|
|
|
Topic: TIE BREAK SYSTEMS IN TOURNAMENTS AT WWW.QUEENALICE.COM
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
In English:
OK, as difficult as this is I will discuss this in the forums to protest for the tie break systems used in this website.
In the tournament QA-INT-01 I managed to go unbeatten and only allowed two draws in the final round against Pannonius. Pannonius lost a game and drew one in the rounds before the final round thereby making less points than me.
The tie break system used by Miguel computed the points made by your opposition and used those points as a tie-break system. Had I agreed to a draw against Austin and resigned a game against Ruben the tie-break system would have been even.
This tie-break system rewards mediocre play and it is totally unfair!!!!! I repeat: It is totally unfair!!!!! When I showed this to Ruben he told me that this was stupid... It is stupid and very discouraging.
For the record: I sent my protest to Miguel about this and he did nothing about it. I also consulted the FIDE website to see what sort of tie-break system is this and found that the progressive scores is also a tie break system that acnowledges the performance of a player during the entire tournament... Here is a website for future reference:
http://www.swissperfect.com/handbook/tiebreak.htm
Miguel promised me that he was going to look into the tiebreak system... Since, Pannonius name has been placed as the winner of QA-INT-01 for too long a time, I belive that calling this to the attention of the community is futile...
Now, in the last tournament I played here I am punished for drawing against a player that clearly outrates me and the tiebreak system now is: YOUR RATING!!!! Doesn't the underdog (me) deserve to be rewarded for crushing his opposition in the very first round (I only allowed a draw against dnptrs who his rated higher than me) and holding himself against one of the higher rated players here with, as he said, inspired play?
This system of tie-break is also flawed! I deserve at least to share first prize with Mandaragit and I am sure that he feels the same about it! The rating is not a tie-break system! It is a kludge!
This is a very discouraging thing to happen and I feel that I have been robbed from QA-INT-01 and AUTO-ADV-09
Anyway, what's this tiebreak system called?
Now in Spanish...
Bien, a pesar de lo difÃcil que es esto voy a discutirlo en los foros para protestar el sistema de desempates usados en este sitio de internet.
En el torneo QA-INT-01 logré terminar invicto y solo me dejé empatar en dos partidas de la últmia ronda contra Pannonius. Pannonius mientras tanto perdió un juego y empato otro en rondas prévias haciendo en total menos puntos que yo.
El sistema de desempates usado por Miguel computa los puntos obtenidos por tu oposición y usa esos puntos en el desempate. Es decir, si yo hubiera accedido a unas tablas contra Austin y resignado un juego contra Ruben el sistema de desempate hubiera seguido igual.
Este sistema de desempate premia la mediocridad y es totalmente injusto!!!!! Repito: Es totalmente injusto!!!!! Cuando le mostré esto a Ruben el me dijo que esto es estúpido... Es estúpido y muy descorazonante.
Que conste en las actas: Le envié mi protesta a Miguel a este respecto y el no hizo nada. También consulté la FIDE para ver que clase de desempate es este y encontré que los puntos logrados a medida que progresaba el torneo tambien es un sistema válido de desempate que reconoce el desempeño de un jugador a lo largo del torneo... Acá hay un website para referencia ffutura:
http://www.swissperfect.com/handbook/tiebreak.htm
Miguel me prometió que iba a estudiar el sistema de desempate... Como el nombre de Pannonius ha sido anunciado por demasiado tiempo como el ganador del QA-INT-01, pienso que llamar la atención sobre este particular es futil...
Ahora, en el último torneo que acabé de jugar fuà castigado por lograr dos tablas contra un jugador que me aventaja claramente en rating y como todos los sistemas de tie-break daban como resultado igual Miguel decidió usar EL RATING!!!! como sistema de desempate. No les parece que el jugador chico (yo) merece ser premiado por haber destrozado sus oponentes en la primer ronda (solo le permità unas tablas a dnptrs que me aventaja sustancialmente en el rating) y haberse hecho respetar contra el jugador de mas alto rating acá, que dijo de mi juego "es bastante inspirado"?
Este sistema de desempate también está equivocado! Yo merezco por lo menos compartir el primer lugar con Mandaragit y estoy casi que seguro que el está de acuerdo conmigo! El rating del jugador no se constituye en un sistema de desempate! Esto es un arreglo chambón y trucho! (lease la definición en el diccionario de la RAE)
Esto es bastante descorazonante y me temo que fuà robado en los torneos QA-INT-01 y AUTO-ADV-09...
