Congratulations to Ginkgo. Regardless of the result, I must say that using Armageddon to break ties between the top engines is just ridiculous, the time odds mean very little whereas draw odds is overwhelming. Whoever wins the toss for Black is almost sure to win, might as well skip the game. Much better to keep shortening the time limit in pairs of games, even if you end up with a string of bullet games to decide. At least it would be fair.
Larry, I agree with that. At such a high and similar level of chess engines play, a draw in Armageddon seems much more likely than Armageddon in a game played by humans.
Certainly, this Championship in the next edition should change its playing formula.
Congratulations to Ginkgo. Regardless of the result, I must say that using Armageddon to break ties between the top engines is just ridiculous, the time odds mean very little whereas draw odds is overwhelming. Whoever wins the toss for Black is almost sure to win, might as well skip the game. Much better to keep shortening the time limit in pairs of games, even if you end up with a string of bullet games to decide. At least it would be fair.
Larry, I agree with that. At such a high and similar level of chess engines play, a draw in Armageddon seems much more likely than Armageddon in a game played by humans.
Certainly, this Championship in the next edition should change its playing formula.
Totally agree that Armageddon is a bad idea (even for humans...).
I presume the tiebreak was known before the tourney and one could say it's 'not good form' to criticize the method of tiebreak 'after the result (didn't go your way). Perhaps though you let it be known before the tourney started. But...again, I agree.
Congratulations to Ginkgo. Regardless of the result, I must say that using Armageddon to break ties between the top engines is just ridiculous, the time odds mean very little whereas draw odds is overwhelming. Whoever wins the toss for Black is almost sure to win, might as well skip the game. Much better to keep shortening the time limit in pairs of games, even if you end up with a string of bullet games to decide. At least it would be fair.
Larry, I agree with that. At such a high and similar level of chess engines play, a draw in Armageddon seems much more likely than Armageddon in a game played by humans.
Certainly, this Championship in the next edition should change its playing formula.
Totally agree that Armageddon is a bad idea (even for humans...).
I presume the tiebreak was known before the tourney and one could say it's 'not good form' to criticize the method of tiebreak 'after the result (didn't go your way). Perhaps though you let it be known before the tourney started. But...again, I agree.
At least for human GMs, Armageddon as usually used is roughly "fair" though it is apt to favor players with particular styles or opening preferences. But with top engines, it should be obvious to anyone who follows results of engine tournaments or rating lists that the double time Armageddon used probably gives Black a 90%+ probability of winning if both engines are equal and top-notch. Anyway, I want to be on record as saying that it will be a bad idea for the overall WCC this week even if we end up winning it this way. Basically, it's almost like a coin-flip, whoever gets Black wins.
Congratulations to Ginkgo. Regardless of the result, I must say that using Armageddon to break ties between the top engines is just ridiculous, the time odds mean very little whereas draw odds is overwhelming. Whoever wins the toss for Black is almost sure to win, might as well skip the game. Much better to keep shortening the time limit in pairs of games, even if you end up with a string of bullet games to decide. At least it would be fair.
Larry, I agree with that. At such a high and similar level of chess engines play, a draw in Armageddon seems much more likely than Armageddon in a game played by humans.
Certainly, this Championship in the next edition should change its playing formula.
Totally agree that Armageddon is a bad idea (even for humans...).
I presume the tiebreak was known before the tourney and one could say it's 'not good form' to criticize the method of tiebreak 'after the result (didn't go your way). Perhaps though you let it be known before the tourney started. But...again, I agree.
At least for human GMs, Armageddon as usually used is roughly "fair" though it is apt to favor players with particular styles or opening preferences. But with top engines, it should be obvious to anyone who follows results of engine tournaments or rating lists that the double time Armageddon used probably gives Black a 90%+ probability of winning if both engines are equal and top-notch. Anyway, I want to be on record as saying that it will be a bad idea for the overall WCC this week even if we end up winning it this way. Basically, it's almost like a coin-flip, whoever gets Black wins.
