Re: Is the qualification match robot randomizer really "random"
 

Uhhh... I was referring to in the qualifications. All those match-ups I mentioned were qualification matches. I was using "big name" teams that made the eliminations as my example six teams of playing one another in the qualifications. As you can see, all six of those teams faced at least three of the other five at least once in qualifications. 341 played against all five others.
When you play eleven matches, you will be paired with 22 teams and against 33 others. With 55 spots, and only 44 teams, it's literally impossible to not play with/against the same team(s) multiple times. With the time and other constraints added, it means that you will miss the opportunity to play a few teams, and you will play with few teams multiple times.

Re: Is the qualification match robot randomizer really "random"
 

The 2008 match generation algorithm is not a secret. It was discussed extensively on the FIRST Forum before the 2008 FRC season started. The improvements that FIRST introduced this year were suggested by the people mentioned in an earlier post in this thread.

Re: Is the qualification match robot randomizer really "random"
 

At the Connecticut Regional, they did a good job of putting us with a team once and against them once, if we were in a match with them twice. I felt like we played a lot of matches with young teams on our alliance and against us, so it basically evened out the competition. Older teams seemed to be with and against older teams, primarily. So it wasn't really that unfair. There were also matches that seemed to be a good mix of teams. Maybe the Philly matches were just a coincidence?

Re: Is the qualification match robot randomizer really "random"
 

The problem I have with this 'random' match schedule, is that it can be redone if they feel there are 'too many repeat'. By doing this it is no longer a random schedule. While I don't think this is likely, it leaves the door open for someone to rerun the program because of an unfavorable schedule.

Re: Is the qualification match robot randomizer really "random"
 

Except that the scheduler is run by volunteers who are mostly under major pressure to get the match list printed (on a printer that only works about one in four tries) and distributed to dozens of anxious teams as soon as possible. We don't give a big furry rat what the match list is as long as it will finish on time and print the first time. Carefully scrutinizing the match list to give one or another team a huge advantage is so far from being important that -- well, analogies fail me. We want to run a fair tournament that finishes on schedule. The volunteers, for the most part, have zippy-de-doo-dah interest in who actually wins. I, for one, could not even tell you who won Seattle, and I watched every single match from about four feet away. I can tell you that every team I talked to was happy about the venue, the officiating, and the volunteers. That's a win to a volunteer.

The idea that we would keep re-running the match list to meet some competitive profile is something I literally never considered until you suggested it. I know for sure that my scorekeeping partner and I would have laughed at the idea. (Although, as I posted elsewhere, we did redo the match schedule once to give a particular team an early match to meet the needs of the television coverage.)

Re: Is the qualification match robot randomizer really "random"
 

Last year i was determined that it wasn't random at all because at the Greater Toronto Regional, waterloo regional and curie division qualification match we never played 1114 until the finals at the regionals and quarter finals in curie. However this year we played them at waterloo and then not at Toronto. Therefore I've come to the conclusion that its all luck.

Re: Is the qualification match robot randomizer really "random"
 

While this is possible, it is not likely. For one thing the Scorer, FTA and Field Supervisor are all likely to be present and all will have different ideas about just what an "unfavorable" schedule is. For another it takes about 15 min. to generate a new schedule. We just don't have time to generate more than 2 or 3.

The auditing screen gives the following information about each team:

Number of unique partners - this should be #of rounds x 2 and generally is
Number of unique opponents - ideally this would be # of rounds x 3 but there is some variaition here. This is the number checked most closely.
Number of matches as Surrogate - should be no more than 1 and not many of those.
Teams played and number of times - listed in numeric order, not by what match they are in. # of times played should be no more than 2 for any one team, unless the event is really small and there are lots of matches, in which case there should be lots of 3s not only one or two.

None of this gives very much information about the difficulty of the schedule for a particular team. To figure that out you have to go over the schedule itself which would be very time consuming. Then if you cause the schedule to be re-generated, the schedule you have will disappear. So you are taking a very significant risk that the new scedule will be even worse that the one you just blew away, and you have to do all the analysis all over again to find out. The costs outweigh the benefits very quickly.

In practice, you run the scheduler once and check the output against the criteria above. If it passes you go with it. If not you change one parameter and try again. Once you get somehng that is "good" you lock it and attempt to fire up the printer. But that is a whole different story...

Re: Is the qualification match robot randomizer really "random"
 

To answer this thread's title, no the qualification matches are not random and never were intended to be random. In order to be random, every team needs to have an equal chance of being in every match. Thus, a team can be in multiple matches in a row. Since having a team play 3 matches in a row in not desired, perameters were set so allow time inbetween matches. Within the certain perameters, however, the matches are random (if they don't redo the match list). There is nothing wrong with it not being random, but it shouldn't be called random because its not.

