pic: Sum of team numbers versus match number in Curie

[Kris Verdeyen]

loading photo ...

[artdutra04]

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=66983

Joe Ross identified the problem, and found that the easiest solution would be to randomize the order of the team list before inserting it into the match scheduling algorithm.

[Vikesrock]

The algorithm is not intended to be random, as has been mentioned many times before a random schedule would be very very bad.You may play 2 or more matches in a row then not play for a few hours.

The team number issue with this year's algorithm has already been discussed here:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ight=algorithm

[Uberbots]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=66983

Joe Ross identified the problem, and found that the easiest solution would be to randomize the order of the team list before inserting it into the match scheduling algorithm.

yeah, but that doesnt adress the problem. What happens is that you are essentially paired with the same group of teams. if the data isnt randomized before the algorithm is run, then something like this chart would happen. you would still notice a pattern in the sequence if it were randomized before sorting.

I dont think there is any viable algorithm to fairly balance all the teams with adequate spacing... there are just too many constraints

[Valley Raider]

This is unacceptable. I remember 2 years ago in portland when everyone of our matches was against the same team and we weren't the only one. How can the matches be fair if they aren't randomized. I know there is the problem with time in-between matches but why not have someone do it by hand. Pick someone outside of FIRST who doesn't know the difference between 1114 and 1115 or 271 and 217. Or even 2469 and 190 for that matter. Give them a set of desired criteria and ask them to pair 6 Robots together and then randomly assign those 6 to red or blue.

But I guess well just have to live with things the way they are. because they haven't addressed this for years.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Uberbots

yeah, but that doesnt adress the problem. What happens is that you are essentially paired with the same group of teams. if the data isnt randomized before the algorithm is run, then something like this chart would happen. you would still notice a pattern in the sequence if it were randomized before sorting.

I dont think there is any viable algorithm to fairly balance all the teams with adequate spacing... there are just too many constraints

Any algorithm that guarantees that teams are a certain number of matches apart will show such a grouping. The groupings will decrease and become less noticeable as the minimum match spacing becomes smaller.

The algorithm currently in use tries to optimize the number of different teams you play with and against with a specified minimum match spacing. Randomizing the teams before putting them into the algorithm would still cause the "pool" effect, but the teams you are pooled with would not be determined by number. If the teams you play with and against are different (algorithm) with no attention payed to team number (randomize before algorithm) there isn't a whole lot left to complain about.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

Any algorithm that guarantees that teams are a certain number of matches apart will show such a grouping. The groupings will decrease and become less noticeable as the minimum match spacing becomes smaller.

The algorithm currently in use tries to optimize the number of different teams you play with and against with a specified minimum match spacing. Randomizing the teams before putting them into the algorithm would still cause the "pool" effect, but the teams you are pooled with would not be determined by number. If the teams you play with and against are different (algorithm) with no attention payed to team number (randomize before algorithm) there isn't a whole lot left to complain about.

I hope it happens next year. Point well made.

[martin417]

I noticed right away that ~90% of our matches were with and against teams on the same row as us in the pits. The other 10% were with / against teams on the adjacent row. 0% were with teams on the first row. Since the pits are arranged by team number, it is obvious that team number plays a huge part in the alliance picking algorithm.

[Fireworks 234]

We came across the same thing. Our team played only 8 different teams with a team number below 1000. And 6 of the 8 were in our first 2 matches.

[Andy Baker]

There are many things frustrating about this. One that people may not think of is this: rookie or 1-2 year-old teams had minimal chance to play with the veteran teams. Part of the championships is playing with and against the best. If I were on a rookie team, I would relish the chance of playing in a match against teams who have been around for many many years. Sadly, this year's algorithm did not allow for much of this.

Case in point: in each of the TechnoKats' (team 45) matches, there was not a team number above 1000. This is not right.

Andy B.

[Kris Verdeyen]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

in each of the TechnoKats' (team 45) matches, there was not a team number above 1000. This is not right.

IIRC, in one of the Technocat's alliances, there wasn't a team number over 67.

[Ty Tremblay]

You can have a random schedule without having a randomly timed schedule. The team numbers need to be randomized, not the schedule.

[Elgin Clock]

Just by looking down the lists of teams in the match schedule, you could see this pattern. 95% of teams in a block of say 5 matches were under team number 1000, and then 95% were over 1000 in the next 5 matches, and so on.

There were many matches where you (if your team number was 300 or less) were the youngest team on the alliance. I know on Archimedes specifically, Team 228 was the highest number in one match. Their team is ten years old this year! It was like a flashback to an old school match from New England circa: 1999 all over again! lol

Andy Baker just said it best I think. The rookies really never got to play with the older teams (and potentially learn from them), and the older teams really never got to play with the younger ones (and potentially help them in their FIRST career on the field by showing them the ropes).

That kinda saddens me. Helping the program grow isn't just getting new teams every year, it's also about equally pairing them up with some older teams so they can be trained/molded/advised by older teams on the field and learn what FIRST is exactly all about in that way.

[smurfgirl]

The teams in our matches at the CT Regional and on Archimedes were also skewed. At 1124, we were nearly always the lowest team number on the field. We mostly played with rookie and sophomore teams. We had really low qualifying points, because we were generally playing with/against teams who were inexperienced and could not put up a high score.

[Jeff Waegelin]

This pattern had a great effect on seeding for eliminations, too, at least in the Galileo division. Several of the top teams with lower team numbers had some pretty brutal matches where they beat up on each other, leading many of them to be outside the top 8, even though they were top hurdlers. At the same time, there were several teams in the higher number ranges that made it into the top 8, possibly because of an easier match schedule. I don't begrudge any of those teams - they all performed well with the match schedules they were given. I do think it would have been better, however, if we had gotten a slightly more equitable distribution of teams in each match.

Randomizing the list before running the algorithm would strike me as a fair way to do it. I don't care as much if I end up in a "pool" of teams - it's the only way to assure good match spacing - so long as the teams in that group are randomly assigned, and not dictated by team number.