Help
Can anyone explain HOW Swiss Pairs are scored? Are the top scores pitted against each other for the next round? ARE IMP scoring tables used? dae
Page 1 of 1
Explain Swiss pairs scoring/match-ups Scoring
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,808
- Joined: 2003-January-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:USA
Posted 2007-January-06, 22:43
As every round begins in each section
1. The section is scored
2. The pairs are ordered by score
3. the pairs are seated at table 1 NS, EW, 2 NS, EW
Best scores are at table 1, worst scores at the last table in the section.
1. The section is scored
2. The pairs are ordered by score
3. the pairs are seated at table 1 NS, EW, 2 NS, EW
Best scores are at table 1, worst scores at the last table in the section.
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,291
- Joined: 2004-August-04
- Location:Work in the South Bronx, NYC, USA
- Interests:My personal interests are my family and my friends. I am extremely concerned about the lives and futures of the kids (and their families) that I work with. I care about the friends I have made on BBO. Also, I am extremely concerned about the environment/ ecology/ wildlife/ the little planet that we call Earth. How much more of the world's habitat and food supply for animals do we plan on destroying. How many more wetlands are we going to drain, fill, and build on? How many more sand dunes are we going to knock down in the interests of high-rise hotels or luxury homes?
Posted 2007-January-06, 23:20
again, I shall suggest.
in the interest of reducing the skewing of the imp pairs scores due to aberrant scores at one or two tables, please consider dropping the highest and the lowest N/S (or E/W) score and then calculate the mean.
I suggested this a few years ago, was told no at that time, and that's OK with me. I'm easy. But, i ask that the powers to be please reconsider the issue.
Thanx
DHL
in the interest of reducing the skewing of the imp pairs scores due to aberrant scores at one or two tables, please consider dropping the highest and the lowest N/S (or E/W) score and then calculate the mean.
I suggested this a few years ago, was told no at that time, and that's OK with me. I'm easy. But, i ask that the powers to be please reconsider the issue.
Thanx
DHL
"That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!"
#4
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 2,517
- Joined: 2003-February-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Dartmouth, NS, Canada
Posted 2007-January-07, 03:31
IMP or MP results are used, it depends on how the tourney calculate scores.
Also, in a Swiss, playbacks are not allowed. What BBO calls Swiss would be properly named Danish, IIRC.
Sorry, DHL, that can't be done. BBO doesn't use Butler (optionally drop the extremes, then calculate the mean, then compare), but Crossed IMPs (compare with every other result, then optionally take the mean of that).
This is analogous to how MPs are calculated, but instead of 1/0.5/0 you get the IMPed difference. It is also how the Cavendish does calculations (but they don't take the mean afterwards, just the total). As BBO does take the mean, the numbers look somewhat similar to Butler, but they are not the same.
Big fields reduce the weight of extreme results, so big tourneys are better in that regard (initial computations in barometer compare against same section I think (it is a guide), but final results compare across the field, I think).
MBC field is 16 tables. I think a bigger number would help in this regard.
Also, in a Swiss, playbacks are not allowed. What BBO calls Swiss would be properly named Danish, IIRC.
Sorry, DHL, that can't be done. BBO doesn't use Butler (optionally drop the extremes, then calculate the mean, then compare), but Crossed IMPs (compare with every other result, then optionally take the mean of that).
This is analogous to how MPs are calculated, but instead of 1/0.5/0 you get the IMPed difference. It is also how the Cavendish does calculations (but they don't take the mean afterwards, just the total). As BBO does take the mean, the numbers look somewhat similar to Butler, but they are not the same.
Big fields reduce the weight of extreme results, so big tourneys are better in that regard (initial computations in barometer compare against same section I think (it is a guide), but final results compare across the field, I think).
MBC field is 16 tables. I think a bigger number would help in this regard.
Page 1 of 1