Ranking Of Master B

[Spock]

Hi Toma!

The rules are not clear!
Especially not point 3) (Direct Match against each other, if same  number of
wins ) is not clear for me.
You wrote in your annoucement: Then between the 4, I have dorbel and Sakis with 2 win ans 1  loss
and tryout and spock with 2 loss and 1 win.
Ok this is point 3)....but you also wrote: So I put dorbel and Sakis ahead  
and beetween this 2 players dorbel won over sakis and spock vs tryout.
What is this...point 3a)??
This is not what the rules state!
At least here you have to use point 4) but anyway...I think point 3)  is not
applicable in this case (4 players at the same score)...so there must be  a
better way to find out the best of them.

Kindest regards

Spock

[Tomawaky]

Hello ;-)

Point 3 (Direct Match against each other, if same number of wins) is very clear for me even if not put in detail in my rules.

I took all the players with the same number of point and look only the results if there was a league between us

so I have the results below
          dorbel sakis tryout spock win lost pts
dorbel     -        W      L        W    2    1     7pts
sakis       L        -       W       W    2    1     7pts
tryout     W        L       -        L     1    2     5pts
spock      L        L       W       -     1    2     5pts

and then i look the match vs the 2 better.


Believe me, we worked hard to find the better solution to have rules for all case and not have any discussion and I thanks "cht" who helped me a lot for this.
I think the rules are clear and until now I found always a solution to decide between players

[tryout]

Here is my point of view. I think Spock's question is justified.

As I wrote already on the mailing list according to rules number 1) and 2) the four players above are level. Rule 3) says "Direct Match against each other, if same number of wins". Since it's formulated in singular my understanding of it was that it's not applicable to more than 2 players.

Furthermore, while your laid out scheme does find a ranking, it comes a bit unexpected. I had thought something not trivial should be described beforehand.

Whether it's the best or fairest is questionable, though. In the case at hand e.g. I beat dorbel; so why should he be ahead of me if the direct match counts?
(I had taken another example, but the match between dorbel and me is the only one which defies the ranking you came up with. Also, I guess I need to point this out, I'm in no way saying I should be 2nd. Anybody thinking otherwise would just be plain silly.)

Btw, if rule 4) was applied, sakis would be 2nd.

[Tomawaky]

Rules 4 would have been applied in case all of you were at, for exemple, 2wins 1loss.
It has already happen and already applied.

If possible I do not use this rules that is for me more unfair that a compare between match played vs all players of the same rank.

[adamosad]

Hi Tomawaky,

Maybe you should add more details or/and your example above to fibsleagammonââ,¬â,,¢s rule page. This will help you to avoid similar situations (confusion) in the future.  

[dorbel]

Tomawaky's method of dividing a four way tie is probably the fairest that can be devised, but the rules as published would not actually lead anybody to deduce that this is how it would be done. As ties are the exception rather than the rule, it should be spelled out clearly. Perhaps somebody with English as a first language (and who ideally speaks French fluently) should assist Tomawaky to redraft some of these paragraphs. I am the beneficiary of the rule this time, but I seem to remember at least one occasion in the past when I expectd to be in the playoffs, but didn't make it.  

[Spock]

Toma, in my opinion it is not possible to rule like that. You applied rule 3) twice!! What you did is not described anywhere! When rule 3) like it's written doesn't come to a distinguishable result the next rule has to be applied.
So far nobody, except tryout, has given any reasons for their opinions or action. Could you please give arguments and not say you put some effort in it or you believe it's ok? I also think that rule 3) is unfair. The procedure just ignores parts of the match results. It's not clear to me why some matches should be more important than others.

Kindest regards

Spock

[Tomawaky]

Tomawaky's method of dividing a four way tie is probably the fairest that can be devised, but the rules as published would not actually lead anybody to deduce that this is how it would be done. As ties are the exception rather than the rule, it should be spelled out clearly. Perhaps somebody with English as a first language (and who ideally speaks French fluently) should assist Tomawaky to redraft some of these paragraphs. I am the beneficiary of the rule this time, but I seem to remember at least one occasion in the past when I expectd to be in the playoffs, but didn't make it.

Yes help would be appreciate

[Tomawaky]

Toma, in my opinion it is not possible to rule like that. You applied rule 3) twice!! What you did is not described anywhere! When rule 3) like it's written doesn't come to a distinguishable result the next rule has to be applied.
So far nobody, except tryout, has given any reasons for their opinions or action. Could you please give arguments and not say you put some effort in it or you believe it's ok? I also think that rule 3) is unfair. The procedure just ignores parts of the match results. It's not clear to me why some matches should be more important than others.

Kindest regards

Spock

Yes rule 3 is not described in detail even if for me it's very clear and I has always done like this. But If you or somebody else can help me to put in word. I would appreciate much.

