Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Mack
I used the program to generate schedules with a variety of parameters... 12 to 144 teams playing 7 to 10 rounds with minimum match separation between 1 and the maximum possible separation.
|
Interesting analysis. We actually did a similar, but smaller, data set like this when we were testing performance optimizations to make sure that those changes didn't alter the resulting schedules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Mack
Interesting trends I noticed:
-The program was able to produce optimal schedules whenever the match separation was at least 5 less than the maximum possible separation. It usually produced optimal schedules when the minimum separation was 4 less then the maximum.
|
It would be interesting to see how much that improves using good or best. If we could divide up the work across several computers, it could be done in a day or two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Mack
-The program created the worst schedules when team size was a multiple of 6.
|
If the number of teams is a multiple of 6, and the minimum separation is set to the maximum value, every team plays with the same five teams in every match. No team can move to an earlier match without breaking the rule, and no team can move to a later match without forcing another team to an earlier match. So, the only thing that can be done is swap the alliances around in the each group of six. This would be true of any algorithm given these constraints.