[FSPA] FSPA: VÜK Results for 02/04/2018 (Meet #2)

[Dave Hubbard]

The tragedy in all this is that the result is the least intuitive - the
person who earned the most points moved DOWN, not up.  Fortunately, this
quirk doesn't happen often. :)

       --- Dave

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 7:05 PM, Joe Schober via FSPA <fspa at fspazone.org>
wrote:

> If you're not interested in FSPA rules pedantry, please just close this
> message now...
>
>
> Does anybody have an answer for this? I expect that if it is correct then
> the answer is going to be “effective points,”  but I wanted to throw this
> out to the entire list. Even if you consider effective points everybody
> would have been tied, so in my mind Peter still should have gotten the win.
> Is it somehow caused by Doru dropping out?
>
>
> Alright, I withdraw my earlier opinion on how this should've been
> resolved... I guess I should've looked and thought more, and typed less.  I
> now believe the software's solution as published is correct.
>
> Here's the letter of the law (FSPA rule 6.3):
>
> After each group match, players within each group are re-arranged in
> descending order based on their effective points earned in that match. In
> case of a tie, the player with the highest machine score in the last game
> commonly played by the tied players prevails. If this fails to resolve the
> tie, perhaps due to a full match forfeit, affected players will be ranked
> by their start-of-meet ladder orders.
>
>
> In the case of VÜK week 2 group 8, we clearly have a four-way tie of
> effective points, so we have to examine further.  The only tie that can be
> resolved by comparing "highest machine score in the last game commonly
> played" is between Peter and John, where Peter has the edge.  No machine
> score comparison is possible involving Brian or Doru, so those fall to the
> final (guaranteed resolvable) tiebreaker of "start-of-meet ladder orders".
> There, John is ahead of both Brian and Doru, and Peter trails both Brian
> and Doru.
>
> So the conditions that are presented are:
>
> John > Brian
> John > Doru
> Peter > John
> Brian > Peter
> Doru > Peter
>
> Unfortunately, these conditions can't all be met -- it's a circular
> comparison.  So because the secondary tiebreaker fails to resolve the
> overall tie, the code solely uses the tertiary tiebreaker -- initial ladder
> position -- to resolve group movement.
>
> I'll look it over a little more after league, but for now I'm thinking
> it's correct as it stands.  Anyone feel free to ping me if I've missed
> something in the analysis.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --Joe
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FSPA mailing list
> FSPA at fspazone.org
> http://lists.fspazone.org/mailman/listinfo/fspa
>
>


-- 
"Never give up on something that you can't go a day without thinking about."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fspazone.org/pipermail/fspa/attachments/20180205/57617aff/attachment.html>