Congrats What If! Lo siento jma03!Now it's a "must win" situation for grabuska, otherwise she finishes 2nd which is not bad at all!
Quote from: Jéré on November 05, 2016, 12:28:54 PMCongrats What If! Lo siento jma03!Now it's a "must win" situation for grabuska, otherwise she finishes 2nd which is not bad at all!Why?Is my score difference so much better? If so, I think the tournament rules are "wrong", in case a tie occurs, surely the game between the two should decide? Grabushka beat me, so...
Is my score difference so much better? If so, I think the tournament rules are "wrong", in case a tie occurs, surely the game between the two should decide? Grabushka beat me, so...
Quote from: What If? on November 05, 2016, 01:26:28 PMIs my score difference so much better? If so, I think the tournament rules are "wrong", in case a tie occurs, surely the game between the two should decide? Grabushka beat me, so...I also thought the first tiebreaker in a 2-person tie was head-to-head result between those two players. Danisthirty?
Quote from: jungleboy on November 06, 2016, 03:02:18 PMQuote from: What If? on November 05, 2016, 01:26:28 PMIs my score difference so much better? If so, I think the tournament rules are "wrong", in case a tie occurs, surely the game between the two should decide? Grabushka beat me, so...I also thought the first tiebreaker in a 2-person tie was head-to-head result between those two players. Danisthirty?I was the one who offered this tie-breaking system. I think that PD can show player's skill more than just one game's result. Carcassonne is a game where PD is unlikely to be the same to two or more players (unlike from football or hockey), so IMO PD is a better tie-breaker.
Quote from: danisthirty on November 07, 2016, 02:42:01 AMIt isn't especially uncommon for 3 players to be tied where A has beaten B, B has beaten C and C has beaten A. Who goes top then? C won't let A go on top because it should be him. But B won't let C go on top because it should be him. And A won't let B go on top for the same reason. So there needs to be something else, otherwise we have a 3-way stalemate. I know this isn't the same as a 2-way tie but it gets needlessly complicated when you start trying to resolve ties in different ways depending on how many people are involved. I'm not challenging the rules here, but I think you are making this sound more complicated than it is. Every major sports competition that I can think of with groups or pools uses head-to-head as the first tiebreaker, and points difference as the second tiebreaker, regardless of the number of teams tied. You seem to be trying to find a system where there is only one tiebreaker needed, but it's very common (at the Olympic Games for instance) to have five or six potential tiebreakers in case the first four or five do not break the tie, e.g. in your example of a three-way tie where the players/teams are all 1-1 against the other two players/teams.
It isn't especially uncommon for 3 players to be tied where A has beaten B, B has beaten C and C has beaten A. Who goes top then? C won't let A go on top because it should be him. But B won't let C go on top because it should be him. And A won't let B go on top for the same reason. So there needs to be something else, otherwise we have a 3-way stalemate. I know this isn't the same as a 2-way tie but it gets needlessly complicated when you start trying to resolve ties in different ways depending on how many people are involved.
But because I’m genuinely interested, put as simply as possible, how do you decide who goes at the top when 3 (or more) players have just as much right as each other to be there based on who has beaten who?
Just FYI: At the bottom of this page: http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=187&view=article (Recommended Tie-Break Systems) , "Direct encounter" appears to be consistently used as the first tie-breaker, then if tie is not resolved, move to another criterion, and so on.
In chess there is no other criteria, then win or loss. You cannot determine, how good particular win was, or how bad was the loss. In Carcassonne we have points, which can serve as a good criteria of player's skill. It motivates to fight till the end, at least to have minimum PD (just remember P&D finals, Jéré! ). In chess you can forfeit the game and just receive a win. But we need to play whole game, because every point matters.
(just remember P&D finals, Jéré! )
#4: Something else... Group points during first stage? Highest average score?
Started by OneEyedOwl
Started by loki
Started by danisthirty