Carcassonne Central
Carc Central Community => Online Games and Competitions => World Cup of Carcassonne Central => Topic started by: What If? on November 05, 2016, 01:26:28 PM
-
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!
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...
-
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!
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...
This situation happened to me 2 times (last 2 World Cups I think). I finished second after winning against the first, due to the total point difference. Yes, it doesn't sound quite right but that's the way it has been for the last 3 years. Maybe in the future we could use a different tie-breaking method (perhaps like the World Championship in Essen) but for the current tournament it is not going to change.
-
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...
I also thought the first tiebreaker in a 2-person tie was head-to-head result between those two players. Danisthirty?
-
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...
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.
P.S. This tie-breaking system forces players to fight till the end! For example, if tie-breaker would be only head-to-head game, Grabushka wouldn't be interested to win or loose her last game. But now to top the group she is forced to win (or at least tie the game), which makes the game more interesting to play.
-
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...
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.
What he said! :(y)
When you take part in a league competition such as this, your performance is rated based on how you've performed overall which is the cumulative effect of the games you've played and no single game should be any more or less significant than any other. If you have a higher PD than someone else who has won the same number of games as you it is because you generally won by more points or lost by less points than they did overall, and this is what we're attempting to measure. Elo rankings are linked more directly to specific games but we're not trying to replicate that here.
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. C:-)
-
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. C:-)
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.
I’m certainly not closed to any suggestions that would improve things going forward, although this is (probably) the last tournament I will be running at CarcC and it isn’t up to me how MrNumbers chooses to continue...
If I’m making things more complicated than they need to be then I’ve failed, as I was trying to make the example above as clear as possible. 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?
My goal has always been to make the rules as fair and consistent as possible. I don’t see the benefit in using one criteria if two players are tied on points, and another if more than two players are tied on points because we already have a system that works in all cases, and which is balanced because it takes all games into account rather than just one or two that later turn out to have been more significant than others in terms of determining finishing position.
-
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?
In the competitions I follow / work at, the first tiebreaker is head-to-head. In a three-way tie, it's possible (and even likely) that the head-to-head is 1-1 for all three players. So you move to the second tiebreaker, which is points difference in the games between those players. If that still doesn't break the tie, the third tiebreaker might be points difference in all group games, or points scored in the head-to-head games, depending on the competition.
Anyway, I am merely pointing out that this is a common way to break ties in competitions like this one. I'm happy for this competition to use whatever tiebreaker system the administrator(s) want (within reason) as long as it is known to players before the competition.
:(y)
-
Just FYI:
At the bottom of this page: http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=187&view=article (see section G. 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.
Criteria are also listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tie-breaking_in_Swiss-system_tournaments and number 1 is "The result of the direct encounter(s) between the players (if any)".
-
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.
-
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.
I've to agree with MrNumbers and Dan on this. PD is the best performance and effort put on a competition when the scoring is "Carcassonne like".
-
I think w need to abide by the PD tie breaker rules fit this competition as they were what was set before the competition started. They are clearly in the rules sent out at the start.
Any discussion should only be around if the rules need to change for next time.
Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk
-
(just remember P&D finals, Jéré! ;) )
Indeed, very good example. Results here (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/community/index.php?topic=2595.msg39382#msg39382)
If we apply (what I consider) logic criteria:
#1: Group points. We all have 2 pts. Not resolved, next criterion.
#2: Direct encounter. MrNumbers can't be champion because he has lost against Merlin but Merlin can't be champion either because he has lost against Jéré. Not resolved, next criterion.
#3: Point difference. MrNumbers is +15, Merlin is -4, Jéré is -11. Resolved! MrNumbers is champion!
#4: Something else... Group points during first stage? Highest average score?
-
#4: Something else... Group points during first stage? Highest average score?
According to our tournament rules, next (and the last official one) criteria is total points scored.
-
Ok thanks. I was lazy to check. ;)
-
Just another example after than I :-X
To determine who finishes 2nd in Tower League Group A (Results here (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/community/index.php?topic=2763.msg41684#msg41684))
#1: Group points. Both MrNumbers and khalidqasrawi have 4 pts. Not resolved, next criterion.
#2: Direct encounter. MrNumbers won against khalidqasrawi. MrNumbers (2nd) finishes ahead of khalidqasrawi (3rd).
This appears to be fair and easy to apply. But anyway, I'm happy to go with whatever the organiser decides for the future tournaments. That was my last comment about this... we're quite off-topic now!
-
I prefer 1) Group Points then 2) Points Difference. Because it's simple. I like Group Points because that emphasises winning. I don't like Direct Encounter because it only works for 2 people in a simple way.
But, some games or pairings of player give rise to small scores when the game is played conservatively or defensively and others lead to high scores when play aggressively. When everything else has failed and I am clearly behind, I'd be happy to take a huge risk to try to win a game. Most likely I fail then my opponent might go from a small but definite points difference to a huge one through no skill on their part. Just saying. ;)