6 views

Skip to first unread message

Jun 6, 2009, 1:02:27 PM6/6/09

to

Here I explain the meaning of the definition of Direct Comparison in

the EGF Tournament System Rules at

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/egftsr.html

The definition text is as follows:

the EGF Tournament System Rules at

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/egftsr.html

The definition text is as follows:

* A player's Direct Comparison is the Number of Wins Score of only the

games played against each other.

* If it results in a finer tiebreaking, then the definition is applied

iteratively: If an application still ties some players, then for them

the tiebreaker is applied again, not overwriting but fine-tuning its

previous application. This is sometimes possible if four or more

players are tied before the first application of Direct Comparison.

* However, in a McMahon or Swiss tournament or same stage of a

tournament, the above definition of Direct Comparison is overridden by

giving each player of mutually tied players the value 0 if they all

have not played the same number of games against each other.

The definition presumes an understanding of the Number of Wins Score,

the McMahon tournament system, and the Swiss tournament system. Also

here I assume that the two latter terms are known to the reader. It

should be pointed out though that Direct Comparision is a tiebreaker

that can be applied also in some other tournament systems, in

particular it is pretty common in a round-robin aka league. Although

many readers may know the meaning of Number of Wins Score, to be sure

I explain also this:

The Number of Wins Score of a player is the sum of his game result

values over all rounds of a tournament: 1 per win, 1/2 per jigo, 0 per

loss, etc. You find the complete list in the rules. Example: If, in a

5 rounds tournament, a player has won 3 of his games, made one jigo,

and lost one of his games, then - after the last round - his Number of

Wins Score is 3.5. In a team tournament, substitute "player" by

"team".

Now let us go to the first paragraph of the definition:

* A player's Direct Comparison is the Number of Wins Score of only the

games played against each other.

A particular player is considered in the definition. (Since "a player"

is generic, the definition applies to every player of the tournament

but only one player's Direct Comparison is calculated at a time.)

"Direct Comparison" is the name of the tiebreaker that is being

defined. Quite like one might define SOS in a text like "A player's

SOS is...", here we define Direct Comparison in the text "A player's

Direct Comparison is".

The verb "is" indicates that a definition is being given. At the same

time, the other two paragraphs of the definition should not be

overlooked, of course.

The most difficult part of the first paragraph may be the phrase

"played against each other". Only the "player" is mentioned in the

text, so who the hell is supposed to be playing against each other

here? We know that the thing to be defined is a tiebreaker. The

purpose of a tiebreaker is to make an attempt of breaking a tie among

players that are mutually tied just before application of the

tiebreaker. From this context (another equally likely, possibly

competitive context is unavailable), we imply that "played against

each other" refers to exactly all those players that include the

particular, currently considered player and the other players with

whom he is tied. Since in a tournament a player never plays a game

against himself, he cannot score any wins or jigos from such games.

Points in the Number of Wins Score he can collect only from games

against opponents. Hence, although the particular player is tied with

the other players, it suffices to consider the games he has played

against them.

"the Number of Wins Score of only the games played against each other"

should be clear now: It refers to the particular player's Number of

Wins Score of the games played against those opponents with that he is

still tied just before application of the Direct Comparison

tiebreaker. The "only" expresses that games against other players

(players not being involved in the tie (to be broken and including the

particular player) are ignored.

Example: Round-robin tournament after the last round, Placement

criteria are 1) Number of Wins Score ("Wins") and then 2) Direct

Comparison ("DC"):

Player P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 Wins DC Place

P1 - 1 1 1 1 1 5 - 1

P2 0 - 1 1 1 0 3 1 2

P3 0 0 - 1 1 1 3 0 3

P4 0 0 0 - 1 1 2 - 4

P5 0 0 0 0 - 1 1 1 5

P6 0 1 0 0 0 - 1 0 6

For P1, Direct Comparison is not applied because P1 is not tied on the

Number of Wins Score with any other player. Same for P4.

P2 and P3 are tied on the Number of Wins Score. Therefore, for each of

them, his Direct Comparison value is calculated. The games to be

considered are the games played against each other - this is exactly

the only one game of the pairing P2-P3. So let us consider the

particular player P2. In the game to be considered, he had a win

against P3. Therefore we add 1 for that win to P2's Direct Comparison

value. No more values need to be added since only one game was to be

considered. Thus P2's Direct Comparison sum value is 1. Let us now

consider P3 as the particular player. The same game is considered but,

for P3, it was a loss, i.e., 0 is added to his Direct Comparison

value. Since this is the only game to be considered, we have 0 as P3's

Direct Comparison value.

