GROUP 13: Rounds 12 thru 16 and Standings To Date!

[geots]

These rounds, if I am not mistaken, have brought about a bit of jumping in the standings. But all seems to be going well with it.


Intel i5 w/4TCs
Fritz 11 gui/Fritz 13 gui
1CPU/32-bit or 64-bit where available
128MB hash
Bases=NONE [No egtb & no egbb]
Ponder_Learning=OFF
Perfect 2012b.ctg w/12-move limit
40/21 Repeating (Benched to adapt to CCRL 40/40)
RR with 2 cycles


Group 13
-----------


Round 12
-----------
ChessMind 0.82 v Matheus 2.3 (1-0)
Monarch 1.7 v Rhetoric 0.10.d (0-1)
Lime 66 v Jabba 1.0 (0-1)
Chesley r323 64-bit v Bubble 1.5 (1-0)
KnockOut 0.7.1 v BigLion 2.23x (1-0)
Kurt 0.9.3 x64 v BikJump 2.01 64-bit (1-0)
Prophet 2.0 b1 x64 v Carballo 0.5 (0-1)
Parrot 07.07.22 v Clarabit 1.00 64-bit (1-0)

Round 13
-----------
Clarabit 1.00 64-bit v ChessMind 0.82 (0-1)
Carballo 0.5 v Parrot 07.07.22 (1-0)
BikJump 2.01 64-bit v Prophet 2.0 b1 x64 (draw)
BigLion 2.23x v Kurt 0.9.3 x64 (1-0)
Bubble 1.5 v KnockOut 0.7.1 (draw)
Jabba 1.0 v Chesley r323 64-bit (draw)
Rhetoric 0.10.d v Lime 66 (0-1)
Matheus 2.3 v Monarch 1.7 (0-1)

Round 14
-----------
ChessMind 0.82 v Monarch 1.7 (1-0)
Lime 66 v Matheus 2.3 (1-0)
Chesley r323 64-bit v Rhetoric 0.10.d (1-0)
KnockOut 0.7.1 v Jabba 1.0 (1-0)
Kurt 0.9.3 x64 v Bubble 1.5 (1-0)
Prophet 2.0 b1 x64 v BigLion 2.23x (1-0)
Parrot 07.07.22 v BikJump 2.01 64-bit (0-1)
Clarabit 1.00 64-bit v Carballo 0.5 (1-0)

Round 15
-----------
Carballo 0.5 v ChessMind 0.82 (0-1)
BikJump 2.01 64-bit v Clarabit 1.00 64-bit (1-0)
BigLion 2.23x v Parrot 07.07.22 (draw)
Bubble 1.5 v Prophet 2.0 b1 x64 (0-1)
Jabba 1.0 v Kurt 0.9.3 x64 (0-1)
Rhetoric 0.10.d v KnockOut 0.7.1 (draw)
Matheus 2.3 v Chesley r323 64-bit (0-1)
Monarch 1.7 v Lime 66 (0-1)

Round 16
-----------
ChessMind 0.82 v Lime 66 (draw)
Monarch 1.7 v Chesley r323 64-bit (0-1)
Matheus 2.3 v KnockOut 0.7.1 (0-1)
Rhetoric 0.10.d v Kurt 0.9.3 x64 (1-0)
Jabba 1.0 v Prophet 2.0 b1 x64 (1-0)
Bubble 1.5 v Parrot 07.07.22 (draw)
BigLion 2.23x v Clarabit 1.00 64-bit (0-1)
BikJump 2.01 64-bit v Carballo 0.5 (0-1)

Code: Select all

Standings after Round 16
-------------------------

1.Chesley r323 64-bit  11.5
2.Kurt 0.9.3 x64       11.0
3.Parrot 07.07.22      11.0
4.KnockOut 0.7.1       10.5
5.ChessMind 0.82       10.0
6.Prophet 2.0 b1 x64    9.0
7.Carballo 0.5          8.5
8.BikJump 2.01 64-bit   8.5
9.Clarabit 1.00 64-bit  8.5
10.Lime 66              7.5
11.Rhetoric 0.10.d      7.5
12.BigLion 2.23x        5.5
13.Matheus 2.3          5.0
14.Bubble 1.5           5.0
15.Jabba 1.0            5.0
16.Monarch 1.7          4.0

I need help, and I will mention it in more than one of these threads in case any programmers watching happen to miss the ones w/o their engine.

The idea was to let group 14 at the bottom have a match between the top 2 finishers. And the same for group 1. And have a champion from those 2 groups.

I was then with the remaining 12 groups let top finisher in group 2 play top finisher in group 3 and then top finisher in group 4 play top finisher in group 5, etc. Then we would end up with 8 freeware champions.

I have been tossing around the idea in my mind to instead let the top 2 finishers in EACH GROUP FACE-OFF for the group championship. It would leave 14 champions instead of 8- but no doubt it would be much more competitive. Is 14 champions too many? Or does it sound better. As champion of group 4 could be over 100 elo stronger than champion of group 5. I will go with what the majority thinks- if only one person responds, I will do it his way.


Don't go anywhere- still more to come.


george

[mloftus955]

These rounds, if I am not mistaken, have brought about a bit of jumping in the standings. But all seems to be going well with it.


