Every so often we get the situation where 2 or more people in a tournament finish with the same score. This can result in players not knowing how the final result was adjudicated and organisers having to decide at the time how to resolve it, neither of which is satisfactory for any of the parties concerned. I think it would be a good idea to have a standard way to resolve tiebreaks so that everyone knows what to do when it happens and how the eventual winner was determined. The following (in no particular order) are all methods that have been used or suggested:
1) Result of any head-to-head game between the players concerned.
2) Number of Army Breaks inflicted.
3) More granular scoring (using decimal values).
4) Results against common opponents.
5) Relative strength of opposition faced (based on their total scores/positions).
Which option (or sequence of options) do you think produces the fairest outcome?
I'm going to copy this thread on the Fog R forum as it happens there too.
Tournament tiebreaks
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Ghaznavid, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
-
- Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:30 pm
- Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Re: Tournament tiebreaks
What about checking to see how many points they bled to the opposition?
ps not too clear on how the existing scoring works lol
ps not too clear on how the existing scoring works lol
-
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8835
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
Re: Tournament tiebreaks
IMO
1) Result of any head-to-head game between the players concerned.
2) Relative strength of opposition faced (based on their total scores/positions).
3) More granular scoring (using decimal values).
4) Number of Army Breaks inflicted.
5) Results against common opponents.
Head to head must be the major one, just because it makes sense
Then having better results against the higher scoring opponents, means in the swiss scoring that they had a harder route to their tie.(not sure how you work that out though)
1) Result of any head-to-head game between the players concerned.
2) Relative strength of opposition faced (based on their total scores/positions).
3) More granular scoring (using decimal values).
4) Number of Army Breaks inflicted.
5) Results against common opponents.
Head to head must be the major one, just because it makes sense
Then having better results against the higher scoring opponents, means in the swiss scoring that they had a harder route to their tie.(not sure how you work that out though)
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
-
- Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
- Posts: 554
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:12 pm
- Location: Category 2
Re: Tournament tiebreaks
Tie's and Tiebreakers
Is not that this life and death..... how about "an honorable draw", being exactly that.
A tie is a tie that's it, no count back and no recrimination on organiser's for it.
S
Is not that this life and death..... how about "an honorable draw", being exactly that.
A tie is a tie that's it, no count back and no recrimination on organiser's for it.
S
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
A fool and his money are soon elected.
Will Rogers
Pitty the fool!!!
Mr T
Benjamin Franklin
A fool and his money are soon elected.
Will Rogers
Pitty the fool!!!
Mr T
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4957
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
- Location: Capital of the World !!
Re: Tournament tiebreaks
Countbacks are pretty easy to calculate in a spread sheetphilqw78 wrote: Then having better results against the higher scoring opponents, means in the swiss scoring that they had a harder route to their tie.(not sure how you work that out though)
Re: Tournament tiebreaks
I normally work this out on the spreadsheets.
It goes something like this:
(Sum all of the points all of your opponents scored) - (Sum all of the points your opponents scored against you)
So in the Challenge my countback would have been 246 and I think Grahams was 311.
It goes something like this:
(Sum all of the points all of your opponents scored) - (Sum all of the points your opponents scored against you)
So in the Challenge my countback would have been 246 and I think Grahams was 311.
Evaluator of Supremacy
Re: Tournament tiebreaks
Surely only "More granular scoring (using decimal values)" is required.
If the scores are calculated with a spreadsheet automatically rather than relying on antiquated ready reckoners (which all have errors) then there would be almost no chance of a draw.
Any number of decimal places can be taken into account to determine who actually has the higher score.
In the event that the scores really are exactly the same to any number of decimal places then there really is a draw.
If the scores are calculated with a spreadsheet automatically rather than relying on antiquated ready reckoners (which all have errors) then there would be almost no chance of a draw.
Any number of decimal places can be taken into account to determine who actually has the higher score.
In the event that the scores really are exactly the same to any number of decimal places then there really is a draw.
-
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8835
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
Re: Tournament tiebreaks
How granular did the scoring need to be in 2010 for me to agree with you?
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!