"Random" match Schedules

[Pavan Dave]

I see this as a good and a bad thing. Although I do not like the fact that you are against the same people over and over, I bet FIRST or someone can create an algorithm that can at least make the first half of the teams compete with only first half teams and second half teams only second half with a few inter lapped but I think that Rookies vs Rookies rather than Veterans vs Rookies is a great idea because Vets, no matter if they are rookies on the team, have a higher chance of winning because the team has had the experience compared to the Rookie teams.

I'm not 100% for it, but im not 100% against it either. I guess its a step in the right direction....Maybe a diagonal step, but forward nonetheless.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Pavan

I guess its a step in the right direction....Maybe a diagonal step, but forward nonetheless.

Are you on 118?

[FourPenguins]

Yet another MORT member heard from. (Sorry guys, but we did get hosed.)
I think I understand the intent of this system. The belief (misguided though it is) was that by pairing a rookie with an experienced team, the rookies would be able to advance, making the competitions more "fair" to rookie teams.
Now, this system is based on two assumptions. The first is that a team's age and its robot's abilities are inversely proportional. This isn't always true, as our rookie all-stars prove every year. The second assumption was that rookies deserve a better shot at winning than experienced teams. Coming from an experienced team, I may be biased, but with three "rookie-only" awards, do we also need to skew the qualification matches to "help" rookies?
Sorry if I'm stepping on any toes, but this looks a bit like they're stacking it to me. I'd much prefer true randomized pairings, and let everyone rise or fall on their own merit, not their perpetual teammate/opponent's.

[Pavan Dave]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

Are you on 118?

Yes, my comments in no way, shape, or form represent Team 118, in any fashion and are solely the views of me.

What I meant:

To explain what I mean is that I believe it is more fair for the rookies to kind of have a fair chance at the Finals by having them compete more with rookies rather than veterans. I think that the matches should be 60% Vet vs Vet||Rooks vs Rooks, and that the other 40% should be a combination of integration.

But for it to fit their algorithm of the time between matches they would have to be similar to this:

(Odd = Veteran Team; Even = Rookie Team)
Match 1: 1,3,5,7,9,11
Match 2: 2,4,6,8,10,12
Match 3: 13,15,17,19,21,23
Match 5: 14,16,18,20,22,24
(Few matches later)
Match 7: 1,2,13,4,8,10
et cetera.

That is just how I feel it would be more fair because that way rookies would have a more fair chance of getting to the top 8 seeds.

Now some of you say well, the vets will kill the rooks, but if you think about it, you will have usually 4 vets and 4 rookies or 5 vets and 3 rookies or even 3 vets and 5 rookies at the final 8 before they pick their teams and after they pick they will probably be around one or two veterans per team to (naturally) balance things out.

Pavan.

[Cuog]

While the idea of trying to give rookies a leg up is a really nice thing to do I'm not sure if it is really fair. If the system is setup so that there is adequate time in between the teams should be playing a random set of teams. If a rookie robot is good then it will seed high just like any other good bot. Messing with the deck and stacking it even for the weaker players doesn't help make people feel better about the results.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

Are you on 118?

Side comment:
Pavan, what I meant by that was that 118's robot(s) can go in any direction beautifully and it seems that your thoughts can as well. 'Diagonal step forward' is a great way to express a thought and sounds like 118 movement.
Sorry for the confusion.
Jane

[Keith Watson]

I recommend that someone write a short program which takes a look at the ranking after the "seeding rounds" take place. Look at the top 10 teams, see if they had repeat opponents, and note the final rank of those opponents.

Remember that rankings are very important to how alliances are chosen for the final rounds.

Does the data show a pattern?

I did this check by hand for the PNW Regional. (So my count may be slightly off.) There were 54 competitors.

