[computer-go] Format of the UEC Cup
Shunsuke SOEDA wrote: Another reason we chose the single elimination tournament, is that the finals in the single elimination is the "finals", while in other matching systems, the final game might become a dull game. We know that we are sacrificing accuracy, and do want to know what the participants (and might-be-participants) think about how the tournament should be organized. #This includes opinions on how should remote attendance be allowed At first, I was also surprised by the format of the tournament. From a statistical point of view, it certainly does not rank participants in the most accurate possible order. But the ranking of a 9-round tournament always depends a lot on luck, anyways. The advantage of direct elimination is that there is no risk of tie, and it makes the final rounds more exciting. I think the format is very good. Still, I have a couple suggestions. First, it might be better to let everybody play in the qualification tournament, even the previous top 4. The quality of pairings in the second day depends a lot on the quality of ranking of the qualification tournament. Strong programs would have no difficulty to qualify, anyways. And a program that loses a game because of technical problems can try to fix the technical problem for the next game (or the next day). Also, some participants may feel frustrated that they were eliminated in the first day. Maybe they could play swiss between them in the second day. Regarding remote play, I don't like it, but that is probably because I don't profit from it, whereas my strongest opponents do :-) It seems that the UEC Cup is very well organized, and I thank you very much for your work. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: Results of the 2nd UEC Cup (Re: [computer-go] UEC cup)
Thank you for your suggestion David. On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:48 PM, David Fotland wrote: > One option is to reduce the time limit from 40 minutes to 30 minutes to add > another round. You can seed a swiss competition so it is likely that the > best programs will meet in the last round. Well, we have thought of making the games shorter, but we were concerned of the effect it might give to the results of the tournament. #I understand that shorter games will work against MC based programs. If 40 minutes is too long for most programs, we would certainly like to move to shorter games. Regards, Shunsuke Soeda ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Format of the UEC Cup
Thank you for you suggestions, Rémi. To tell the truth, I was also surprised by the format of the tournament when I first heard it last year, and still in doubt if it is a good way to organize the tournament. #Especially when the top four programs get seeded next year. I did not come up with the idea of having no seeds, it is certainly worth discussing. Organizing a 'minor league' is difficult due to the number of participants and the availability of space, but we might be able to organize one if we are able to afford more rooms. On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Rémi Coulom wrote: > Shunsuke SOEDA wrote: >> >> Another reason we chose the single elimination tournament, is that >> the finals in the single elimination is the "finals", while in other >> matching >> systems, the final game might become a dull game. >> >> We know that we are sacrificing accuracy, and do want to know >> what the participants (and might-be-participants) think about how the >> tournament should be organized. >> #This includes opinions on how should remote attendance be allowed >> > > At first, I was also surprised by the format of the tournament. From a > statistical point of view, it certainly does not rank participants in the > most accurate possible order. But the ranking of a 9-round tournament always > depends a lot on luck, anyways. The advantage of direct elimination is that > there is no risk of tie, and it makes the final rounds more exciting. I > think the format is very good. > > Still, I have a couple suggestions. > > First, it might be better to let everybody play in the qualification > tournament, even the previous top 4. The quality of pairings in the second > day depends a lot on the quality of ranking of the qualification tournament. > Strong programs would have no difficulty to qualify, anyways. And a program > that loses a game because of technical problems can try to fix the technical > problem for the next game (or the next day). > > Also, some participants may feel frustrated that they were eliminated in the > first day. Maybe they could play swiss between them in the second day. > > Regarding remote play, I don't like it, but that is probably because I don't > profit from it, whereas my strongest opponents do :-) > > It seems that the UEC Cup is very well organized, and I thank you very much > for your work. > > Rémi > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > -- Shunsuke SOEDA ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: Results of the 2nd UEC Cup (Re: [computer-go] UEC cup)
Shunsuke SOEDA: <7ca74f090812180133w3fbf7820g7dac320fded34...@mail.gmail.com>: >Thank you for your suggestion David. > >On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:48 PM, David Fotland >wrote: >> One option is to reduce the time limit from 40 minutes to 30 minutes to add >> another round. You can seed a swiss competition so it is likely that the >> best programs will meet in the last round. >Well, we have thought of making the games shorter, but we were concerned of >the effect it might give to the results of the tournament. >#I understand that shorter games will work against MC based programs. > >If 40 minutes is too long for most programs, we would certainly like to move to >shorter games. I asked a stuff to make 40 min to 30 or 20 min but it's hard to accept because: 1) For the exhibition, 40 min (or longer) time control would be better. 2) It may take long time to tune (classical) programs up for a time control. (I'm not sure about this because I have few experiments on classical programs. I guess David knows well.) 3) Forcing participants to prepare two versions, one for 40 min and the other for 30 or 20 min is not a good idea. Then, single time control, 40 min SD, is used for all the games through the tournament. BTW, I believe 40 min SD gives MC programs some advantage. -Hideki -- g...@nue.ci.i.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Kato) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Format of the UEC Cup
