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

[Tim of Premier Amusements]

If I am not mistaken, the spirit of the effective point rule is to prevent players from gaining an advantage (moving down a group) after forfeiting games in a match.  I wonder what affect it would have if the first tie breaker was “number of forfeits” ?

 

 

From: FSPA [mailto:fspa-bounces at fspazone.org] On Behalf Of Joe Schober via FSPA
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 7:05 PM
To: FSPA main discussion list <fspa at fspazone.org>
Cc: Joe Schober <afljoeys at aol.com>
Subject: Re: [FSPA] FSPA: VÜK Results for 02/04/2018 (Meet #2)

 

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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fspazone.org/pipermail/fspa/attachments/20180205/52f60915/attachment.html>