Rank 1
- faced the same competitor 8 times who finished with a rank of 54

Rank 2
- faced the same competitor 4 times who finished with a rank of 32
- faced the same competitor 4 times who finished with a rank of 43

Rank 3
- faced the same competitor 8 times who finished with a rank of 52

Rank 4
- faced the same competitor 8 times who finished with a rank of 50

Rank 5
- faced the same competitor 4 times who finished with a rank of 18
- faced the same competitor 4 times who finished with a rank of 44

Rank 6
- faced the same competitor 8 times who finished with a rank of 51

Rank 7
- faced the same competitor 8 times who finished with a rank of 45

Rank 8
- faced the same competitor 8 times who finished with a rank of 46

Rank 9
- faced the same competitor 4 times who finished with a rank of 53
- faced the same competitor 4 times who finished with a rank of 33
- faced the same competitor 2 times who finished with a rank of 35
- faced the same competitor 2 times who finished with a rank of 49

Rank 10
- faced the same competitor 8 times who finished with a rank of 48

The PNW Regional data shows a pattern. Not to take away from every team who performed well, but is this really the "intended" outcome? Note that the rules clearly state the schedule cannot be changed after it is published.

[eugenebrooks]

I am going to have to be blunt about this. This must be fixed. Teams that work hard to field a robot and come to a competition will not accept this sort of scheduling, and should not. There are many highly skilled mentors involved in the FIRST program who understand random scheduling, while satisfying constraints, and who would happily turn out validated scheduling software for FIRST to use. Yes, I know that it is a hard problem, but it is a solvable one. The match scheduling should be based only on the index of the teams, (1-N) for the teams at the regional, should be random while satisfying the needed constraints on the schedule and should be blind to the team numbers. The index schedule for a given value of "N teams" at a regional need never change, only the task of randomly matching teams to the indicies needs to be done at the regional.

Originally Posted by Keith Watson

I recommend that someone write a short program which takes a look at the ranking after the "seeding rounds" take place. Look at the top 10 teams, see if they had repeat opponents, and note the final rank of those opponents.

Remember that rankings are very important to how alliances are chosen for the final rounds.

Does the data show a pattern?

I did this check by hand for the PNW Regional. (So my count may be slightly off.) There were 54 competitors.

Rank 1
- faced the same competitor 8 times who finished with a rank of 54

Rank 2
- faced the same competitor 4 times who finished with a rank of 32
- faced the same competitor 4 times who finished with a rank of 43

Rank 3
- faced the same competitor 8 times who finished with a rank of 52

Rank 4
- faced the same competitor 8 times who finished with a rank of 50

Rank 5
- faced the same competitor 4 times who finished with a rank of 18
- faced the same competitor 4 times who finished with a rank of 44

Rank 6
- faced the same competitor 8 times who finished with a rank of 51

Rank 7
- faced the same competitor 8 times who finished with a rank of 45

Rank 8
- faced the same competitor 8 times who finished with a rank of 46

Rank 9
- faced the same competitor 4 times who finished with a rank of 53
- faced the same competitor 4 times who finished with a rank of 33
- faced the same competitor 2 times who finished with a rank of 35
- faced the same competitor 2 times who finished with a rank of 49

Rank 10
- faced the same competitor 8 times who finished with a rank of 48

The PNW Regional data shows a pattern. Not to take away from every team who performed well, but is this really the "intended" outcome? Note that the rules clearly state the schedule cannot be changed after it is published.

[Gabe]

For this amount of trouble, lets step away from algorithms and any other sort of computerized system, as any kind of solution is bound to result in patterns, which we want to avoid to have a fair game.

This is my solution, and a very simple one. For each regional FIRST should buy popsicle sticks for as many teams as are attending. If there are 48 teams for the SV regional, FIRST buys 48 popsicle sticks. Each stick will have one team number written on it. Then they are all placed into a corrugated cardboard box with a lid. You shake the box really hard for five seconds, and then open it. Without looking, a person picks out sticks three at a time, forming alliances. After all of the sticks have been picked and having recorded the alliances, all 48 sticks are placed back in the box and the process is repeated as many times as necessary.

For added effect I suggest that the choosing of alliances be done in plain view of all of the teams. This will generate a lot of excitement as well as doing away with any doubt of having truly "random" match schedules.

