Perhaps we could settle for 9 rounds, Is everybody Ok with it?

or how about we use round formulas? For example, when we have

>50 participants 11 rounds
>30 participants, 9 rounds
<30 participants, 7 rounds

something like that?

Possible. Another option would be to go with majority vote. So far that is 1 for minimum rounds, and everyone else for maximum rounds.

-Sam

Majority vote is Ok, but many people would obviously choose 11 rounds, that too without knowing the final number of participants.

So, I'd prefer a fixed number or conditional cases to guarantee the number depending on total entrants.

And most would choose 11 not understandint the purpose of the Swiss system Too many rounds makes the last rounds pointless and we could just as well play random games on ICC for the last rounds. If you want to remove the luck (which is there regardless of what some might suggest) then a double-RR is the way to go. Otherwise there is a luck factor for who plays who and when, which can give someone a color advantage or disadvantage in key games...

Your reasoning is only valid in a tournament with 2 GMs and a bunch of patzers. A Swiss system does not work like playoffs if there are enough good competitors at the top. For instance, if there are 7-8 top players, the last 5 rounds become a quasi round robin among them. Many important swiss tournaments are played with a large excess over the log2(N), for instance, the World Junior championships (13 rounds) and it works just fine. If you are saying that there is only 3-4 engines worthy of winning all, that is another matter (but I would disagree). In addition, you are only looking at the top, but the middle of the pack benefits from more games. When you say that after games 5-6 everything is over, you are ignoring the interest of the ~70% of the participants who lay at the middle.

If you want to make it interesting to attract spectators, you have to increase the luck factor with a mini play-off system. For instance, after 9 rounds (regular rounds), the play-offs start like this:
#1 (white) plays #4
#2 (white) plays #3
(if draw, #1 and #2 advances)
Then, winners play each other and losers for 3rd/4th place. Always, the one that finished with better record plays white and advances with a draw (Sort of home court advantage as play-offs in the NBA etc. to reward a better regular season).
You can do the same for #5, #6, #7, #8 etc.

Miguel

Another idea is to do something like a reverse-accelerated pairing where you seed the programs, and the top group plays the bottom group in various combinations for the first half of the event, then normal swiss is used to that the top half mainly plays itself since most should have near-perfect scores, and the bottom programs play themselves. It just swaps the first half of the vent with the last half so that the tournament is won or lost in the last games...
.

[swami]

Perhaps we could settle for 9 rounds, Is everybody Ok with it?

or how about we use round formulas? For example, when we have

>50 participants 11 rounds
>30 participants, 9 rounds
<30 participants, 7 rounds

something like that?

Possible. Another option would be to go with majority vote. So far that is 1 for minimum rounds, and everyone else for maximum rounds.

-Sam

Majority vote is Ok, but many people would obviously choose 11 rounds, that too without knowing the final number of participants.

So, I'd prefer a fixed number or conditional cases to guarantee the number depending on total entrants.

And most would choose 11 not understandint the purpose of the Swiss system Too many rounds makes the last rounds pointless and we could just as well play random games on ICC for the last rounds. If you want to remove the luck (which is there regardless of what some might suggest) then a double-RR is the way to go. Otherwise there is a luck factor for who plays who and when, which can give someone a color advantage or disadvantage in key games...

Another idea is to do something like a reverse-accelerated pairing where you seed the programs, and the top group plays the bottom group in various combinations for the first half of the event, then normal swiss is used to that the top half mainly plays itself since most should have near-perfect scores, and the bottom programs play themselves. It just swaps the first half of the vent with the last half so that the tournament is won or lost in the last games...
.

Hi Bob,

I'm just an organizer and I most probably wouldn't be doing the Td-ing. That kind of work is left to the ICC person who had done pairings in ACCA events, perhaps Charles could answer to your query here and inform the ICC person of this?

In the evening, I'll create a private poll and send the link to the would-be participants and suggest them to take part in the poll questionnaire. The main poll question is the date of the event.

[BubbaTough]

Perhaps we could settle for 9 rounds, Is everybody Ok with it?

or how about we use round formulas? For example, when we have

>50 participants 11 rounds
>30 participants, 9 rounds
<30 participants, 7 rounds

something like that?