Why do you find rules 3 unfair ?
When people have same number of points I must chose a way to distinguish them.
I have chosen to do it by just look matches played between players with the same number of points. It's my choice an we took time with some other to find the best way. This was the best rules we have found at the time.
Now if you consider it is not, can you explain why and what can be done better ?

[tryout]

Why do you find rules 3 unfair ?

You don't take all matches equally into account. By splitting the procedure in 2 steps some matches receive more value than others. This can't be right.

Once more in detail and repeating my question (see my posting above): You're looking at "direct matches". How could it be justified that player A, that lost to player B, is ahead of player B?
In the current case you simply disregard one match result.

[Tomawaky]

It is incredible all the same people who wish to criticize and see the bad points without being able to propose solutions or improvements.

The trouble is that when we take all matches equally into account, the players are equal with the same number of points.
And for your second point tryout it can happen that the first of a league don't win all of his matches and then can we consider that if he only lost 1 match the player who bet him must be ranking over him ?

Don't be silly. Stop making the child Tryout.
That's another time ridiculous.

[socksey]

I think the suggestion that someone who speaks both English and French fluently help reword the rules to be more precise is the way to go.  The more I read of the rules and the comments, the more confused I am becoming.  

socksey



"Will the Minister explain how it is that an inedible tinned food can become an unsolicited email, bearing in mind that some of us wish to be protected from having an email?" ââ,¬â€œ Lord Renton, British MP, during debate on restricting spam e-mails 5/22/03

[tryout]

Don't be silly. Stop making the child Tryout.
That's another time ridiculous.

HUH??

First you ignore all presented arguments in this thread, don't give any reasons yourself and now you're even insulting! Go figure.

It is incredible all the same people who wish to criticize and see the bad points without being able to propose solutions or improvements.

You couldn't go lower than that, could you? If I may help your memory it's me who has helped you immensely with FLG in various ways.

The trouble is that when we take all matches equally into account, the players are equal with the same number of points.
And for your second point tryout it can happen that the first of a league don't win all of his matches and then can we consider that if he only lost 1 match the player who bet him must be ranking over him ?

Apparently, you didn't (want to?) understand anything I wrote.

First of all, it's a must with any ranking rules that all matches are treated equally. How can you say there's trouble with this?

This can of course lead to ties between players. We obviously have such a case.

That "[if] the first of a league lost 1 match the player who bet him must be ranking over him" is spectacular nonsense.
It should be incredibly obvious that we're not talking about a normal ranking situation where one player has more points than another!

We are talking about a tie resolution, in which players by definition have the same number of points. Else it wouldn't be a tie.

And rule 3) specifically talks about "direct match"(es). In this light, and only in this since the preceding ranking rules didn't come to a distinguishable result, I asked "How could it be justified that player A, that lost to player B, is ahead of player B?".
Again: because the players have the same number of points and the rule that is in effect is rule 3) and it compares "direct match"(es). If we only look at the direct match now because the rules before were not enough, how could this be?

[Tomawaky]

I give up.
My english is certainly too poor So I have the impression that we do not speak same the language. And the last exchanges with you let me think that it would never be possible.

Yes you helped me in the past, but as you say it is the past.
And it was maybe immensely for you ..... but another time I prefer to think that my english is too bad to understand what you try to tell.


Is any body else to have a constructive discussion ?

either to find a better resolution tie

or to put in good english words the actual rules that I explained

[socksey]

I asked "How could it be justified that player A, that lost to player B, is ahead of player B?".

This seems reasonable to me.  I'm still trying to understand it all, but if all was tied to that point, it would seem that player B would have to have the edge.

We still have no volunteer who speaks both French and English fluently.  Can anyone volunteer to help?  Spock, is your French as good as your English?

Don't give up, Tom!  We will find a solution.  

socksey



"A woman broke up with me and sent me pictures of her and her new boyfriend in bed together. Solution? I sent them to her dad." - Christopher Case  

[Tomawaky]

I asked "How could it be justified that player A, that lost to player B, is ahead of player B?".

This seems reasonable to me.  I'm still trying to understand it all, but if all was tied to that point, it would seem that player B would have to have the edge.

Tryout tries to play with the words, by proposing a formula with 2 unknown factors to us, whereas my problem comprises 4 of them.

And this problem have been exposed before : 4 players with same number of win, of loss and Points in the same division.

To resolve the Tie I have choosen to extract the 4 players with the same number of point and look only the results between them all

so I have the results below which was not so clear in text mode

--------|-dorbel---sakis---tryout---spock-|--win---lost---pts
--------|--------------------------------------|---------------------
dorbel-|------------W--------L--------W----|--2-----1----7pts
sakis--|----L-----------------W-------W----|--2------1----7pts
tryout-|---W-------L------------------L-----|--1------2----5pts
spock-|----L-------L---------W-------------|--1------2----5pts

(W for win, L for loss)

So now I can distinguish theme all cause dorbel and sakis have 7pts (3+3+1)
- dorbel win over sakis and spock
-sakis win over tryout and spock

And tryout and spock only 5Pts (3+1+1)
- tryout only win over dorbel
- spock only win over tryout

And for the match between dorbel and sakis, this is dorbel who win.

