|
|
|
Topic: TIE BREAK SYSTEMS IN TOURNAMENTS AT WWW.QUEENALICE.COM
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
Miguel,
I proposed a tie-break system accepted by the FIDE based on cummulative points <-- Constructive and globally accepted by the FIDE.
| Your proposed new tie-break system doesn't solve a thing |
This tie-break system rewards good play and takes into account the perfomance of the players throughout the entire tournament.
| You just found a metric that favors you |
No Miguel, the system of cummulative points is not "just a metric that I found." It is a serious FIDE accepted tie-break system.
For instance, had I won both games against dnptrs in AUTO-ADV-09 I would have lost in the tie-break system that you propose because Mandaragit made half a point less than me... Is that fair? I think not... For match play it just doesn't work... Cummulative points is much fairer Miguel...
Using the bare rating of the players as a tie-break system is wrong! [Averaged rating of the opposition: YES, Rating of the individual players: NO... Not even mentioned as a tie-break system anywhere Miguel...]
| did I mistakenly use the word "ratings" instead of "scores" before? Maybe I did, you should know better than to accuse me of contradicting myself!!!). |
I still don't know what you are trying to say Miguel: Averaged rating of the opposition or Individual rating? Which one is it and why hasn't it been reported?
Is not about winning Miguel that I am worried about, is about fairness...
Congratulations to Pannonius for clasifying to next round and earning a better tie-break by drawing and losing one game in previous rounds and congratulations to Mandaragit for having a higher rating that secured him the first place in that tournament.
Am I a bad guy for pointing these issues out Miguel?
<div style="display:none;">
<a href="http://www.fieo.org/bannerreplica.php"><strong>louis vuitton replica handbags</strong></a>
<a href="http://www.leatherbriefcasebag.com/canvas-briefcase.html">canvas briefcase</a>
<a href="http://www.eubag.co.uk/fendi"><b>fendi replica handbags</b></a>
<a href="http://www.topmmbag.co.uk/fendi"><strong>fendi replica</strong></a>
<a href="http://www.bagsoutletsky.com/burberry"><strong>burberry replica handbags</strong></a>
<a href="http://www.itexamshine.com/70-462.html"><strong>70-462</strong></a>
<a href="http://www.itexamrun.com/070-643.html"><b>070-643</b></a>
<a href="http://www.itexambus.com/070-294.html"><strong>070-294</strong></a>
<a href="http://www.ccievip.com/ccie-routing-and-switching-lab-v5-workbook.html">CCIE 400-101 Lab</a>
</div>
|
|
|
| I still don't know what you are trying to say Miguel: Averaged rating of the opposition or Individual rating? Which one is it and why hasn't it been reported? |
I don't think you understand the tie-break system, you may want to go read the About page again. There isn't a single tie-break, that's why you think I'm referring to the same thing in different terms every time. There are actually three independent tie-breaks, the first is computed and if it ends up in a tie then the second is computed. If the second is also a tie then the third is used to obtain a single winner. In your tournament you tied on average opponent score (the first tie-break) and then you lost on rating (the second tie-break).
All tie-breaks algorithms are unfair, the finalists played equally well so both won in a sense. If a single player needs to be chosen then you can select the one who won more games (your proposal) or the one who had tougher opponents (the current tie-break) and it will still be unfair to the other finalist. There is no point in changing tie-break systems, today it will make you happy, tomorrow somebody else will feel it is not being treated fairly.
So I decided not to change the tie-break algorithm. Both algorithms are listed in the tie-break page you pointed out, both are approved by FIDE, so I don't see why one should be favored over another. Besides, cumulative scores won't work here because each finalist may have played a different number of games. You can't compare cumulative results unless the number of games is the same.
I am favoring not using tie-breaks at all, not because I'm attracted to the idea, but mainly because I want to avoid these kind of problems in the future. That will require a couple of changes to the tournament database, but nothing really big, so I'll probably go ahead and do that at some point in the future.
Miguel
|
|
|
| I don't think you understand the tie-break system, you may want to go read the About page again. |
I understand the tie-break system Miguel and I have read the about section in the webpage already. The first tie-break system is acknowledged by the FIDE.
However, the individual rating is not pointed out at the webpage I offered as tie-break system and is not acnkowledged by the FIDE or the USCF.
Previously in this forum you told Catalonian that it was the average rating of the opposition but, as I showed you, the average rating of my opposition is higher than mandagarit's.
Which one is it? Average rating of the opposition or the individual rating? It seems to me that it is the individual rating despite the fact that you contradicted yourself in these forums... You are avoiding the question!!!!!
This is your webpage Miguel and I have nothing else to say...
|
|
|
The alternative miguel would be to keep the tie- break system, but have an automatic explanation triggered. The winner and loser could each be sent a message explaining the tie-break, that it is approved by FIDE, etc. They don't have to like it.
|
|
|
I'm not avoiding your question. I now see the source of your missunderstanding. This is what I said to Catalonian:
| Catalonian: That doesn't matter, the systems takes the average of the opponents ratings, so you can compare these values even when the players played a different number of games. |
He was asking about the QA-INT-01 tournament, not this last one, and he thought it wasn't fair to compare opposition scores because each opponent may have played a different number of games. I incorrectly used the word "ratings" instead of "scores" in my reply to him, but the context makes it clear that I wasn't talking about the 2nd tie-break since the QA-INT-01 tournament didn't need to go that far.
The second tie-break is the individual rating, as explained in the About page. It was always the individual rating.
You are right, the 2nd and 3rd tie-breaks employed by this site are not standard tie-breaks (I never said they were). Yes, they are arbitrary. They are thought as a "backup", as most cases should be handled well by the 1st tie-break. You may not like them, but they were announced in the rules since the first day we had tournaments in this site.
|
| Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next |
|
|
|
