CCT 2009 - Input Needed

[pijl]

I'd prefer the weekends of March 14 and March 21. I'll be playing for the Dutch chess leagues on the other two weekends in March which means I can still participate but not be present online in the first few rounds.

As for the number of rounds: 9 or 11 would do.

Richard.

[swami]

I'd prefer the weekends of March 14 and March 21. I'll be playing for the Dutch chess leagues on the other two weekends in March which means I can still participate but not be present online in the first few rounds.

As for the number of rounds: 9 or 11 would do.

Richard.

Good, Thanks for your input, Richard.

Any weekends in March would be Ok with me.

I shall set the date in the next few days, registration process will begin as usual.

[bob]

I'd prefer the weekends of March 14 and March 21. I'll be playing for the Dutch chess leagues on the other two weekends in March which means I can still participate but not be present online in the first few rounds.

As for the number of rounds: 9 or 11 would do.

Richard.

Good, Thanks for your input, Richard.

Any weekends in March would be Ok with me.

I shall set the date in the next few days, registration process will begin as usual.

Most any time works for me. Only comment is to avoid too many rounds. 32 players and 11 rounds is too many. The problem is that all the strong programs will end up having played each other by the end of the 5-6 round, and the remaining 5 rounds will be against weaker opponents where good luck or bad luck influences the outcome more than it should. If you go more than 2-3 rounds beyond log2(participants) it would be better to do some sort of RR event instead.

[michiguel]

I'd prefer the weekends of March 14 and March 21. I'll be playing for the Dutch chess leagues on the other two weekends in March which means I can still participate but not be present online in the first few rounds.

As for the number of rounds: 9 or 11 would do.

Richard.

Good, Thanks for your input, Richard.

Any weekends in March would be Ok with me.

I shall set the date in the next few days, registration process will begin as usual.

Most any time works for me. Only comment is to avoid too many rounds. 32 players and 11 rounds is too many. The problem is that all the strong programs will end up having played each other by the end of the 5-6 round, and the remaining 5 rounds will be against weaker opponents where good luck or bad luck influences the outcome more than it should. If you go more than 2-3 rounds beyond log2(participants) it would be better to do some sort of RR event instead.

More rounds is never more luck for the winner. Having key match-ups earlier or later is not a big problem unless there is TV time paid for the last two rounds
With enough strong contenders, top programs end up playing a sort of round robin. There are many strong serious human tournaments in which the number of rounds largely exceed log2(n), and it is not bad at all.

Maybe many rounds is a problem for scheduling participants is so many different time zones, but that is another issue.

Miguel

[BubbaTough]

I vote for max rounds (11). Any of those dates work for me. More rounds = less luck and more fun. Of course, the year crafty got a nice draw against Rybka and LearningLemming beat Crafty to take clear first (4 - 0 - 0) in ACCA I would have settled for less rounds. Unfortunately the additional two rounds combatted luck factors and let Rybka come back to win the tournament .

-Sam

[swami]

I'd prefer the weekends of March 14 and March 21. I'll be playing for the Dutch chess leagues on the other two weekends in March which means I can still participate but not be present online in the first few rounds.

As for the number of rounds: 9 or 11 would do.

Richard.

Good, Thanks for your input, Richard.

Any weekends in March would be Ok with me.

I shall set the date in the next few days, registration process will begin as usual.

Most any time works for me. Only comment is to avoid too many rounds. 32 players and 11 rounds is too many. The problem is that all the strong programs will end up having played each other by the end of the 5-6 round, and the remaining 5 rounds will be against weaker opponents where good luck or bad luck influences the outcome more than it should. If you go more than 2-3 rounds beyond log2(participants) it would be better to do some sort of RR event instead.

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?

[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

[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.

[bob]

I'd prefer the weekends of March 14 and March 21. I'll be playing for the Dutch chess leagues on the other two weekends in March which means I can still participate but not be present online in the first few rounds.

As for the number of rounds: 9 or 11 would do.

Richard.

Good, Thanks for your input, Richard.

Any weekends in March would be Ok with me.

I shall set the date in the next few days, registration process will begin as usual.

Most any time works for me. Only comment is to avoid too many rounds. 32 players and 11 rounds is too many. The problem is that all the strong programs will end up having played each other by the end of the 5-6 round, and the remaining 5 rounds will be against weaker opponents where good luck or bad luck influences the outcome more than it should. If you go more than 2-3 rounds beyond log2(participants) it would be better to do some sort of RR event instead.

More rounds is never more luck for the winner. Having key match-ups earlier or later is not a big problem unless there is TV time paid for the last two rounds
With enough strong contenders, top programs end up playing a sort of round robin. There are many strong serious human tournaments in which the number of rounds largely exceed log2(n), and it is not bad at all.

Maybe many rounds is a problem for scheduling participants is so many different time zones, but that is another issue.

Miguel

There is always luck. And when the event is over (technically) by round 5 (with 32 opponents) the remainder of the games are unimportant, except for when luck strikes in some way and a significantly weaker program draws or defeats a stronger program.

Having the event all but over after the first 5-6 games makes the last 5 games very uninteresting, particularly if we try to attract spectators.

[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...

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...
.