Go to Post ...several people have told my that my brain has been oxygen-starved since at least 1975. - dlavery [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-10-2011, 11:23
EricH's Avatar
EricH EricH is offline
New year, new team
FRC #1197 (Torbots)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 19,819
EricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Match Scheduling Algorithm Competition

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnr View Post
Would it be possible to run two sets of matches? First day would be random and second day would be based on first day results. Please understand i have no knowledge of programming and was just thinking outloud.
Ouch.

Ouch.

Ouch.

Not from the programmers, mind you--from the people who have to run the program again. Once you get those people doing less work (i.e., making the second day's run automatic), then it's from the programmers. Once they figure out how to do it (how I don't know), then it comes from the teams that get shortchanged one match (or sometimes 2) due to scheduling, then from the programmers again trying to fix that problem.

Could it work? Probably. Is it optimal? No.

Besides that being the way alliances are chosen for Saturday afternoons...
__________________
Past teams:
2003-2007: FRC0330 BeachBots
2008: FRC1135 Shmoebotics
2012: FRC4046 Schroedinger's Dragons

"Rockets are tricky..."--Elon Musk

Reply With Quote
  #47   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-10-2011, 12:19
gblake's Avatar
gblake gblake is offline
6th Gear Developer; Mentor
AKA: Blake Ross
no team (6th Gear)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,940
gblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Match Scheduling Algorithm Competition

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnr View Post
Would it be possible to run two sets of matches? First day would be random and second day would be based on first day results. Please understand i have no knowledge of programming and was just thinking outloud.
The software can be written pretty easily to do just about anything that isn't completely insane, and that is actually achievable/feasible given the number of teams, matches, and user-defined attributes.

I am comfortable saying this because for modern computers, there just aren't all that many ways to combine 16 to 128 teams, in 4 or 6 team matches. No human would want deal with all the combinations, while juggling a bunch of screwy attributes, to create a schedule; but our computers are fast, tireless, accurate, and don't complain about doing boring, repetitive calculations for us.

So.... the central question in this case isn't whether a computer program can be written to accomplish the task. The question is whether the humans specifying what the program's instructions should accomplish, can ever agree on what they would want the program to do.

Echoing Eric's sentiments: Compared to agreeing on the requirements for, and then properly specifying, the algorithm, the coding will be the easy part.

Blake
__________________
Blake Ross, For emailing me, in the verizon.net domain, I am blake
VRC Team Mentor, FTC volunteer, 5th Gear Developer, Husband, Father, Triangle Fraternity Alumnus (ky 76), U Ky BSEE, Tau Beta Pi, Eta Kappa Nu, Kentucky Colonel
Words/phrases I avoid: basis, mitigate, leveraging, transitioning, impact (instead of affect/effect), facilitate, programmatic, problematic, issue (instead of problem), latency (instead of delay), dependency (instead of prerequisite), connectivity, usage & utilize (instead of use), downed, functionality, functional, power on, descore, alumni (instead of alumnus/alumna), the enterprise, methodology, nomenclature, form factor (instead of size or shape), competency, modality, provided(with), provision(ing), irregardless/irrespective, signage, colorized, pulsating, ideate

Last edited by gblake : 03-10-2011 at 12:22.
Reply With Quote
  #48   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-10-2011, 12:59
Ether's Avatar
Ether Ether is offline
systems engineer (retired)
no team
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Rookie Year: 1969
Location: US
Posts: 8,104
Ether has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Match Scheduling Algorithm Competition

Quote:
Originally Posted by gblake View Post
for modern computers, there just aren't all that many ways to combine 16 to 128 teams, in 4 or 6 team matches.
128N6 = 5,423,611,200

6N3/2 = 10

128N6*6N3/2 = 54,236,112,000 (possible matches)

So for a 40-match tournament,

54,236,112,000N40 = 2.88x10381 (possible different "tournaments", not counting the order that mathces are played)*

*Of course, the vast majority of these "tournaments" are patently ridiculous - like one team playing all 40 matches and another not playing at all. With just a bit of smarts, the number could be reduced greatly. And, unless you are designing an algorithm to examine all possible tournaments and pick the "best" one, you don't have to deal with this search space


Last edited by Ether : 03-10-2011 at 13:46.
Reply With Quote
  #49   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-10-2011, 14:05
JesseK's Avatar
JesseK JesseK is offline
Expert Flybot Crasher
FRC #1885 (ILITE)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 3,712
JesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Match Scheduling Algorithm Competition

Interestingly enough, the quantity of combinatorials for match numbers are somewhat inflated since "order matters" -- i.e. with these algorithms {A,B,C} is not the same as {B,A,C}. Where it gets really interesting is that it takes more time and more memory to say "order doesn't matter", even with quick disjoint() calls, than it is to simply handle a huge list of team alliance combinations.

