the MAIN goal of pairings is to match players (in what SHOULD be a SENSIBLE manner) to determine eventual outcome. ALL pairing systems should be adjusted AT SOME POINT to provide the opportunity to those players who can POSSIBLY win and cash.
As if the use of spread as tiebreaker is not idiotic enough, the spread rule of 500 is wickedly stupid. While it does not OFTEN effect pairings, it CLEARLY should NEVER.
In the absence of STANDARDIZED pairings (dat do whatdafuck dey SHOULD), all pairing system are flawed and hamstrung by idiotic rules.
The Fontes pairing system (dat lookback shit) is probly da best of a bad lot. but again, all pairing system should be adjustable as necessary (ask Rick n Jeff what dey used 2 do).
quad the field to start (first 3 games) or snake it, fontes swiss thereafter UNTIL backstretch--the point where whomever got a shot 2 win (or cash) GET IT (STANDARD according to tourney length or ALWAYS wif 3 rds to go).
bandaid a gunshot wound (yeah, a GOOD paining system--i SEE da typo--n moving money is juss what da dr ordered)...
the pairing system you're describing is exactly what was used this year at causeway. it was fun but there are some issues with it...I had a ton of back-to-back games against the same player because with X-2 in place, if you guys both won your last game before playing then you will most likely play again. it was quite an odd experience.
maybe X-2 but not looking at spread and pairing so as to minimize total repeats?
Disregarding spread and trying to minimize repeats sounds quite reasonable. If we can get fewer repeats at pretty much no extra cost, we should. Nice point!
As for your point about Jakkrit playing Nigel 5 times in a row, that doesn't seem so awful, unless they could've paired at differently as you pointed out.
also it seems worse for long tournaments. jakkrit had to play nigel richards 5 times in a row on day 2. it ends up being a matter of timing your winning streak to the right moment to end up in the money for places 6-10 (1-5 you more or less are going to have to have gutted it out the hard way for a lot of the tournament).
Well, Jesse's idea of least repeats within similar records should avoid this for the most part. If 1 and 2 are significantly ahead of the field though, this situation is still feasible: other players had a chance to catch them earlier in the tournament. Plus, if they are in such a situation, they will beat up on each other and lower-ranked players have a chance to catch up.
What you describe isn't that different from Swiss pairings or Chew pairings.
Early in the tournament, wouldn't it be better to treat all players with the same record as equals and pair them in a large group (rather than rating them strictly by spread as in a KOTH), and then towards the end of the tournament make it gradually more like a strict KOTH?
Treating all players with the same record as equals is "Jesse's idea" as aforementioned. Should we even have a strict KOTH until the last round? How much of a role do we want spread to play in the tournament at all?
Chew pairings and Swiss pairings seem okay, but I think they could do with fewer repeats, at least for people who are in contention. They also seem to give way too many people too much of a chance near the end of the tournament. I also agree with Marlon that the 500 rule is silly.
Tournament Scrabble isn't an ideal world. I personally think it's kind of silly, but people want to play as many opponents as they can. If they're spending $500 to go to a tournament, and can only afford to do it a couple of times a year, they don't want to play the same person 5 times in a 20 game tournament.
the KOTH-ish x-1 pairings at Causeway (I say -ish because every now and then they threw in groups-of-4-mini-round-robins) were interesting, and seemed to work fine, but I still think you'd have to deal with the PR aspects of pleasing people.
Maybe that's not what your after with this post; still something to consider, though.
Comments 33
As if the use of spread as tiebreaker is not idiotic enough, the spread rule of 500 is wickedly stupid. While it does not OFTEN effect pairings, it CLEARLY should NEVER.
In the absence of STANDARDIZED pairings (dat do whatdafuck dey SHOULD), all pairing system are flawed and hamstrung by idiotic rules.
The Fontes pairing system (dat lookback shit) is probly da best of a bad lot. but again, all pairing system should be adjustable as necessary (ask Rick n Jeff what dey used 2 do).
Reply
Reply
bandaid a gunshot wound (yeah, a GOOD paining system--i SEE da typo--n moving money is juss what da dr ordered)...
Reply
maybe X-2 but not looking at spread and pairing so as to minimize total repeats?
Reply
As for your point about Jakkrit playing Nigel 5 times in a row, that doesn't seem so awful, unless they could've paired at differently as you pointed out.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Early in the tournament, wouldn't it be better to treat all players with the same record as equals and pair them in a large group (rather than rating them strictly by spread as in a KOTH), and then towards the end of the tournament make it gradually more like a strict KOTH?
Reply
Chew pairings and Swiss pairings seem okay, but I think they could do with fewer repeats, at least for people who are in contention. They also seem to give way too many people too much of a chance near the end of the tournament. I also agree with Marlon that the 500 rule is silly.
Reply
the KOTH-ish x-1 pairings at Causeway (I say -ish because every now and then they threw in groups-of-4-mini-round-robins) were interesting, and seemed to work fine, but I still think you'd have to deal with the PR aspects of pleasing people.
Maybe that's not what your after with this post; still something to consider, though.
Reply
Leave a comment