So dorbel his ranking on top.

[socksey]

Thanks, Tom, I think I have it now, and I think you are right.  

socksey



"Relationships are hard. It's like a full-time job, and we should treat it like one. If your boyfriend or girlfriend wants to leave you, they should give you two weeks' notice. There should be severance pay, and before they leave you, they should have to find you a temp." - Bob Ettinger

[adamosad]

Let me give a small summary for Socksey.

These 4 people had the same points. So only one could take the second place and went to league semi-finals. As long as all had the same wins (Rule 2), the next rule could show us who would advance to semi-finals.

Rule 3 (As it is shown in fibsleagammon page):  Direct Match against each other, if same number of wins.

The disagreement of Tomawaky and Tryout is for this rule. I understand the process that Tomawaky describe above and I think it is fair BUT Tryout is right that this process is not like as it is described. That is why I suggest to Tomawaky to extend this rule with more info and examples to give a clear picture to the players.

According to Tryout "The direct match" words are only for 2 players. So the next rule (4) had to give us the winner. (I do not understand rule 4 completely. Tomawaky can you give me an example about this rule?)

So Tomawaky have to do one of those: 1) Leave the rule as it is and follow the Tryout process or 2) Modify the rule to make it clear to the public what that rule actually means and continue using the method that he describe above.

Suggestion for Tomawaky (modification of the rule): 3)  If same number of wins, Direct Match against each other (in case of 2 players) and sub-league ranking for that players only according to rules 1 and 2  (in case of more than 2 players). Socksey can you make this rule better now that you understand the point?

[socksey]

3) Direct Match against each other, if same number of wins

For this one, I might say, "3) In the case of a tie with 2 players, the winner will be determined by the match already played between the two.  No final match will be played."

4) Accumulated score of defeated players (for each player, sum the scores of the players he won against), if among three or more players, direct matches equal out (e.g. 1-1, or 2-2,...).

For this one, I might say, "4) In the case of a tie with multiple players, the direct matches already played against each other will count 3 point for win and 1 point for loss to determine the highest 2 players and then the league match already played between those 2 players will determine the league champion."

5) Direct Match of best 2-ply scores-players, if same accumulated score.

Rule 5 can be eliminated.

I must add that I like playoffs for players with same points, but that would be more time consuming and a bit more complicated than this method.

socksey



"I'm a psychic amnesiac. I know in advance what I'll forget." - Michael McShane

[Tomawaky]

3) Direct Match against each other, if same number of wins

For this one, I might say, "3) In the case of a tie with 2 players, the winner will be determined by the match already played between the two.  No final match will be played."

I like adamosad rules posted upper for 3)
in case of 2 players : If same number of wins, Direct Match against each other
in case of more than 2 players sub-league ranking for that players only according to rules 1 and 2
( => And then direct match between the 2 last top players if necessary)

4) Accumulated score of defeated players (for each player, sum the scores of the players he won against), if among three or more players, direct matches equal out (e.g. 1-1, or 2-2,...).

For this one, I might say, "4) In the case of a tie with multiple players, the direct matches already played against each other will count 3 point for win and 1 point for loss to determine the highest 2 players and then the league match already played between those 2 players will determine the league champion."

In case we can distinguish players with rule 3 then use the rule 4
Rules 4) Accumulated score of defeated players (for each player, sum the scores of the players he won against), if among three or more players, direct matches equal out (e.g. 1-1, or 2-2,...).

This is completly different.
I mean with this rules that all equal players get points (points league standing) of each players he beat during the league. Then I compare all sum and define the ranking.

With a Example with 5 players
A line = Player Result vs A, vs B, vs C, vs D, vs E, Win, Loss, Points

A : - W L W W 3 1 10
B : L - W W L 2 2 8
C : W L - L W 2 2 8
D : L L W - W 2 2 8
E : L W L L - 1 3 5

(I agree, normally I don't do the rules 4 in that case cause B win over the 2 others C & D, but it is just to explain the point describe upper)

Then B get 8pts for C and 8Pts for D = 16Pts
C get 10 pts for A and 5 Pts for E = 15Pts
D get 8 Pts for C and 5 Pts for E = 13 Pts

(It's in the same spirit as swiss rules)

5) Direct Match of best 2-ply scores-players, if same accumulated score.

Rule 5 can be eliminated.

I must add that I like playoffs for players with same points, but that would be more time consuming and a bit more complicated than this method.

Rules 5 is always usefull in case we have to distinguish only 2 players in any case.

Is it more clear now for every body. Fell free to correct this add comments ;-)
But you can see now that the rules become complicate and players who look at the rules for the first time can be scared  
So If I add this to my rules Page, I will certainly let the summarize rules and add a link for the complete