A really smart guy created some benchmarks for Huge Collections that take advantage of Java's bytecode optimizations when using a collection of interfaces instead of a collection of objects (less GC'ing):
Code https://github.com/HugeCollections/Collections
Benchmark http://vanillajava.blogspot.com/2011...llions-of.html

I will see if this next week brings me enough time to start a project, heh.
__________________

Drive Coach, 1885 (2007-present)
CAD Library Updated 5/1/16 - 2016 Curie/Carver Industrial Design Winner
GitHub
Reply With Quote
  #50   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-10-2011, 15:16
gblake's Avatar
gblake gblake is offline
6th Gear Developer; Mentor
AKA: Blake Ross
no team (6th Gear)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,940
gblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Match Scheduling Algorithm Competition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ether View Post
...

*Of course, the vast majority of these "tournaments" are patently ridiculous - like one team playing all 40 matches and another not playing at all. With just a bit of smarts, the number could be reduced greatly. And, unless you are designing an algorithm to examine all possible tournaments and pick the "best" one, you don't have to deal with this search space
OK, I'll slightly revise my statement. "... there just aren't all that many useful ways to combine 16 to 128 teams, in 4 or 6 team matches. ..."

I'll add that if your goal is creating a tournament schedule that is good enough, you don't ever need to evaluate all possible useful tournament schedules. Given a pseudorandomly chosen starting point, you just need to be able to complete at least one useful tournament schedule built on that initial choice.

And, (I think this is partly what Jesse means when he talks about "stitching"), for the most part you can create the schedule one match at a time (perhaps with some occasional backtracking) without ever having to examine any schedule except the partial one you are in the process of completing.

Blake
__________________
Blake Ross, For emailing me, in the verizon.net domain, I am blake
VRC Team Mentor, FTC volunteer, 5th Gear Developer, Husband, Father, Triangle Fraternity Alumnus (ky 76), U Ky BSEE, Tau Beta Pi, Eta Kappa Nu, Kentucky Colonel
Words/phrases I avoid: basis, mitigate, leveraging, transitioning, impact (instead of affect/effect), facilitate, programmatic, problematic, issue (instead of problem), latency (instead of delay), dependency (instead of prerequisite), connectivity, usage & utilize (instead of use), downed, functionality, functional, power on, descore, alumni (instead of alumnus/alumna), the enterprise, methodology, nomenclature, form factor (instead of size or shape), competency, modality, provided(with), provision(ing), irregardless/irrespective, signage, colorized, pulsating, ideate
Reply With Quote
  #51   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-10-2011, 16:26
Ether's Avatar
Ether Ether is offline
systems engineer (retired)
no team
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Rookie Year: 1969
Location: US
Posts: 8,104
Ether has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Match Scheduling Algorithm Competition



There are 54 billion "useful" ways to pick the first match randomly for 6-team matches and 128 teams.

With each succeeding pick, the space of "useful" matches from which to randomly pick can be decreased using selection rules (e.g. don't assign teams to back-to-back matches; when any given team has been assigned 3 matches (for a 64-match tournament) drop them from the search space; etc)

I don't think it's mathematically guaranteed that you will achieve a valid tournament following this simple procedure. You may come to the last match and there's no valid match to pick from the remaining search space.


Last edited by Ether : 03-10-2011 at 16:31.
Reply With Quote
  #52   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-10-2011, 17:22
Ed Law's Avatar
Ed Law Ed Law is offline
Registered User
no team (formerly with 2834)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Foster City, CA, USA
Posts: 752
Ed Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Match Scheduling Algorithm Competition

Quote:
Originally Posted by IKE View Post
Ed,
In order to balance the competitive levels, the good teams will invariably have the lowest scoring partners way more often.