I need help, and I will mention it in more than one of these threads in case any programmers watching happen to miss the ones w/o their engine.

The idea was to let group 14 at the bottom have a match between the top 2 finishers. And the same for group 1. And have a champion from those 2 groups.

I was then with the remaining 12 groups let top finisher in group 2 play top finisher in group 3 and then top finisher in group 4 play top finisher in group 5, etc. Then we would end up with 8 freeware champions.

I have been tossing around the idea in my mind to instead let the top 2 finishers in EACH GROUP FACE-OFF for the group championship. It would leave 14 champions instead of 8- but no doubt it would be much more competitive. Is 14 champions too many? Or does it sound better. As champion of group 4 could be over 100 elo stronger than champion of group 5. I will go with what the majority thinks- if only one person responds, I will do it his way.


Don't go anywhere- still more to come.


george

I like the idea of the top 2 finishers of each group playing each other, especially when their totals are close. 14 programs for a play off is not too many for me.

Are you going to have the last place programs go down a group for next time and the top program move up a group.

Mark

[geots]

These rounds, if I am not mistaken, have brought about a bit of jumping in the standings. But all seems to be going well with it.


I need help, and I will mention it in more than one of these threads in case any programmers watching happen to miss the ones w/o their engine.

The idea was to let group 14 at the bottom have a match between the top 2 finishers. And the same for group 1. And have a champion from those 2 groups.

I was then with the remaining 12 groups let top finisher in group 2 play top finisher in group 3 and then top finisher in group 4 play top finisher in group 5, etc. Then we would end up with 8 freeware champions.

I have been tossing around the idea in my mind to instead let the top 2 finishers in EACH GROUP FACE-OFF for the group championship. It would leave 14 champions instead of 8- but no doubt it would be much more competitive. Is 14 champions too many? Or does it sound better. As champion of group 4 could be over 100 elo stronger than champion of group 5. I will go with what the majority thinks- if only one person responds, I will do it his way.


Don't go anywhere- still more to come.


george

I like the idea of the top 2 finishers of each group playing each other, especially when their totals are close. 14 programs for a play off is not too many for me.

Are you going to have the last place programs go down a group for next time and the top program move up a group.

Mark

Thank you Mark. I hope no one else gives an opinion/vote, so yours will win. That is what I want to do anyway.

As for the moving the engines up and down- I will have to look at getting help. Simply because to keep up with all these, it is taking more time to copy and post than you could ever imagine. I have thought about it, and really want to- but to do it right and not leave any decent engines out- I would have to find a guy who had some experience with this to help with the amount of work. I thought a lot more about it after Leo looked like he was giving it up, and then Chess Wars coming to an end. It would be the perfect time- but what I got here- one person cannot do it for the long haul.


Best, and thank you for your interest.

george

[tpetzke]

Here comes 2nd opinion, but fortunately I agree with mark. Play the playoff within one group if it is about to announce a winner.

If it is about to decide about promotion / demotion the 1rsts and the lasts of the next higher group should play a playoff. Which of course only make sense when it is a repeated event, which I hope

Thomas...

[geots]

Here comes 2nd opinion, but fortunately I agree with mark. Play the playoff within one group if it is about to announce a winner.

If it is about to decide about promotion / demotion the 1rsts and the lasts of the next higher group should play a playoff. Which of course only make sense when it is a repeated event, which I hope

Thomas...

Ok- the voting has ended. 2-0 in favor of a playoff within EACH group. That's sort of a mandate, isn't it.

Best,

gts

[mloftus955]

I like the idea of the top 2 finishers of each group playing each other, especially when their totals are close. 14 programs for a play off is not too many for me.

Are you going to have the last place programs go down a group for next time and the top program move up a group.

Mark[/quote]



Thank you Mark. I hope no one else gives an opinion/vote, so yours will win. That is what I want to do anyway.

As for the moving the engines up and down- I will have to look at getting help. Simply because to keep up with all these, it is taking more time to copy and post than you could ever imagine. I have thought about it, and really want to- but to do it right and not leave any decent engines out- I would have to find a guy who had some experience with this to help with the amount of work. I thought a lot more about it after Leo looked like he was giving it up, and then Chess Wars coming to an end. It would be the perfect time- but what I got here- one person cannot do it for the long haul.


Best, and thank you for your interest.

george[/quote]


Hi George,

I didn't know that Chess Wars was coming to an end, I followed those tourneys and will miss them. Life brings about changes, and some may get burned out from CC or move on to other things. I appreciate your efforts and energy in this, and will be following the tourneys. My interest has had a resurgence in the last 5 years.

Mark

[Carlos777]

I also like the idea of matches between first 2 engines of the same group better. It seems more fair.

I agree with Thomas about promotion/demotion in case you can/want to continue with more editions.

Thanks for running these tournaments.

Regards,
Carlos

[geots]

I also like the idea of matches between first 2 engines of the same group better. It seems more fair.

I agree with Thomas about promotion/demotion in case you can/want to continue with more editions.

Thanks for running these tournaments.

Regards,
Carlos

And thank you for your kind words and input. I cut the voting off after 2 votes in favor of a playoff within each group, as you like also. It was 2-0. 2 voters is enough, don't you think.


Best,

george