Possible. Another option would be to go with majority vote. So far that is 1 for minimum rounds, and everyone else for maximum rounds.

-Sam

Majority vote is Ok, but many people would obviously choose 11 rounds, that too without knowing the final number of participants.

So, I'd prefer a fixed number or conditional cases to guarantee the number depending on total entrants.

And most would choose 11 not understandint the purpose of the Swiss system Too many rounds makes the last rounds pointless and we could just as well play random games on ICC for the last rounds. If you want to remove the luck (which is there regardless of what some might suggest) then a double-RR is the way to go. Otherwise there is a luck factor for who plays who and when, which can give someone a color advantage or disadvantage in key games...

Another idea is to do something like a reverse-accelerated pairing where you seed the programs, and the top group plays the bottom group in various combinations for the first half of the event, then normal swiss is used to that the top half mainly plays itself since most should have near-perfect scores, and the bottom programs play themselves. It just swaps the first half of the vent with the last half so that the tournament is won or lost in the last games...
.

I think longer tournaments lead to less upsets not more. Even in tournaments with wide rating spreads. More chance for upsets in later rounds is made up for by more chance to catch up if there were upsets in earlier rounds. That is something we just disagree on, unless you came back with some massive cluster data set to back up your logic .

The reason most will vote for 11 is not ignorance based I think...it is just selfish. Most people participate because it is fun, enjoy each game they play, and more games are more fun. I know every tournament I have play in at the end I wish there were more rounds. Also, for people not competing for first (like most of us) more rounds is better for the standings. I know last ACCA tournament the first two places were clear, but for third place 3 more rounds would have been nice (give Crafty a chance to play Naum, LearningLemming, and Arasan for example). So in a 17 person tournament, 9 rounds would be good in my opinion. And if Rybka managed to draw three games in the last three rounds to let Naum pass it...well...then it would not have not deserve to win.

-Sam

[bob]

Perhaps we could settle for 9 rounds, Is everybody Ok with it?

or how about we use round formulas? For example, when we have

>50 participants 11 rounds
>30 participants, 9 rounds
<30 participants, 7 rounds

something like that?

Possible. Another option would be to go with majority vote. So far that is 1 for minimum rounds, and everyone else for maximum rounds.

-Sam

Majority vote is Ok, but many people would obviously choose 11 rounds, that too without knowing the final number of participants.

So, I'd prefer a fixed number or conditional cases to guarantee the number depending on total entrants.

And most would choose 11 not understandint the purpose of the Swiss system Too many rounds makes the last rounds pointless and we could just as well play random games on ICC for the last rounds. If you want to remove the luck (which is there regardless of what some might suggest) then a double-RR is the way to go. Otherwise there is a luck factor for who plays who and when, which can give someone a color advantage or disadvantage in key games...

Your reasoning is only valid in a tournament with 2 GMs and a bunch of patzers. A Swiss system does not work like playoffs if there are enough good competitors at the top. For instance, if there are 7-8 top players, the last 5 rounds become a quasi round robin among them. Many important swiss tournaments are played with a large excess over the log2(N), for instance, the World Junior championships (13 rounds) and it works just fine. If you are saying that there is only 3-4 engines worthy of winning all, that is another matter (but I would disagree). In addition, you are only looking at the top, but the middle of the pack benefits from more games. When you say that after games 5-6 everything is over, you are ignoring the interest of the ~70% of the participants who lay at the middle.

My reasoning is valid when you have an event with two "classes" of players, one that is significantly better than the other. I'm not sure why you don't understand the point. We have seen it in _every_ tournament that was "too long". In every CCT we have played, we have a solid line of demarcation somewhere around the middle or higher. and there is usually a sharp line in those two groups to divide them into an upper and lower groups. You need go no farther back than the last online tournament we had where we played 10+ rounds, or the past WCCC events that had enough participants to not create a round-robin...

If you want to make it interesting to attract spectators, you have to increase the luck factor with a mini play-off system. For instance, after 9 rounds (regular rounds), the play-offs start like this:
#1 (white) plays #4
#2 (white) plays #3
(if draw, #1 and #2 advances)
Then, winners play each other and losers for 3rd/4th place. Always, the one that finished with better record plays white and advances with a draw (Sort of home court advantage as play-offs in the NBA etc. to reward a better regular season).
You can do the same for #5, #6, #7, #8 etc.

