Folks,
I assert that the notion that the
only way to "do your best" during the field competition part of a FIRST FRC tournament, is to blindly employ strategies aimed at scoring as many points as possible in each match, is not mathematically sound.
If I am right and if scoring as much as possible isn't a mathematically sound path to teams' desired end states, it would appear to me that we clever folks trying to inspire a true appreciation for science would be forced to examine alternative strategies and correctly employ the alternatives in appropriate situations.
I am using the term "strategy" in the sense of "a set of rules that are designed to maximize the likelihood of some desired outcome in a game, and that govern a players' actions in that game".
For the field competition portion of an FRC tournament, I think that most people have the same desired outcome: Being a member of the Winning Alliance. I am going to assume that outcome is nearly universally what the participants desire.
Game Theoretical analysis of many types of games shows that strategies which might at first seem counter-intuitive are actually the "best" strategies. Perhaps the situation we are discussing is one of those instances when a counter-intuitive move is the right move (akin to sacrificing a chess piece to obtain a better board position, and thereby improving your long-haul chances having the TOTAL game turn out successfully).
In the situation Fred described (plus a couple of additions)
- You are about to play the very last Qual match of the tournament.
- The #1 and #2 seeds are already locked up.
- You are confident that the # 1 captain (expecting 7 "declines") is going to pseudo-invite all of the lower 7 captains in order to prevent them from allying with each other.
- You are confident that the #2 through #7 captains will decline the pseudo offers from the #1 captain.
- You wish to ally with the # 2 captain and they wish to pick you. You and they believe that paired together, you will be the foundation of the best alliance in the elimination rounds.
- If your Qual match alliance outscores the opposing alliance, you will become an alliance captain. If you don't, you won't be one of the original 8 alliance captains.
AND
- You ask your allies if they care whether they outscore your opponents or not. They do not care and are willing to help you avoid becoming a captain because they understand that you wish to avoid a pseudo-offer from the #1 captain. Additionally, perhaps they wish to avoid unnecessary wear and tear on their machines and don't care what the score of the match turns out to be. Instead, because the match is very largely irrelevant to them, and because it is very important to you, they want to graciously support their ally, i.e. you.
In order to "do your best" at attaining the outcome you, and just about everyone else, has been pursuing (on the field) (becoming a member of the winning alliance), please tell me why you would attempt to outscore your opponents, become the 8th seed, and thereby be unable to form what you believe is the strongest alliance possible for the elimination rounds.
If you offer an alternative strategy and back it up with testable propositions, please do so in the neutral language of science and math. I have to admit that I get just a little bit annoyed at pejorative terms like "throw the match". I get especially annoyed when, in the scenario being discussed, the alternative appears to be choosing to "throw the tournament".
If outscoring your opponents in one particular match means you
reduce your chances of winning the tournament; and doing the opposite increases your chances of winning the tournament; and if your allies are willing to support either option; then from a game theory perspective, the choice seems clear. Don't purposefully do badly in the
total tournament
Blake
PS: If it is wrong, as some seem to have suggested, for a team to aspire to using their analytical and mechanical skills to earn that piece of plastic, then I submit that all teams in the tournament should stop doing the "wrong" thing; and should instead make every match into a pro-wrestling style exhibition for the benefit of the audience.
Please don't explicitly or implicitly denigrate the possibility that a team (supported by their allies) might actually take the time to think backwards from their desired end goal to their situation in a particular match, discover that a low score improves their odds of reaching their desired end-goal, and then act on that conclusion.