A todas estas como se llama el sistema de desempate en QA-INT-01?
|
|
|
He entrado en los dos torneos a los que se refiere Alopinto y pienso que debo comentar un par de consideraciones:
- En el torneo AQ-INT-01 el grupo de Pannonius en la ronda num 2 estaba compuesto de 4 jugadores y el de Alopinto de 3, con lo que los puntos que potencialmente podia ganar el primero eran más que el segundo. Asà , si el criterio de desempate son los puntos ganados, puede existir un agravio comparativo por el hecho de estar destinado a un grupo o al otro,no?
- Efectivamente en el AUTO -ADV-09 si el criterio de desempate es el rating del jugador, entonces no hay nada que decir, pero efectivamente podria parecer más justo que el jugador con mas rating deberia ganar y en las competiciones en las que el ELO sube o baja en funcion del rating del oponente, si tu empatas con otro jugador de más rating, tu ELO sube más, y el suyo baja.
Una opinión en este asunto : Se podrÃan establecer varios criterios de desempate, si al final de la partida se produce un empate a puntos: el rating de los oponentes ( si ganas a un oponente con un ratio mas alto, el punto vale más, el punto podria valer:
Ratio del oponente) *1000
Mi ratio
- I have entered in the two tournaments to those that Alopinto refers and I think that I should comment a couple of considerations:
the tournament AQ-INT-01 the group of Pannonius in the beat num 2 was made up of 4 players and that of Alopinto 3, with that that the points that potentially could win the first one they were more than the second. This way, if the approach of it brakes the tie the won points they are, can a comparative offense exist for the fact of being dedicated to a group or the other player ,no?
Indeed in the CAR -ADV-09 if the approach of it brakes the tie it is the player's rating, then there is not anything to say, but indeed it could seem fairrer than the player with but rating should win and in the competitions in those that the ELO ascends or it lowers in function of the opponent's rating, if your you tie with another player of more rating, your ELO it ascends more, and his low.
An opinion in this matter: Several approaches could settle down of it brakes the tie, if at the end of the departure a tie takes place to points: the rating of the opponents (if you win an opponent with a ratio but high, the point is worth more, the point could be worth:
Opponent rating *1000 (or 100)
My rating
|
|
|
| the tournament AQ-INT-01 the group of Pannonius in the beat num 2 was made up of 4 players and that of Alopinto 3 |
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.
|
|
|
Here is a website for future reference:
http://www.swissperfect.com/handbook/tiebreak.htm |
Alopinto, the first tie-break system explained in your page is the one on which I based mine. The only difference is that I'm doing an average instead of just a sum for the reasons explained above. I'm convinced that the idea behind the tie-break is valid, However, I can be convinced that I haven't implemented it in the correct way, or that for correspondence chess it is not the best tie-break. I'm really not clear on these subjects.
I told you last time that I understood your complaint and was going to think about how to improve the system. Unfortunately I haven't spent much time on the site lately as I'm having a heavy load of paid work. All the items in my list of features are taking longer than usual, not only this one.
It is my impression that you take it personally on me, as if I programmed the system to find the way to always tie-break against you and that is far from true. I have created this site with the best intentions, and try to be as fair as I can with everybody.
I would like to hear what other people think about the tie-break system I put in place as I'm not an expert in the matter. You just tell me that you deserved to win or find other tie-breaks that give you the victory, but that is not enough for me to make the change, because the next time some other player loses a tie-break I'll have more complaints.
So, basically, if anyone knows about the subject and would like to help improve the tie-break system, please step forward.
Question: would it be better to not have tie-breaks at all? That would be another option, I can let more than one people win a tournament.
Thanks.
Miguel
|
|
|
in my experience, the system of breaking a tie must be announced before the tournament has begun. in the absence of any prior announcement, both players must share 1st place.
In AUTO-ADV 09, yes i agree with ALOPINTO that we must share 1st place. besides, it's the 1st time that i ever heard of a tie-break based on average opponents ratings.
Anyway, what has been happening here so far is just part of growing big !!!
|
|
|
mandaragit, look in the web page that Alopinto found, the first group of tie-break systems explained there are the ones in which I based the average opponent rating tie-break. The standard way of doing it is with the sum of the scores, but since in our tournaments each player may end up playing a different number of games I have to normalize the metric to be able to make comparisons.
Also, the tie-break system has been made public since the first day we have tournaments. Look in the About page (Help section) for an explanation of the three tie-break algorithms currently in use.
Miguel
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next |
|
|
|
