|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
New information
I have found an individual who has put a lot of effort into generating 2 vs. 2 pairings for bridge competitions that eliminates same partner pairing and minimizes repeat opponent pairings. He has made a lot of his results available for free on the internet (as long as you give him the credit). Here is a reply he sent to and e-mail of mine and a link to his web page:
The Chamberlain Bridge Problem What do you think Nate? james.l.meyer@gm.com wrote: > Now to the issue, both competitions use a two vs. two tournament style > where the matches are "randomly" generated, with some restrictions applied. > ... The number > of teams participating in OCCRA us usually in the range of 15 - 25, and for > FIRST 45 - 100 and the number of matches is typically 5 to 11. > matches are also set up so that every team plays a minimum number of > matches (like 6) and as small a group as possible (1 - 3 teams) play one > extra match. (I like to use the word "rounds" for a collection of "matches".) Here are some thoughts.... - My program is indeed well-suited to pick two vs two matches. - My program will not understand the "extra match" part. - My program is interruptible. It will continue to improve until any of several conditions occur. A keyboard interrupt will output the best solution found. - My code is free. You can download, tweak, etc. The links to the code might not work though, let me know. My brother has run it with the Gnu compiler under Windows. - With 5 rounds, more than 25 people should be easy, this will be roughly scaleable up to say 11 rounds for 50 or more people. > I believe all of our combinations of teams and matches would make it quite > difficult to do the pairings ahead of time. Actually, you can do the setups for 25-100 people ahead of time and do something like N/5 rounds. These might be good enough to just use the first set of rounds and ignore the extra. For the lower numbers of people (or the higher numbers of rounds) it might be a bit tougher to do ahead of time, because of the amount of time the program takes. > ... I've also thought about assigning a full set of > partners (100 unique partner sets for 50 matches) and then focusing on who > will compete against whom. That seems like a different kind of competition, since learning to cooperate with your partner would be a major factor. However, I have done a version of my program which works exclusively on "pairs". We have prepared charts for N teams playing N-1 rounds for up to about N=40. They seem to get harder for larger N but maybe playing N-2 or N-3 rounds would make it easier. Again, if you have a perfect setup for 30 teams playing 29 rounds you can just use the first 11 rounds or whatever. -- Paul Chamberlain, tif@tifster.com |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Long list of Thanks/Congrats from 461. | Josh Hambright | Thanks and/or Congrats | 10 | 08-04-2003 12:49 |
| Qotw [01-26-03]: Sumo Match list of the year... | Ken Leung | Rumor Mill | 60 | 06-02-2003 11:30 |
| Thanks - Wild Stang - What a match!!!!!! | archiver | 1999 | 1 | 23-06-2002 22:15 |
| FIRST sumo matches list | A. Snodgrass | General Forum | 61 | 14-03-2002 10:42 |
| Avg Score | CMC | General Forum | 14 | 12-03-2002 07:23 |