(I think this is a realistic and fair way of chosing alliances.)

[Adam Richards]

Originally Posted by Gabe

How long would it really take for FIRST to write team numbers on pieces of paper and draw them out of a hat? For this amount of trouble, let us go to a simple solution.

This is my solution, and a very simple one. For each regional FIRST should buy popsicle sticks for as many teams as are attending. If there are 48 teams for the SV regional, FIRST buys 48 popsicle sticks. Each stick will have one team number written on it. Then they are all placed into a corrugated cardboard box with a lid. You shake the box really hard for five seconds, and then open it. Without looking, a person picks out sticks three at a time, forming alliances. After all of the sticks have been picked and having recorded the alliances, all 48 sticks are placed back in the box and the process is repeated as many times as necessary.

For added effect I suggest that the choosing of alliances be done in plain view of all of the teams. This will generate a lot of excitement as well as doing away with any doubt of having truly "random" match schedules.

(I think this is a realistic and fair way of chosing alliances.)

Only one problem: how long would this take for 100+ matches? A few hours, surely.

[Gabe]

The regional directors, as well as the rest of FIRST, has a little less than two weeks to figure out a solution. This is plenty, doing away with my original idea of doing it on actual competition day (which now that you point it out is a waste of time). If it takes time to end up with a fair game, so be it.

[Luckyfish05]

I hate to point this out, but there are regionals next weekend. Sooner is better than later in this case. If they're going to do something they'll probably (hopefully) do it this week.

[Arille]

Referring to what Joe Matt said in the VCU Regional Thread...

Originally Posted by Joe Matt

NEW 2008 GAME HINT: Not just interact with the field and what you know about, but have to interact with other robots what they do. Put yourself in the minds of your future alliance partners and opponenets. Not just about driving a robot onto a ramp.

Instead of thinking of this randomization (or lack thereof) as a flaw in the system, maybe, just maybe, it was intended to prep us for the 2008 game? If it is going to be needed that we know our alliance teams in and out, why not give us a taste of this collaboration in 2007 (even though it would've been nice knowing it far in advance.. )? Maybe in 2008 we'll have solid alliance teams (I doubt it, but its possible).....?

I know, I know: it's a long shot. (And probably not the reason at all.) But 'tis a funny thought!



SVR March 17!!

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Gabe

For this amount of trouble, lets step away from algorithms and any other sort of computerized system, as any kind of solution is bound to result in patterns, which we want to avoid to have a fair game.

This is my solution, and a very simple one. For each regional FIRST should buy popsicle sticks for as many teams as are attending. If there are 48 teams for the SV regional, FIRST buys 48 popsicle sticks. Each stick will have one team number written on it. Then they are all placed into a corrugated cardboard box with a lid. You shake the box really hard for five seconds, and then open it. Without looking, a person picks out sticks three at a time, forming alliances. After all of the sticks have been picked and having recorded the alliances, all 48 sticks are placed back in the box and the process is repeated as many times as necessary.

For added effect I suggest that the choosing of alliances be done in plain view of all of the teams. This will generate a lot of excitement as well as doing away with any doubt of having truly "random" match schedules.

(I think this is a realistic and fair way of chosing alliances.)

1) This is a waste of time. Volunteers and/or FIRST staff have much better things to be doing with their time.

2) You'll end up with teams playing a match, and then a second match, without enough time between the two. Hence the need for an algorithm.

Last year's algorithm, or plenty that have been posted by users here on CD would be fine. Anything but what we have now.

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by Keith Watson

The PNW Regional data shows a pattern. Not to take away from every team who performed well, but is this really the "intended" outcome? Note that the rules clearly state the schedule cannot be changed after it is published.

That pattern isn't really that shocking. Any team that has faced the top ranked teams in a match will tend to have a lower ranking. Any team that has faced them multiple times will have an even lower ranking. The bad part here is not that teams that face good robots multiple times end up with a poor ranking, it is that teams HAD to face the same good robot 4+ times.

Anyway, watch this space for redos of the stats I posted yesterday, but including the final day.