Is the qualification match robot randomizer really "random"

[Dillon Compton]

Philly's pairings did seem distinctly inconsistent with the excellent match scheduling I've seen at the other regionals so far this year.

It honestly felt like we were using last years algorithm (a poor version of it) to generate the matches - we were with or against the same teams 2-3 times/team over the course of the regional. In 11 matches with a field of 44, this shouldn't have happened to the extent it did.

My only thought is that perhaps someone did not understand the algorithm entirely and put improper constraints on it, locking it into poor schedule choices.

No complaints, though - such is the nature of FIRST. Luck is all part of the game.

//Dillon

[coalhot]

Im not questioning someone's integrity, but i'm just saying that maybe the computer was set up wrong or something, and gave out inconsistent matches...

~Philip

[Lil' Lavery]

I find your observation interesting, I didn't see that at all.
103 played 272, 341, 357, and 365.
272 played 103, 341, 365 and 1511.
341 played 103, 272, 357, 365, and 1511.
357 played 103, 341, 365, and 1511.
365 played 103, 272, 341, and 357.
1511 played 272, 341, and 357.

I'm not really sure how much more the "big name teams" can play each-other.

[coalhot]

103, 272, 357, 365, 1511 were all in the finals...

~Philip

[Danny McC]

All of those teams were in the eliminations but the finals, no.

[coalhot]

thanx for the correction..

~PHilip

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by coalhot

103, 272, 357, 365, 1511 were all in the finals...

~Philip

That's exactly my point. They were all playing against each-other often in the qualifications.

[coalhot]

because they eliminated all the others, because they were together in the qualification matches 1-80...

~Philip

[Dillon Compton]

I think the claim that the "big name" teams were together for the entire time are entirely spurious - I will, however, say that a number of teams had clustered plays - one team playing another multiple times, or one team playing with another multiple times.

This was NOT limited to the "big name" teams playing with/against one another, and indeed did NOT have any appreciable effect on the outcome of the event.

The teams that got into the afternoon would've gotten there regardless of the qualification matches (for the most part). They were chosen, or chose, because they had the best 'bots at the regional, not because they did or did not play each other.

[TheBestOfFIRST]

Originally Posted by coalhot

because they eliminated all the others, because they were together in the qualification matches 1-80...

~Philip

Sorry to say this...but i think this thread has gotten a little off topic.

I too have noticed that the randomizer recently has been a little "lax" to say the least.

[Richard Wallace]

This post by Chris Husmann provides some insight.

If the minimum time between matches is set higher than necessary, teams will tend to oppose and ally with each other more often because they are on the same time interval.

[SayDeeM8194]

We just competed in both the Peachtree and Bayou Regional and we did find that we were playing either with or against many of the same teams. I do not question the integrity of FIRST, however, I do think the algorithm could be adjusted. As someone earlier stated...the luck of the game is the nature of FIRST. One just hopes they get the better end of the deal!!

[TheBestOfFIRST]

That's just it I can't do the math becasue we don't know the algorithm. If the algorithm is so truly random what does it matter if they supply it to the teams. I would be interested in running a few test situations of my own to see how the matches play out.

Also we need to identify "RANDOM" because is it ever truly possible to define random with a simple algorithm the human mind understands when the mind can not grasp the concept random.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by TheBestOfFIRST

That's just it I can't do the math becasue we don't know the algorithm. If the algorithm is so truly random what does it matter if they supply it to the teams. I would be interested in running a few test situations of my own to see how the matches play out....

The 2008 match generation algorithm is not a secret. It was discussed extensively on the FIRST Forum before the 2008 FRC season started. The improvements that FIRST introduced this year were suggested by the people mentioned in an earlier post in this thread.

[XaulZan11]

The problem I have with this 'random' match schedule, is that it can be redone if they feel there are 'too many repeat'. By doing this it is no longer a random schedule. While I don't think this is likely, it leaves the door open for someone to rerun the program because of an unfavorable schedule.