Larry - will the Dragon version which played in WCC be the next release and when is the next version due for release.
Congratulations! I was watching the games live. I liked Ginkgo's victory with black pieces against Chiron. Good job in the Giuoco Piano.
ICGA WCSC 2022: https://icga.org/?page_id=3539
Eternal happiness does not exist. Only happy moments exist.
Congratulations to Ginkgo. Regardless of the result, I must say that using Armageddon to break ties between the top engines is just ridiculous, the time odds mean very little whereas draw odds is overwhelming. Whoever wins the toss for Black is almost sure to win, might as well skip the game. Much better to keep shortening the time limit in pairs of games, even if you end up with a string of bullet games to decide. At least it would be fair.
Larry, I agree with that. At such a high and similar level of chess engines play, a draw in Armageddon seems much more likely than Armageddon in a game played by humans.
Certainly, this Championship in the next edition should change its playing formula.
Totally agree that Armageddon is a bad idea (even for humans...).
I presume the tiebreak was known before the tourney and one could say it's 'not good form' to criticize the method of tiebreak 'after the result (didn't go your way). Perhaps though you let it be known before the tourney started. But...again, I agree.
At least for human GMs, Armageddon as usually used is roughly "fair" though it is apt to favor players with particular styles or opening preferences. But with top engines, it should be obvious to anyone who follows results of engine tournaments or rating lists that the double time Armageddon used probably gives Black a 90%+ probability of winning if both engines are equal and top-notch. Anyway, I want to be on record as saying that it will be a bad idea for the overall WCC this week even if we end up winning it this way. Basically, it's almost like a coin-flip, whoever gets Black wins.
Larry - will the Dragon version which played in WCC be the next release and when is the next version due for release.
Yes, the plan is to release the WCC version (with minor mods, mostly related to LimitStrength and Time Management) soon, as soon as we can manage with conflicting vacation schedules etc.
JohnS wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 2:19 am
Larry - will the Dragon version which played in WCC be the next release and when is the next version due for release.
Yes, the plan is to release the WCC version (with minor mods, mostly related to LimitStrength and Time Management) soon, as soon as we can manage with conflicting vacation schedules etc.
Excellent Larry, looking forward to it. Will the new version be Dragon 3.x or Dragon 4.
Congratulations to Ginkgo. Regardless of the result, I must say that using Armageddon to break ties between the top engines is just ridiculous, the time odds mean very little whereas draw odds is overwhelming. Whoever wins the toss for Black is almost sure to win, might as well skip the game. Much better to keep shortening the time limit in pairs of games, even if you end up with a string of bullet games to decide. At least it would be fair.
Larry, I agree with that. At such a high and similar level of chess engines play, a draw in Armageddon seems much more likely than Armageddon in a game played by humans.
Certainly, this Championship in the next edition should change its playing formula.
Totally agree that Armageddon is a bad idea (even for humans...).
I presume the tiebreak was known before the tourney and one could say it's 'not good form' to criticize the method of tiebreak 'after the result (didn't go your way). Perhaps though you let it be known before the tourney started. But...again, I agree.
At least for human GMs, Armageddon as usually used is roughly "fair" though it is apt to favor players with particular styles or opening preferences. But with top engines, it should be obvious to anyone who follows results of engine tournaments or rating lists that the double time Armageddon used probably gives Black a 90%+ probability of winning if both engines are equal and top-notch. Anyway, I want to be on record as saying that it will be a bad idea for the overall WCC this week even if we end up winning it this way. Basically, it's almost like a coin-flip, whoever gets Black wins.
Yes, horrible for engines.
For humans, I actually like (but have never had the opportunity to play) the idea where each side 'bids' for how much time advantage you will give your opponent and get to pick the color you play if yours is the lower bid. That over...some coin flip (or whatever) where one side if forced to play black with draw odd or white and he must win. I wonder what kind of time odds a programmer would give to another programmer under such a tie-break scenario.