Miguel

I would go for the top four and play 4 games, where both sides play black and then white with same opponent. Or 6 games with a double-RR after a 6 round qualifier...

Another idea is to do something like a reverse-accelerated pairing where you seed the programs, and the top group plays the bottom group in various combinations for the first half of the event, then normal swiss is used to that the top half mainly plays itself since most should have near-perfect scores, and the bottom programs play themselves. It just swaps the first half of the vent with the last half so that the tournament is won or lost in the last games...
.

[BubbaTough]

I understand your point Bob. It is a reasonable perspective. I just don't agree.

-Sam

[michiguel]

Perhaps we could settle for 9 rounds, Is everybody Ok with it?

or how about we use round formulas? For example, when we have

>50 participants 11 rounds
>30 participants, 9 rounds
<30 participants, 7 rounds

something like that?

Possible. Another option would be to go with majority vote. So far that is 1 for minimum rounds, and everyone else for maximum rounds.

-Sam

Majority vote is Ok, but many people would obviously choose 11 rounds, that too without knowing the final number of participants.

So, I'd prefer a fixed number or conditional cases to guarantee the number depending on total entrants.

And most would choose 11 not understandint the purpose of the Swiss system Too many rounds makes the last rounds pointless and we could just as well play random games on ICC for the last rounds. If you want to remove the luck (which is there regardless of what some might suggest) then a double-RR is the way to go. Otherwise there is a luck factor for who plays who and when, which can give someone a color advantage or disadvantage in key games...

Your reasoning is only valid in a tournament with 2 GMs and a bunch of patzers. A Swiss system does not work like playoffs if there are enough good competitors at the top. For instance, if there are 7-8 top players, the last 5 rounds become a quasi round robin among them. Many important swiss tournaments are played with a large excess over the log2(N), for instance, the World Junior championships (13 rounds) and it works just fine. If you are saying that there is only 3-4 engines worthy of winning all, that is another matter (but I would disagree). In addition, you are only looking at the top, but the middle of the pack benefits from more games. When you say that after games 5-6 everything is over, you are ignoring the interest of the ~70% of the participants who lay at the middle.

My reasoning is valid when you have an event with two "classes" of players, one that is significantly better than the other. I'm not sure why you don't understand the point. We have seen it in _every_ tournament that was "too long". In every CCT we have played, we have a solid line of demarcation somewhere around the middle or higher. and there is usually a sharp line in those two groups to divide them into an upper and lower groups.

That generally never happens in swiss tournaments, where you have a more bell-like curve. See here
http://cctchess.com/cct8/index.html
There is no solid demarcation of any kind.

Even if you have two halves, each player keeps playing in its own half.
In that CCT tournament (9 rounds), you can easily play two more interesting rounds. (Rybka here is out in its own league).

Miguel

You need go no farther back than the last online tournament we had where we played 10+ rounds, or the past WCCC events that had enough participants to not create a round-robin...

If you want to make it interesting to attract spectators, you have to increase the luck factor with a mini play-off system. For instance, after 9 rounds (regular rounds), the play-offs start like this:
#1 (white) plays #4
#2 (white) plays #3
(if draw, #1 and #2 advances)
Then, winners play each other and losers for 3rd/4th place. Always, the one that finished with better record plays white and advances with a draw (Sort of home court advantage as play-offs in the NBA etc. to reward a better regular season).
You can do the same for #5, #6, #7, #8 etc.

Miguel

I would go for the top four and play 4 games, where both sides play black and then white with same opponent. Or 6 games with a double-RR after a 6 round qualifier...

Another idea is to do something like a reverse-accelerated pairing where you seed the programs, and the top group plays the bottom group in various combinations for the first half of the event, then normal swiss is used to that the top half mainly plays itself since most should have near-perfect scores, and the bottom programs play themselves. It just swaps the first half of the vent with the last half so that the tournament is won or lost in the last games...
.