The accuracy of an elimination (sometimes called knockout) tournament is greatly enhanced if the pairings are done correctly, which depends on having a fairly reliable indication of the strength of the programs. Was this done? The idea is that early rounds should be forgone conclusions - the top half essentially plays the bottom half in the first round for instance, and the the best 2 players meet in the final round. If it's paired EXACTLY by strength and there are no upsets, then in each round half of the players are eliminated, and it's always the weakest half. Of course that is the ideal case - there are always upsets even if minor because the strongest player is never guaranteed a win and it's pretty much impossible to rate players perfectly. It is possible to pair players in such a way that the strongest player has low odds of winning too and you want to avoid that. For example it's clearly wrong to pair the best 2 players in the first round of a knockout tournament. - Don On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 10:16 +0100, Rémi Coulom wrote: > Shunsuke SOEDA wrote: > > Another reason we chose the single elimination tournament, is that > > the finals in the single elimination is the "finals", while in other > > matching > > systems, the final game might become a dull game. > > > > We know that we are sacrificing accuracy, and do want to know > > what the participants (and might-be-participants) think about how the > > tournament should be organized. > > #This includes opinions on how should remote attendance be allowed > > > > At first, I was also surprised by the format of the tournament. From a > statistical point of view, it certainly does not rank participants in > the most accurate possible order. But the ranking of a 9-round > tournament always depends a lot on luck, anyways. The advantage of > direct elimination is that there is no risk of tie, and it makes the > final rounds more exciting. I think the format is very good. > > Still, I have a couple suggestions. > > First, it might be better to let everybody play in the qualification > tournament, even the previous top 4. The quality of pairings in the > second day depends a lot on the quality of ranking of the qualification > tournament. Strong programs would have no difficulty to qualify, > anyways. And a program that loses a game because of technical problems > can try to fix the technical problem for the next game (or the next day). > > Also, some participants may feel frustrated that they were eliminated in > the first day. Maybe they could play swiss between them in the second day. > > Regarding remote play, I don't like it, but that is probably because I > don't profit from it, whereas my strongest opponents do :-) > > It seems that the UEC Cup is very well organized, and I thank you very > much for your work. > > Rémi > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] UEC cup
Michael: Let's say that active Pros should have 2800+, though players with 2750+ might still be professional strength. I think by that definition there would be many players with a professional rank who wouldn't have professional strength. I don't see any point in arbitrarily picking a EGF rating number and then defining it as the dividing line for professional strength. What is the basis for the number 2750? And why would 2750 be better than 2700? Michael: Catalin was over 2800 during his time as an active pro (peaking at 2821 in 2004). He has obviously gotten weaker since he stopped playing pro tournaments, just like Guo, who has been out of the pro scene for so long that I think it's fair to say she doesn't have pro strength anymore. I can imagine that Catalin and Guo won't be able to compete at 5p level anymore, but you think it is fair to say they dropped below professional strength altogether. Why do you think that's fair to say? It's true that professional ranks reflect lifetime achievements and not current strength, but strong players don't just lose a couple of stones in strength when they stop competing actively. The may lose some strength, but only a little: about one stone at most. So a former 1p may drop below professional level, but a former 5p is likely to keep professional strength with progressing age). To me, having a professional rank defines professional strength (perhaps excepting pensioned 1p and 2p pros). And if amateurs can compete with weaker professionals, they have professional strength. That's it. Dave ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] UEC cup
Of course it would be nice to have a standardized ELO based system so that you can compare ratings directly. But this seems unlikely to happen on purpose. The way it could happen is if some organization becomes the defacto standard due to popularity - but I don't think that has happened even in chess. Of course there is FIDE which is international, but not used for lesser events that the average Joe plays in. I don't like the term professional attached as a title. You are professional if you make a living doing something, right? But I think there needs to be titles AND ratings. Titles do not have to be based on ratings, it could be based on specific achievements and once you have a title it seems to me that you should get to keep it - as a matter of dignity. At least for certain kinds of title. "World Champion" of course is not a title you get to keep. - Don On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 21:53 +0100, dave.de...@planet.nl wrote: > Michael: > > Let's say that active Pros should have 2800+, though > players with 2750+ > might still be professional strength. > I think by that definition there would be many players with a > professional rank who wouldn't have professional strength. > I don't see any point in arbitrarily picking a EGF rating number and > then defining it as the dividing line for professional strength. What > is the basis for the number 2750? And why would 2750 be better than > 2700? > > Michael: > > Catalin was over 2800 during his time as an active pro > (peaking at 2821 in 2004). He has obviously gotten > weaker since he > stopped playing pro tournaments, just like Guo, who > has been out of the > pro scene for so long that I think it's fair to say > she doesn't have pro > strength anymore. > > I can imagine that Catalin and Guo won't be able to compete at 5p > level anymore, but you think it is fair to say they dropped below > professional strength altogether. > Why do you think that's fair to say? > > It's true that professional ranks reflect lifetime achievements and > not current strength, but strong players don't just lose a couple of > stones in strength when they stop competing actively. > The may lose some strength, but only a little: about one stone at > most. So a former 1p may drop below professional level, but a former > 5p is likely to keep professional strength with progressing age). > > To me, having a professional rank defines professional strength > (perhaps excepting pensioned 1p and 2p pros). And if amateurs can > compete with weaker professionals, they have professional strength. > That's it. > > Dave > > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