An important thing to keep in mind is that this is 3 vs. 3. This can be demonstrated with some dice pretty well (actually the dice are even more "fair" in distribution and probability). If your team is a 3, and your partners are random draw, then on average, you will have a 6 on your alliance about 1/3 of the time (2 of 3 dice are rolled with 6 outcomes thus 2*1/6=1/3 in having at least one 6). On the other hand, the opposing alliance will on average have at least one 6 1/2 of the time (3*1/6=1/2). This would lead you to believe you were given an unfair schedule, even though it doesn't get much more fair than 3 dice vs. 3 dice. The "6" knows that 100% of the time, they will have a 6 on their alliance (its them), and 1/3 of the time (2*1/6), they might even get another 6. This would appear that they have a "stacked" schedule. The average combination for the "3" team would be 10 (3+2*(6+5+4+3+2+1)/6=10), where as the actual average would be a 10.5 (3*(6+5+4+3+2+1)/6=10.5), and the average for a "6" team would be 13 (6+2*(6+5+4+3+2+1)/6=13). The numbers only get worse if you are a 2 or a 1.
Isaac, based on what you said, I think you misunderstood the criteria that I have in mind. First of all, the algorithm is not to select alliance partners for a team. It is also not to make matches even in score. Let me try to explain again.
It is based on strength of opposing alliance, the other 3 teams. Using your "dice" example, regardless of who your alliance partners are, you will get some opponents that are "6" and you will get some that are "1" and anything in between. On average, every team should face the same total strength of opponents out of all their matches. I don't see how it can be more fair than this. Even if the distribution is not "normal" in terms of strength. Let's say there are very few "6"s and a lot of "2"s and "3" so the average is still 3.5. What I said can still happen. The algorithm will work such that if you face a "6" in one match, then on other matches you will face more "2"s and "3"s to balance it out.
The algorithm I am proposing does not care who your alliance partners are. It also is not trying to prevent blowout matches. There is still a lot of randomness to it, which is what I like also. But nobody can say their schedule is harder than others in terms of the opponents that they have to face. So if you are a better team, the destiny is still in your own hands. And if you are an average team, you may still do well if luck is on your side and you got some good partners. Your assertion that good teams will get weaker partners is not an outcome with what I have in mind. It will only happen if you try to balance your alliance's strength which is a bad criteria.
If anyone out there understand what I am trying to say, please help.
__________________
Please don't call me Mr. Ed, I am not a talking horse.
Reply With Quote
  #53   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-10-2011, 18:54
GaryVoshol's Avatar
GaryVoshol GaryVoshol is offline
Cogito ergo arbitro
no team
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Royal Oak, MI
Posts: 5,757
GaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Match Scheduling Algorithm Competition

Ed, I understand your scenario. If Team1's opponents cumulatively have the same relative ranking (whatever the measurement) as Team2's, Team3's, ... TeamX's, then it doesn't matter who you play WITH. You might be playing with two powerhouses against 3 weaklings in one of your matches, but to make up for that you will be playing against powerhouses in another match.

My question is how you determine the initial conditions. For example, how do you rank the teams for Kettering in Week1? And then how do you rank the teams for Week2, given that the vast majority of those teams will be newbies that week - but there will be one or two teams at TC or Waterford who have played at Kettering.

I also question why for any given set of teams, the schedule that comes up must be unique? Surely there might be more than one schedule that meets the stipulated criteria equally well. Simply switching the order of matches might give some equally good permutations.
__________________
(since 2004)

