AttilaTheHun wrote:

Here's an article worth looking at: http://www.davidmarcus.com/Articles/Seed.pdf

Thanks A,

Yeah, That article was one of my first hits.  I found it frustrating that the question framed in the very first subtitle, "Why Are Tournaments Seeded?"  isn't answered in the ensuing section, nor is it to be found anywhere in the document.  I was disappointed that in the paper, that tournaments should be seeded is basically a tautology.  I should have read it more in depth at the time, but my sense was that there was a flaw in the author's reasoning at the outset (based on the first two paragraphs).  This time around I gave it a more thorough look.

Based on my interpretation of what I read, the point of seeding is to encourage a predicted outcome.  My interpretation of that is that it helps the better players win, and the lesser players lose.  In essence the purpose of seeding is to give "weight" to the better player's probability of winning.

You mentioned Delayed Confrontation, but it's the second Axiom: Sincerity Rewarded that goes directly to my criticism of the process. Favoring the stronger player with a schedule less difficult than any lower seeded player directly implies that the lower seeds will tend to receive the more difficult schedule.

Thingol wrote:

It's blatantly unfair for the best 2 players to play in round 1 while an average player coasts thru several rounds...period!  End of story.  If you argue against that, than you have no idea of fairness to begin with and are just arguing for argument's sake.

T, I'm no mathematician, but I have studied probability, and though it is possible that my reasoning in this case is fallacious, I do have a fundamental understanding of what "fairness" is from a mathematical perspective.   I will argue it is "fair" that in the case where 2^k is the number of entries, there is a 1/(2^k - 1) probability that any given two players will meet in the first round of a randomly seeded tournament.

For example, with 16 players in the tournament, there is a ~6.7% probability that the best two players will meet in the first round. This is fair.  The second best player may not like having to battle the #1 player in the first round, but neither would the worst player in the field.

And yes, I have been known to argue for argument's sake.

Finally, what I'm arguing for is an 'option' for the host to use seeding...if you feel said tourney is unfair to join, feel free to decline.

I have no problem with this, as long as those tournaments are unranked.

It seems to me like seeding gives a better chance that a better player will win the tournament.  It reduces the chance that a lesser player gets lucky wrt. their opponents which leads to a win.

If tournament rank here was decided strictly on tournament wins, then I would be in favor of tournaments because it would lead to more often the winner of the tournament being one of the best teams.

But tournament ranking here is not based on how many tournaments you win, but instead on how many games you win in tournaments, and seeding would bias things in favor of the better ranked players, because they play more games against weak players and less games against strong players.

Ozyman wrote:

But tournament ranking here is not based on how many tournaments you win, but instead on how many games you win in tournaments, and seeding would bias things in favor of the better ranked players, because they play more games against weak players and less games against strong players.

Oh ..oh.  Do I hear an echo?

Thanks O.  I was beginning to feel lonely.

I do know that fairness requires no mathematical support...we aren't robots here, are we.  Thomas Paine once wrote a good book...look it up.

Perhaps Wimbledon and the US Open, the SuperBowl tourney and baseball, hockey and basketball playoffs should just go to a free-for-all based on M57 and Ozy's viewpoints...egads.

In all honesty, I'm in favor of maximizing the chances that the best player win a game, tourney or regular game...any games which minimize the luck factor are good by me.  I'd like to see a lesser (let's say less advanced) player win by stepping up his/her game.

BTW, I 'hear' you're a pretty good player M57...but I wouldn't know since you've declined every game I've invited you to...must be a couple dozen on several different maps.  Aren't you on the map tester list? 

Ozyman wrote:

... seeding would bias things in favor of the better ranked players, because they play more games against weak players and less games against strong players.

So I am afraid it would be the opposite. When strong players play each other they can win or lose 15 to 25 points. But when a strong player plays a weak one, he could win say 8 points with a huge risk of losing 50. And because we are not playing chess here, this is in favor of weak players.

I believe I understand the value of seeding.

"Championship" tournaments are most commonly used in the real world to determine the best team/player at the end of a regular season.  There are exceptions, and to the degree that these derivate from this standard, I contend that they are unfair.

The quintessential example of a pure knockout event is the NCAA basketball finals. This culminating event is a typical example of a proper use of seeding in the sense that the better teams have "earned" their seeding by playing a regular season schedule that is unseeded, and to the degree that it is possible, "fair".   These better team are deservedly given a mathematically "unfair" advantage in the tournament because they have earned it.  I approve of this use of seeding.

Seeding also has the advantage of providing the "delayed confrontation" that the public craves. Perhaps the author of the paper that AttilaTheHun posted would disagree with me, but I'm tempted to suspect that this property of seeding isn't so much an "axiom" as it is a byproduct of the process of encouraging the "desired" results.  If there was a way to create seeding such that there was delayed confrontation with the better teams, but there was no disadvantage to lower ranked teams, I would be all for it.

Thingol, I am sorry if I am turning down your invitations.  I am not intentionally avoiding you.  It is likely that I simply avoid many of the boards that you prefer.  I would guess that 90% of my play is on less than a dozen boards, so I may not be that good a player..  Also, in the last few months I have cut down significantly on the number of games I have open.  Currently I have 12 games where I am alive, 4 of which are Review Games.

