Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999
From: Jim Geary
To: cgp
Subject: Re: Fontes' pairing system

These are good questions. If the system were to be used for the 2KNSC, I think they would need to change the round # for avoiding repeat pairings. My personal pet peeve is that in the absence of board #'s on the pairing charts, everyone is jockeying for their board. Two people who want to play shouldn't have to wait for some cascade of who's going 2nd lotteries just to sit down and play[1]. In one game, I was playing a famous player and we finally found a free board. _Ten_ minutes into the game the owner of the board interrupts play to say, "you guys took my board." Insanity. Now imagine 500 people doing this. I'm sure it won't take much programming to add this. If Mr. Fontes doesn't want to do this I'll gladly volunteer someone else. :)

I thought it was funny when Joe did the poll by hands in Reno, but left out the followup question, "Please explain the difference between the Fontes system and the Widergren system." It had about as much relevance as polling newbys on SOWPODS.

JG

[1] Anyone who says "bring your own board so that doesn't happen," go to the back of the class. Tho that does remind me of a funny story. A couple years ago, I took a class with 20 students in it. The bookstore had only ordered 18 books. I mention to the instructor that given the advanced enrollment, it wouldn't have been hard to make sure everyone gets a book. He replies, "you should have gone down there sooner." What a retard.

On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 Steve Dennis wrote:

 walker wrote, in response the the question "What is the Fontes' pairing system?"

   The benefits as I see them are speedy pairings and
   avoidance of repeat opponents. The Swiss style portion of the tournament is
   seeded each round excluding the most recent round results, so that pairings
   are posted before people finish playing.  The computer pairings have an
   algorithm which avoids repeat pairings until the final two KOTH round,
   hence players are happy to get a wide variety of opponents.  
 
 Good benefits.  So there's a Swiss-style portion - that's a good thing.  
 Avoiding repeat pairings until the KOTH rounds - also a good thing (although 
 I had two repeats prior to the KOTH's, but no triples and only the 2 repeats, 
 so I'm not complaining).
 
 Now, what is the Fontes' pairing system?
 
 Or, more specifically, what do you mean by "Swiss-style?"  Is it Swiss, 
 modified Swiss, or something else?  When does it kick in (I assume after 9 
 rounds in Reno, since that's when we started getting round by round 
 pairings)?  How are repeats avoided/minimized?  What are the factors in 
 deciding who's paired with whom in the first nine rounds?  We've heard a lot 
 about the good stuff associated with the system (and I was very pleased with 
 what I saw in Reno, but that's just one experience) - are there any issues 
 lurking out there?
 
 By the way, I hope the above doesn't sound too much like badgering the 
 witness - I'm genuinely curious, and I think it's also highly relevant / 
 important, since there's a good chance we'll be using it at Nationals next 
 year.

But Wait, There's More

Well, I had thought Oliger was kidding given his judicious deletion of my footnote, but now I see that the heart of the matter escapes some. It doesn't matter if EVERYONE BROUGHT EQUIPMENT, unless the playing hall is twice as large as is necessary, everyone will not be able to set it up. Therefor, at all times only half the people will actually have equipment set up. That is a mathematical fact. The other half of the people, whether or not they got squeezed out, don't own super equipment, or instead opted to carry a portacrib, bottles, diapers and clothes using the marginal strength they had allocated to carrying their equimpment in years gone by are not rude. They are simply a member of the 50% group that does not have a board set up at the moment. At every tournament this 50% group will exist. In 25% of the games, two members of this group will be playing each other. In a tournament with, say 400 people in it, every round there will be on average 100 people looking for boards thru no fault of their own in the absence of assigned boards. This will be so even if every single contestant brought a board, as I've never seen a playing hall with space allocated for one board per contestant. Sorry, you blew the math on this one. I re-append my previous footnote[1] that I hoped would suffice in the absence of a detailed analysis. I was wrong.

And finally, my earlier objection to the Fontesian method due to this lack of assigned tables is now withdrawn, Mr. Fontes having informed me that this feature does exist, but was disabled at the discretion of the Reno organizers.

[1] Anyone who says "bring your own board so that doesn't happen," go to the back of the class. Tho that does remind me of a funny story. A couple years ago, I took a class with 20 students in it. The bookstore had only ordered 18 books. I mention to the instructor that given the advanced enrollment, it wouldn't have been hard to make sure everyone gets a book. He replies, "you should have gone down there sooner."

On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, S. Tiekert wrote:

 
 I agree with Oliger completely on this one.  If everyone relied on someone 
 else to bring equpment we could draw a board on the tablecloth, but what of 
 tiles, racks and clocks?

 And if you rely on someone else to schlep the equipment, you DON'T get to 
 b.& m. about the glare of those tiles or the analog-ness of that clock.
 
 Boards and tiles and racks are supplied at the Nationals.  A Nationals 
 player only has to bring a clock to ensure that there will be enough with 
 possibly a few to lend in case of battery failure and such.
 
 In short, not bringing equipment to a tournament is R U D E !   It is 
 supreme chutzpah to suggest that the owner of equipment is not allowed to 
 take a long bathroom break or even (horrors!) go out for a smoke.
 
 And what happens when that player takes his/her equipment to his/her 
 assigned table?  The dust has now settled and you find blank spaces here 
 and there because perhaps the set that was there before is now at another 
 location - either on the table or next to it.
 
 Try to deal with reality, people.  This is NOT an Affirmative Action 
 situation.  Unless you bring your own equipment you are not allowed to vote 
 on the issue of who gets to play where and when and how and with what.
 
 

Last Modified 9/24/00

Back to Scrabble Correspondence Page
Back to Scrabble Main Page
Back to Jim's Main Page