Re: Is the qualification match robot randomizer really "random"
 

Mathematically you are correct. In this context, however, I'm guessing that most people would equate "random" with "not biased in favor of a particular team or class of teams." It might be more valid to ask if the match scheduler produces a fair schedule.

Re: Is the qualification match robot randomizer really "random"
 

First, sorry for saying "big-name", i meant to say "sucessful".

another problem was that in qualifications, if a team couldnt go on the field, there was a 2 VS. 3 match, which obviously favors the 3-team alliance.

~Philip

Re: Is the qualification match robot randomizer really "random"
 

That isn't something new. Teams have been missing matches for years now, if not forever.

The scheduling won't help the teams compete on the field...but YOU can. You have the match list at some point on Thursday, then you can go around to your alliance partners and make sure that their bot is working. If it isn't, then try your best to help them make your match.

Also, just because it's 2v3 doesn't automatically mean that it's a lock. I've seen plenty of matches where the alliance with 2 teams, win.

Re: Is the qualification match robot randomizer really "random"
 

I saw a practice match on Rack-n-Roll where an alliance with zero robots won. The HP scored one ringer, and that was the only score of the game!

Re: Is the qualification match robot randomizer really "random"
 

I thought the "big names" had every bit as tough a road through the qualifications as anyone. Sean's post shows that pretty well. Second, not only is the algorithm not a secret, it's entire testing and development is well documented right here on CD. Third, I thought our (1712) schedule was a lot more balanced this year than it was last year. Last year, because the algorithm was way too stringent, we wound up with a "big name/low number" partner in nearly every match. Thanks to the help of 272, 341, etc we had a great match record in Philly last year. This year we only saw top tier partners a few times and it certainly made our road to Saturday afternoon a lot more difficult, but albeit more fair.

You also need to realize that if you desire to win, you'll have to best the "top tier" anyway. Eight of us on 1712 spent our entire lunch break repairing a claw just for the privelege of going up against the 103 alliance - and I do consider it a privelege.

Next, be careful as to what you perceive about teams and their funding. This is a year when 357 lost a major sponsor. Ask 272 about their major funding and they'll point to a tune up FLL event they run to fund a regional entry fee. All of the time and energy spent on that event takes away time that could be spent on prototyping for the season. 103 seems to be a juggernaut with their number of events and facilities, etc but if you talk to their leadership you'll find two people that started the team with absolutely nothing some 10-11 years ago in the middle of the woods. Every relationship and piece of hardware that exists in Kintnersville is because of hard work and persistence.

Even suggesting that something is "fixed" here is truly unfounded. With a 44 team event (very small) a match schedule with 6 on the field at a time can only look so many different ways.

-Rich

Re: Is the qualification match robot randomizer really "random"
 

Im not exactly sure what you are seeing in that, we were actually fairly impressed that when we sat down to do our strategy on thursday night, that we played in matches with all but 3 of the teams at the regional, and many of the teams that we played multiple times, we were with in one match and against in the next or one later in qualifications.

And as seen with Sean's examples, Im not sure how you can think too many big name teams had "easy" schedules. I think part of it was that there were some really good teams at Philadelphia, and then there were some that struggled with design as well. We found from our scouting that the divide was really odd this year as opposed to prior years. We normally see a pretty bell shaped curve distribution. This year, it was actually relatively flat in terms of team performance,possibly even curved up on the low end. I think one of the biggest things is that strategy this year isnt anywhere near as simple as past years, and it shows in the teams that have competed already and those that havent. Look at our record from Finger Lakes - while we felt we had some tough matches, we were ranked 27th, we hadnt yet nailed the game strategy. It wasnt due to us fixing our robot, our improvement in Philly was due to us figuring out the strategy. By week 5, many of the big name teams have already competed in other regionals, while many of the other teams havent had the chance. And if they havent been doing strategy off the blue alliance or havent gone to see other regionals, my guess is that they struggled similar to what we did in our first regional.

The other thing too is Im not sure how you can "define" the top-tier teams anymore, and how a match algorithm can know the difference. There are several low number teams that have struggled with building the robot or maintaining sponsors, while there are more and more high number or mid range teams that are really pulling together and becoming better and better. Even some of the rookie or second year teams seem to be more and more impressive.

Re: Is the qualification match robot randomizer really "random"
 

I don't know about Philly but you asked if this happened in other regionals

Chesapeake-good
NJ-it was fair
The matches were pretty good because we got to play w/ and against top teams.