Toto wrote:

Ozyman wrote:

... seeding would bias things in favor of the better ranked players, because they play more games against weak players and less games against strong players.

So I am afraid it would be the opposite. When strong players play each other they can win or lose 15 to 25 points. But when a strong player plays a weak one, he could win say 8 points with a huge risk of losing 50. And because we are not playing chess here, this is in favor of weak players.

Toto, this is a valid argument that I hadn't considered.  I wouldn't say that its the "opposite", but I believe a case for equability could be argued from this point.

M57 wrote:

...The quintessential example of a pure knockout event is the NCAA basketball finals. This culminating event is a typical example of a proper use of seeding in the sense that the better teams have "earned" their seeding by playing a regular season schedule that is unseeded, and to the degree that it is possible, "fair".   These better team are deservedly given a mathematically "unfair" advantage in the tournament because they have earned it.  I approve of this use of seeding.

...

So, haven't players who have performed well in the public, ranked games earned their right to a good seed in a tournament on that same board?  If so, this would justify seeding.

Took the words right outta my mouth Attila.

AttilaTheHun wrote:

So, haven't players who have performed well in the public, ranked games earned their right to a good seed in a tournament on that same board?  If so, this would justify seeding.

..if the results of that tournament had no impact on the seeding of future tournaments.  There's a circular flaw otherwise. Make seeded events unranked and I would have no problem ..except the part where WG probably shouldn't be supporting two unrelated sets of tournaments at this point.

I actually prefer the idea of building some history (including prior tourneys)...call me nostalgic.

M57 wrote:

AttilaTheHun wrote:

So, haven't players who have performed well in the public, ranked games earned their right to a good seed in a tournament on that same board?  If so, this would justify seeding.

..if the results of that tournament had no impact on the seeding of future tournaments.  There's a circular flaw otherwise. Make seeded events unranked and I would have no problem ..except the part where WG probably shouldn't be supporting two unrelated sets of tournaments at this point.

This I agree with as well, which is why I believe that if seeding is implemented, it should only be based on Board Ranking for the pertinent board.  Tournament seeds should not be based on tournament ranking nor on Global public ranking.

AttilaTheHun wrote:

This I agree with as well, which is why I believe that if seeding is implemented, it should only be based on Board Ranking for the pertinent board.  Tournament seeds should not be based on tournament ranking nor on Global public ranking.

As long as you agree that they "deserve" this advantage then conceptually I think we are on the same page.

Better players will play and win more games, and to the degree that this gives them an advantage in the resulting Tournament Rankings, I am not a fan of the idea.  ..although I admit that Toto's point does mitigate that concern somewhat.

M57 wrote:

AttilaTheHun wrote:

This I agree with as well, which is why I believe that if seeding is implemented, it should only be based on Board Ranking for the pertinent board.  Tournament seeds should not be based on tournament ranking nor on Global public ranking.

As long as you agree that they "deserve" this advantage then conceptually I think we are on the same page.

Better players will play and win more games, and to the degree that this gives them an advantage in the resulting Tournament Rankings, I am not a fan of the idea.  ..although I admit that Toto's point does mitigate that concern somewhat.

I agree that success in the public domain should earn a better seed for a tournament on the respective board.

In addition to Toto's point, I believe that since some players will tend to target seeded opponents, it will most likely offset at least some of the advantage of having an "easier" schedule.

Curious to know any other opinions out there...

~ATH

AttilaTheHun wrote:

If someone is good at a board, then they'll have a high board ranking.  If a tourney is started on that board, then they would be highly seeded.

No, I don't believe tourney play counts towards your board ranking.

If the second point is true, then the first point is true only IF they've played that board outside of Tourneys. there are a number of boards that i've not played outside of tourneys. or boards that i kick ass on during tourneys but can't do much on ranked games.

weathertop wrote:

AttilaTheHun wrote:

If someone is good at a board, then they'll have a high board ranking.  If a tourney is started on that board, then they would be highly seeded.

No, I don't believe tourney play counts towards your board ranking.

If the second point is true, then the first point is true only IF they've played that board outside of Tourneys. there are a number of boards that i've not played outside of tourneys. or boards that i kick ass on during tourneys but can't do much on ranked games.

 

http://www.wargear.net/help/display/Tournament%20Rankings

as for my opinion, it'll have to wait for more long-winded explaination after i've had time to think; but right now i think i'm with M57 on this debate.

Of course you are.

AttilaTheHun wrote:

weathertop wrote:

AttilaTheHun wrote:

If someone is good at a board, then they'll have a high board ranking.  If a tourney is started on that board, then they would be highly seeded.

No, I don't believe tourney play counts towards your board ranking.

If the second point is true, then the first point is true only IF they've played that board outside of Tourneys. there are a number of boards that i've not played outside of tourneys. or boards that i kick ass on during tourneys but can't do much on ranked games.

 

http://www.wargear.net/help/display/Tournament%20Rankings

 

ok, so i was right...muhahahacoughhack. sorry the wife just cracked me upside the head for thinking that way.