Last edited by GaryVoshol : 03-10-2011 at 18:56.
Reply With Quote
  #54   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-10-2011, 20:22
Ed Law's Avatar
Ed Law Ed Law is offline
Registered User
no team (formerly with 2834)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Foster City, CA, USA
Posts: 752
Ed Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Match Scheduling Algorithm Competition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Law View Post
If it is possible, the software should have an option to take into account the team's performance so far in the season in order to generate a "fair" match schedule for FiM or MAR Region Championship or World Championship.
Thanks Gary, I am referring back to my original post. I am proposing that the software has this performance metrics as an option that a user can turn on and off. We can turn it on for FiM and MAR Region Championship only at the organizer's discretion and also for World Championship. We can not use it for Week 1 and 2. We should not use it for Qualifying (district) events when there are only 40 teams. It will work well at the Championships when there are 64 (FiM) and 87 (World) teams.
Yes it is true that there can be multiple solutions that are "good enough" and all of them will work. The only reason why I think the solution should be unique is so that no one will suggest somebody keep running the program until they like the results. However assigning the actual team numbers to the placeholder team number can still be manipulated. Ideally no human should be involved in creating the schedule except for the programmers who programmed it and somebody pressing a button. We also do not want teams to run the program themselves and know ahead of time what the schedule is.
Gary, are you involved in generating the schedule at an event? Maybe somebody can shed some light as to how it is actually done so people don't speculate.
__________________
Please don't call me Mr. Ed, I am not a talking horse.
Reply With Quote
  #55   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-10-2011, 21:10
GaryVoshol's Avatar
GaryVoshol GaryVoshol is offline
Cogito ergo arbitro
no team
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Royal Oak, MI
Posts: 5,757
GaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Match Scheduling Algorithm Competition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Law View Post
Gary, are you involved in generating the schedule at an event? Maybe somebody can shed some light as to how it is actually done so people don't speculate.
I've seen them do it. The computer crunches through multiple possible schedules (5000, 20000, 6000000, I don't know how many) and it picks out the "best" one considering the established parameters: time between matches, multiple matches with and against other teams, red/blue, etc. There are some parameters the scorekeeper puts into the program - starting times, lunch, number of rounds desired, match cycle time minimum match separation, etc. Some of these inputs could make an unworkable schedule - for example, with a 36-team event, you can't select a minimum of 5 match separation; each match would have the same teams in it.

While the scorekeeper could possibly look at the generated schedule, reject it, and start over, I would doubt that would happen. They are usually pressed for time.
__________________
(since 2004)
Reply With Quote
  #56   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-10-2011, 22:28
gblake's Avatar
gblake gblake is offline
6th Gear Developer; Mentor
AKA: Blake Ross
no team (6th Gear)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,940
gblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Match Scheduling Algorithm Competition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ether View Post
There are 54 billion "useful" ways to pick the first match randomly for 6-team matches and 128 teams.

With each succeeding pick, the space of "useful" matches from which to randomly pick can be decreased using selection rules (e.g. don't assign teams to back-to-back matches; when any given team has been assigned 3 matches (for a 64-match tournament) drop them from the search space; etc)
I'm sure having a hard time conveying that I agree with you. You were right when you said "With just a bit of smarts, the number could be reduced greatly."

One useful method I like for the picking the initial match's alliances from among a field of N teams is using a user-defined seed to generate pseudorandom (integer) numbers between 1 and N until I have created a list of 6 unique numbers (4 for VRC or FTC, 2 for FLL?).

Another is to create a list of all m-team alliances (my past implementation ignored order (ignored which driver station a team would be assigned to in FRC)) and then iteratively use a user-defined seed to ... pick any two alliances that don't share any teams.

Neither of these requires dealing with 54 billion possible 6-team matches.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ether View Post
I don't think it's mathematically guaranteed that you will achieve a valid tournament following this simple procedure. You may come to the last match and there's no valid match to pick from the remaining search space.
Don't forget this parenthetical statement from one of my earlier posts "(perhaps with some occasional backtracking)", and combine it with a "good enough" frame of mind.

Blake
__________________
Blake Ross, For emailing me, in the verizon.net domain, I am blake
VRC Team Mentor, FTC volunteer, 5th Gear Developer, Husband, Father, Triangle Fraternity Alumnus (ky 76), U Ky BSEE, Tau Beta Pi, Eta Kappa Nu, Kentucky Colonel
Words/phrases I avoid: basis, mitigate, leveraging, transitioning, impact (instead of affect/effect), facilitate, programmatic, problematic, issue (instead of problem), latency (instead of delay), dependency (instead of prerequisite), connectivity, usage & utilize (instead of use), downed, functionality, functional, power on, descore, alumni (instead of alumnus/alumna), the enterprise, methodology, nomenclature, form factor (instead of size or shape), competency, modality, provided(with), provision(ing), irregardless/irrespective, signage, colorized, pulsating, ideate

