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 particip
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,
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
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 co
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 t
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 s
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