[swami]

Perhaps we could settle for 9 rounds, Is everybody Ok with it?

or how about we use round formulas? For example, when we have

>50 participants 11 rounds
>30 participants, 9 rounds
<30 participants, 7 rounds

something like that?

Possible. Another option would be to go with majority vote. So far that is 1 for minimum rounds, and everyone else for maximum rounds.

-Sam

Majority vote is Ok, but many people would obviously choose 11 rounds, that too without knowing the final number of participants.

So, I'd prefer a fixed number or conditional cases to guarantee the number depending on total entrants.

And most would choose 11 not understandint the purpose of the Swiss system Too many rounds makes the last rounds pointless and we could just as well play random games on ICC for the last rounds. If you want to remove the luck (which is there regardless of what some might suggest) then a double-RR is the way to go. Otherwise there is a luck factor for who plays who and when, which can give someone a color advantage or disadvantage in key games...

Your reasoning is only valid in a tournament with 2 GMs and a bunch of patzers. A Swiss system does not work like playoffs if there are enough good competitors at the top. For instance, if there are 7-8 top players, the last 5 rounds become a quasi round robin among them. Many important swiss tournaments are played with a large excess over the log2(N), for instance, the World Junior championships (13 rounds) and it works just fine. If you are saying that there is only 3-4 engines worthy of winning all, that is another matter (but I would disagree). In addition, you are only looking at the top, but the middle of the pack benefits from more games. When you say that after games 5-6 everything is over, you are ignoring the interest of the ~70% of the participants who lay at the middle.

My reasoning is valid when you have an event with two "classes" of players, one that is significantly better than the other. I'm not sure why you don't understand the point. We have seen it in _every_ tournament that was "too long". In every CCT we have played, we have a solid line of demarcation somewhere around the middle or higher. and there is usually a sharp line in those two groups to divide them into an upper and lower groups.

That generally never happens in swiss tournaments, where you have a more bell-like curve. See here
http://cctchess.com/cct8/index.html
There is no solid demarcation of any kind.

Even if you have two halves, each player keeps playing in its own half.
In that CCT tournament (9 rounds), you can easily play two more interesting rounds. (Rybka here is out in its own league).

Miguel

You need go no farther back than the last online tournament we had where we played 10+ rounds, or the past WCCC events that had enough participants to not create a round-robin...

If you want to make it interesting to attract spectators, you have to increase the luck factor with a mini play-off system. For instance, after 9 rounds (regular rounds), the play-offs start like this:
#1 (white) plays #4
#2 (white) plays #3
(if draw, #1 and #2 advances)
Then, winners play each other and losers for 3rd/4th place. Always, the one that finished with better record plays white and advances with a draw (Sort of home court advantage as play-offs in the NBA etc. to reward a better regular season).
You can do the same for #5, #6, #7, #8 etc.

Miguel

I would go for the top four and play 4 games, where both sides play black and then white with same opponent. Or 6 games with a double-RR after a 6 round qualifier...

Another idea is to do something like a reverse-accelerated pairing where you seed the programs, and the top group plays the bottom group in various combinations for the first half of the event, then normal swiss is used to that the top half mainly plays itself since most should have near-perfect scores, and the bottom programs play themselves. It just swaps the first half of the vent with the last half so that the tournament is won or lost in the last games...
.

Excellent finishes in CCT 8, I think 9 rounds work better.

What do you guys say, still 11? Nobody seems to be in favour of 7 rounds, maybe they think it's too less and it's to be rejected.

[bob]

Perhaps we could settle for 9 rounds, Is everybody Ok with it?

or how about we use round formulas? For example, when we have

>50 participants 11 rounds
>30 participants, 9 rounds
<30 participants, 7 rounds

something like that?

Possible. Another option would be to go with majority vote. So far that is 1 for minimum rounds, and everyone else for maximum rounds.

-Sam

Majority vote is Ok, but many people would obviously choose 11 rounds, that too without knowing the final number of participants.

So, I'd prefer a fixed number or conditional cases to guarantee the number depending on total entrants.