P5 and P6 are tied on the Number of Wins Score. The only interesting

game is from the pairing P5-P6. We proceed with the calculations quite

like we proceeded for P2 and P3.

Next we consider the second paragraph of the definition:

* If it results in a finer tiebreaking, then the definition is applied

iteratively: If an application still ties some players, then for them

the tiebreaker is applied again, not overwriting but fine-tuning its

previous application. This is sometimes possible if four or more

players are tied before the first application of Direct Comparison.

A typical application is in EGC side tournaments, which start with a

first stage in that groups of players each play a league. It has been

a tradition to apply Direct Comparison iteratively there. Therefore

this practice has found its way also into the definition.

It would not help much to try explaining the definition text with a

lot of words. An example is probably easier:

Player P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 Wins DC1 DC2 Place

P1 - 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 4 2 1 3 (shared)

P2 0 - 1 0 0 1 1 1 4 1 - 6

P3 0 0 - 1 1 1 1 0 4 2 1 3 (shared)

P4 1 1 0 - 1 1 0 0 4 3 - 2

P5 1 1 0 0 - 1 1 0 4 2 1 3 (shared)

P6 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 8

P7 0 0 0 1 0 1 - 0 2 - - 7

P8 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 - 6 - - 1

Players P1 to P5 are tied on Wins. Their games played against each

other are considered for Direct Comparison in its first iteration

step: P1-P2, P1-P3, P1-P4, P1-P5, P2-P3, P2-P4, P2-P5, P3-P4, P3-P5,

P4-P5. For each particular player of these five players, the sum of

their number of wins made IN THOSE GAMES is formed. This is given in

the column DC1.

Then still three of the players P1 to P5 are tied: The players P1, P3,

P5. So a next iteration step of Direct Comparion Application is

performed to them. It considers only these games: P1-P3, P1-P5, P3-P5.

The result is shown in the column DC2.

The Place is determined by first looking at Wins, then at DC1, then at

DC2. Unfortunately, even iterative application of Direct Comparison

has not broken all the ties since during the second iteration step a

so called three-way-tie has occurred between the players P1, P3, P5.

Consider a slightly different example:

Player P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 Wins DC1 DC2 Place

P1 - 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 4 3 0 3

P2 0 - 1 0 0 1 1 1 4 1 0 6

P3 0 0 - 1 1 1 1 0 4 2 - 4

P4 1 1 0 - 1 1 0 0 4 3 1 2

P5 0 1 0 0 - 1 1 1 4 1 1 5

P6 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 8

P7 1 0 0 1 0 1 - 0 3 - - 7

P8 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 - 5 - - 1

During the second iteration step of Direct Comparison Application, we

have the still tied players P1 and P4 and consider only their game

P1-P4, which P4 won. Therefore P4 gets a 1 and P1 gets a 0 in the DC2

column.

Furthermore we have the still tied players P2 and P5 and consider only

their game P2-P5, which P5 won. Therefore P5 gets a 1 and P2 gets a 0

in the DC2 column.

This time, iteratively applied Direct Comparison dissolves all ties.

Finally let us move to the third definition paragraph:

* However, in a McMahon or Swiss tournament or same stage of a

tournament, the above definition of Direct Comparison is overridden by

giving each player of mutually tied players the value 0 if they all

have not played the same number of games against each other.

While a round-robin or multiple round-robin tournament lets all

players play the same number of games against each other (even if we

consider only a subset of the players), in a tournament with a Swiss

or McMahon system, a set of mutually tied players might not have

played the same number (in almost all cases: 1) of games against each

other. If exactly two players are tied, then they have played the same

of games against each other: the one game in that they were paired

against each other. With 3 or more tied players, a complete implied

league among them is scarce but possible in principle.

Obviously it would be unfair to apply Direct Comparison to an

incomplete league. Therefore the tiebreaker is applied only trivially

then: each player involved in such a tie is given the default Direct

Comparison value of 0.

Example: Pairings of some players that are tied on Wins in a Swiss

tournament (X means "pairing did occur", % means "pairing did not

occur):

P1 P2 P3 P4

P1 - X X X

P2 X - X X

P3 X X - %

P4 X X % -

Since the pairing P3-P4 did not occur, all the players P1 to P4 get 0

as their Direct Comparison value.

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu