Life In 19x19

dfan wrote:

Pio2001 wrote:There is nothing wrong in using SOS and SOSOS as tie-breakers, as long as they are correctly defined and calculated.

A player can play perfectly and lose out on first place due to circumstances beyond her control. That's the main thing I find wrong with them.

If it happens, then it means that there were too many players / too few rounds / too many prizes.
You cannot accurately rank the 10 best out of 100 players in two rounds, whatever tie-breaker you use. SOS and SOSOS are not the culprit here.

Pio2001 wrote: But I don't know how to define the SOSOS.

SOSOS is the sum of oponents SOS. However, I haven't thought, what would be the best way to handle the missing rounds in SOSOS.

Pio2001 wrote:

Bantari wrote:Considering the above, the main mistake the organizers made was running a tournament in which McMahon, SOS and SOSOS were considered as the means to handle tiebreaks.

There is nothing wrong in using SOS and SOSOS as tie-breakers, as long as they are correctly defined and calculated.

The problem I have with SOS and SOSOS is not the issue of definition (unless you mean this in a very broad sense so we can completely redefine the term.) My problem is that both SOS and SOSOS scores are something beyond a player's control, and thus - imho - not suitable as a way to determine tie breaks. Of course, I am not sure what else to use instead - which is why I think it is better to let people share places or have extra games if needed.

PS>
To illustrate what I mean, consider the following scenario: we both play in a tourney with 5 rounds. My first round opponent is playing really strong, and yet I beat him. Your first opponent is sick on that day, big headache or something, and so you also win. We both lose the rest of our games... Now, lets assume that your opponent will get over his headache and win the rest of his games, while my opponent will get sick and lose the rest of his games. SOS would put you ahead of me. I ask: Why? Clearly, my win agains a strong playing opponent was more valuable than your win against a sick one. And yet you will be ahead of me in the final standings. The standing is determined by factors beyond our control and do not reflect actual performance in the tournament.

Slightly redefining SOS and SOSOS to account for missed games, byes, etc - will not change the above.

For better or for worse, sometimes people split money for tie breakers, but use SOS to determine official placement.

Bantari wrote:My problem is that both SOS and SOSOS scores are something beyond a player's control, and thus - imho - not suitable as a way to determine tie breaks.

I see it the opposite way : the strength of our opponents is something beyond our control, and it directly determines if we win or loose.
SOS and SOSOS help taking into account these factors that are "beyond our control", that are always there anyway.

Pio2001 wrote:

Bantari wrote:My problem is that both SOS and SOSOS scores are something beyond a player's control, and thus - imho - not suitable as a way to determine tie breaks.

I see it the opposite way : the strength of our opponents is something beyond our control, and it directly determines if we win or loose.
SOS and SOSOS help taking into account these factors that are "beyond our control", that are always there anyway.

I tend to agree with this as well. In a MacMahon tournament there's an inherent factor of randomness in play - pairing. You can never tell before the tournament begins how many people of what strength will ultimately be playing. As far as I understand, the system is meant to produce pairing that results in games: a) between opponents that are as close in strength as possible, b) that can select the strongest player playing in that particular tournament. If you want to have a podium, MacMahon is not well suited for that; however, for all the spots outside of that range (and outside of the top-bar group, really), SOS and SOSOS serve as a decent enough of a tie-breaker; however, I guess there it doesn't matter as much.

Pio2001 wrote:

Bantari wrote:My problem is that both SOS and SOSOS scores are something beyond a player's control, and thus - imho - not suitable as a way to determine tie breaks.

I see it the opposite way : the strength of our opponents is something beyond our control, and it directly determines if we win or loose.

My thinking is: The final standing should be determined by comparing the quality of your play vs the quality of play of others. SOS/SOSOS, as in the example I gave, has nothing to do with the quality of your play. It might not have anything to do with the quality of play of people you are tied with neither.

I think what you mean to say is this: The strength of my opponent is beyond my control and directly determines if I win or lose THIS ONE GAME AGAINST THAT OPPONENT! And I agree with that - this is why I think that straight-up score should be absolutely taken into account to determine your final standing.

However, the outcome of a game in which you do not participate has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with the quality of your play - so it is not a good measure of it. And this is what SOS and SOSOS are - results of games in which you did not participate (and usually in which the person you are tied with did not participate.)

But this is just my opinion, and if you don't agree - so be it. I will not try to push the point any harder. Peace out!