And most would choose 11 not understandint the purpose of the Swiss system Too many rounds makes the last rounds pointless and we could just as well play random games on ICC for the last rounds. If you want to remove the luck (which is there regardless of what some might suggest) then a double-RR is the way to go. Otherwise there is a luck factor for who plays who and when, which can give someone a color advantage or disadvantage in key games...

Your reasoning is only valid in a tournament with 2 GMs and a bunch of patzers. A Swiss system does not work like playoffs if there are enough good competitors at the top. For instance, if there are 7-8 top players, the last 5 rounds become a quasi round robin among them. Many important swiss tournaments are played with a large excess over the log2(N), for instance, the World Junior championships (13 rounds) and it works just fine. If you are saying that there is only 3-4 engines worthy of winning all, that is another matter (but I would disagree). In addition, you are only looking at the top, but the middle of the pack benefits from more games. When you say that after games 5-6 everything is over, you are ignoring the interest of the ~70% of the participants who lay at the middle.

My reasoning is valid when you have an event with two "classes" of players, one that is significantly better than the other. I'm not sure why you don't understand the point. We have seen it in _every_ tournament that was "too long". In every CCT we have played, we have a solid line of demarcation somewhere around the middle or higher. and there is usually a sharp line in those two groups to divide them into an upper and lower groups.

That generally never happens in swiss tournaments, where you have a more bell-like curve. See here
http://cctchess.com/cct8/index.html
There is no solid demarcation of any kind.

Even if you have two halves, each player keeps playing in its own half.
In that CCT tournament (9 rounds), you can easily play two more interesting rounds. (Rybka here is out in its own league).

Now you begin to see my point. What happens after you play "your own half" (or more likely own 1/4) and there are more rounds to go. We usually have 6-8-10 programs that realistically can win a CCT (or ACCA) event. With 11 rounds, you definitely will run out of your group. In fact, with 8 top-level programs and 24 others, after the first 2-3 rounds, where the strong programs have only played weaker programs due to swiss pairings, now the top group runs through each other, and there are rounds left. With 32 players, it takes two rounds to recognize the top 1/4 of the field. But with seedings we already had a good idea. Once those play, the remainder of the games are just games.

Miguel

You need go no farther back than the last online tournament we had where we played 10+ rounds, or the past WCCC events that had enough participants to not create a round-robin...

If you want to make it interesting to attract spectators, you have to increase the luck factor with a mini play-off system. For instance, after 9 rounds (regular rounds), the play-offs start like this:
#1 (white) plays #4
#2 (white) plays #3
(if draw, #1 and #2 advances)
Then, winners play each other and losers for 3rd/4th place. Always, the one that finished with better record plays white and advances with a draw (Sort of home court advantage as play-offs in the NBA etc. to reward a better regular season).
You can do the same for #5, #6, #7, #8 etc.

Miguel

I would go for the top four and play 4 games, where both sides play black and then white with same opponent. Or 6 games with a double-RR after a 6 round qualifier...

Another idea is to do something like a reverse-accelerated pairing where you seed the programs, and the top group plays the bottom group in various combinations for the first half of the event, then normal swiss is used to that the top half mainly plays itself since most should have near-perfect scores, and the bottom programs play themselves. It just swaps the first half of the vent with the last half so that the tournament is won or lost in the last games...
.

[BubbaTough]

I doubt anyone will change there mind. Just pick what you want, or set up a vote, or whatever.

My preference: two week long double round robin, time control 40/2; 1SD, clocks start ticking when rounds start whether engines are there or not, clocks keep ticking even if engine disconnects. But, I have noticed in life, I don't always get what I want .

-Sam

[swami]

I doubt anyone will change there mind. Just pick what you want, or set up a vote, or whatever.

My preference: two week long double round robin, time control 40/2; 1SD, clocks start ticking when rounds start whether engines are there or not, clocks keep ticking even if engine disconnects. But, I have noticed in life, I don't always get what I want .

-Sam

Ok, People seem to have varied opinions, Ofcourse I can't make them all happy. So I'd have to choose what I think is best.

11 rounds followed by Blitz tourney sounds too much, perhaps it can still be done. 9 Rounds + Blitz is very reasonable, we can cover all the time zones. So I vote for 9 rounds followed by Blitz.

9 rounds in CCT 8 worked pretty well.