Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatever
I have a spreadsheet with the OPRs from the 7 FTC qualifiers in MN that I would be willing to send you. It calculates OPRs slightly different - it uses a set a successive approximations, estimates the error, corrects, and tries again. When I have checked it against the published numbers it seems to come up with the same answers. I found it easier to explain to middle school students than matrix mathematics.
|
I can see using iteration of linear approximations when solving a non-linear least squares problem... but OPR is a linear problem to begin with, so I'm a bit puzzled what algorithm you are using*:
How do you compute the successive approximations?
How do you compute the successive corrections?
Please explain it to me the same way you explain it to your middle school students. I won't be offended.
Quote:
|
One major issue I have seen so far in this years FTC game is a few penalties can really play havoc on the OPRs across the tournament. For example: on the Saturday of the Burnsville tournament, 9078/9414 got an additional 190 penalty points in a match. That penalty alone moves their OPRs from the mid 20s to the mid 60s. Team 8034 had matches with both of those robots later in the day, so that penalty lowers 8034 OPR from 31 to 12 - even though they were not involved in the original match. The Sunday in Columbia Heights has a similar situation with 11270/5330 getting a 150 point boost in a match.
|
I'm not that familiar with FTC. Are component scores available? If so, you can do OPR-type computations on the components you are interested in.
*Perhaps Gauss-Seidel? Is that easier for middle school students to understand?