jesper_nielsen wrote:Thanks for running the tournament Graham!
Not quite a spectacular result for Pupsi, but we'll do better in the 18th series!
Kind regards,
Jesper
It was quite a close tournament when you look at the points spread. In such circumstances, a handful of poor games can make a crucial difference. Better luck next time.
Cheers,
Graham.
Thanks Graham,
It was a nail biter. Does the final standing mean that Gaviota saved its feathers? I am going to have to improve Gaviota substantially to guarantee that will remain in the group next time (let alone moving up...)
Overall, I am very happy because there is a clear improvement from the old version.
It was a nail biter. Does the final standing mean that Gaviota saved its feathers? I am going to have to improve Gaviota substantially to guarantee that will remain in the group next time (let alone moving up...)
Overall, I am very happy because there is a clear improvement from the old version.
When is the next round?
Miguel
Hi Miguel,
because Queen will no longer be eligible for the next series (the latest exe will be more than two years old and Leen has no plans to put out an updated version at this stage), Gaviota is spared going through the playoff process to retain its place.
I'll be starting the 18th series once the 17th series has finished. This means that Divisions 1-4 will likely start around the second week of January with Divisions 5-8 taking place once they've finished.
The gap between each series seems to be around 7-8 weeks at present.
I also need such a classification for my future tests.
I see that 12 engines are enough for a group in your tests.
What I am thinking is a broader selection with 20 engines
per group. Not having all of them in the tournaments, one
or double round with 10 - 15 engines. Mostly x64 and mp.
I'll include few w32 engines.
I also need such a classification for my future tests.
I see that 12 engines are enough for a group in your tests.
What I am thinking is a broader selection with 20 engines
per group. Not having all of them in the tournaments, one
or double round with 10 - 15 engines. Mostly x64 and mp.
I'll include few w32 engines.
What do you think about this conception?
Best,
Hi Harun,
I guess it is dependent upon the time control that you want to use and how long you want the tournament to run.
I find that 4 cycles is fairer than 2 cycles, which is why I switched from fields of 16 with 2 cycles to fields of 12 with 4 cycles.
I also find that if a tournament runs too long, I tend to lose interest and I guess others might too.
The other consideration is the elo spread of the field. Ideally, you want things to remain tight and interesting at both ends of the table.
I also need such a classification for my future tests.
I see that 12 engines are enough for a group in your tests.
What I am thinking is a broader selection with 20 engines
per group. Not having all of them in the tournaments, one
or double round with 10 - 15 engines. Mostly x64 and mp.
I'll include few w32 engines.
What do you think about this conception?
Best,
Hi Harun,
I guess it is dependent upon the time control that you want to use and how long you want the tournament to run.
I find that 4 cycles is fairer than 2 cycles, which is why I switched from fields of 16 with 2 cycles to fields of 12 with 4 cycles.
I also find that if a tournament runs too long, I tend to lose interest and I guess others might too.
The other consideration is the elo spread of the field. Ideally, you want things to remain tight and interesting at both ends of the table.
Cheers,
Graham.
Thanks, Graham. 16 engines 1 cycle is the one that I can think of now.
As soon as I have two quads or octals, 16 engines double round robin
seems to me to be the best option. I want to test hundreds of engines.
TC will not be longer than 5+1 or 5+2.