Last edited by gblake : 03-10-2011 at 22:39.
Reply With Quote
  #57   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-10-2011, 23:29
IKE's Avatar
IKE IKE is offline
Not so Custom User Title
AKA: Isaac Rife
no team (N/A)
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,151
IKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Match Scheduling Algorithm Competition

For an event like MSC, the average score was about 79 pts. The equal strength of opposition would then try to balance out your opponents so that on average, you would play opponents whose average contributions would be 79 pts. This would give an average contribution of around 26.3 points. If you were a team with an OPR of 60, the pool of rremaining candidates would now have an average lower than the 26.3, and thus in order to get to the average 79 pts/match of opposition, you would on average have to play a tougher than "random" schedule. If your team had a OPR significantly below 26.3 (some would), then you would have a softer than random schedule as it would require balancing in the other direction. Unfortunately, algorithms must do the groupings at the same time (opponents and partners), and invariably work out the way I discussed (at least on average). While the differences are not huge, there is a shifting that occurrs.

The "dice" example was more of an illustration of the psychological effect that occurs when it comes to "schedule" and preceived unfairness. As you have 2 partners, and 3 opponents, you are 50% more likely to oppose any kind of team than you are to have as a partner.
Reply With Quote
  #58   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-10-2011, 08:14
Nemo's Avatar
Nemo Nemo is offline
Team 967 Mentor
AKA: Dan Niemitalo
FRC #0967 (Iron Lions)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 804
Nemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Match Scheduling Algorithm Competition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Law View Post
First of all, the algorithm is not to select alliance partners for a team. It is also not to make matches even in score. Let me try to explain again. It is based on strength of opposing alliance, the other 3 teams.
I know that Ike has already responded to this pretty well, but I think another important thing to point out is that you and your allies are somebody else's opposing alliance. Therefore, the adjustment you are proposing would still give stronger allies to weak teams and weaker allies to strong teams on average.
Reply With Quote
  #59   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-10-2011, 08:40
JesseK's Avatar
JesseK JesseK is offline
Expert Flybot Crasher
FRC #1885 (ILITE)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 3,712
JesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Match Scheduling Algorithm Competition

The real problem with gauging 'strength', which has been stated before, is that some teams' strengths vary wildly from year to year. Lose a mentor, gain a sponsor, graduate 90% of the students, gain access to a full machine shop -- any of these things could wildly change how well a team does.

I would conjecture that attempting to stack alliances based upon supposed unproven strengths will most likely create more confusion and controversy than a 'bad luck' fully-randomized schedule would. For example, any one of the powerhouse teams could have an off year in 2012, making the rest of us "totally screwed" if we're allied with them since they're the supposed counter balance to a "strong" opponent alliance.
__________________

Drive Coach, 1885 (2007-present)
CAD Library Updated 5/1/16 - 2016 Curie/Carver Industrial Design Winner
GitHub
Reply With Quote
  #60   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-10-2011, 12:17
Ed Law's Avatar
Ed Law Ed Law is offline
Registered User
no team (formerly with 2834)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Foster City, CA, USA
Posts: 752
Ed Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Match Scheduling Algorithm Competition

Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseK View Post
The real problem with gauging 'strength', which has been stated before, is that some teams' strengths vary wildly from year to year. Lose a mentor, gain a sponsor, graduate 90% of the students, gain access to a full machine shop -- any of these things could wildly change how well a team does.

I would conjecture that attempting to stack alliances based upon supposed unproven strengths will most likely create more confusion and controversy than a 'bad luck' fully-randomized schedule would. For example, any one of the powerhouse teams could have an off year in 2012, making the rest of us "totally screwed" if we're allied with them since they're the supposed counter balance to a "strong" opponent alliance.
Hi Jesse, I completely agree with you. We should not use previous year's strength data for current year's match assignment. That's why I advocate taking strength into consideration for Region Championship and World Championship only where current year's data would be available. I have not seen anybody on this thread or elsewhere that advocate on using previous year's data.
__________________
Please don't call me Mr. Ed, I am not a talking horse.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:19.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi