Team Tournament - Strange Counting? StreetSoccer
15 replies. Last post: 2011-07-26
Reply to this topic Return to forum-
Aganju at 2011-07-02
On the StreetSoccer Team Tournament result page, it shows both 'Polska' and 'MonStars' having 1 point each.
Now I don't mind if the MonStars get this point (being a member of them and all), but for me 31:9 result is not a tie?
Can anyone explain this to my limited understanding?
-
MRFvR at 2011-07-02
I believe that LG's source code works something like that:
if (you get ALL the points)
result = victory
else
{
if (you get 0 points)
result = defeat;
else
result = tie
}
Or something in that line. So, if a similar code was used, it's quite visible why 31:9 was calculated as a tie (which it's certainly NOT the case). Additionally (and that's the actual evidence on which I formulated my hypothesis), that's why we can't get a proper win-loss-tie info on StreetSoccer.
-
Ingo Althofer at 2011-07-03
Strange.
We will “soon” see in the Ewn team tournament if
a similar phenomenon happens there.
Or may it have it to do with the fact that team Polska
has two players only?
Ingo.
-
MRFvR at 2011-07-05
Seems like I was right and every game will be 1:1…
This might actually be a good thing: for team tournaments it makes much more sense to calculate the standing for total game points (which I suppose will be the tie-breaker here) than through team points. To give an example: suppose there where only 3 teams (A, B and C) and that the results were A 19 x 21 B, B 21 x 19 and C 15 x 25 A. With team points that would mean B champion with 4 points, A second, with 2 and C third with 0. With total game points that would mean A first with 44 points, B second with 42 and C again third 34, which is obviously the right way.
BTW, chess used to have game points but recently that sadly changed.
-
Aganju at 2011-07-05
If this would be the case, then you don't need to give points at all: each of the N teams will end up with N-1 'participation' points, because it participated in N-1 games and got 1 points each time. Useless.
I rather agree with the calculation/code error theory - somehow, StreetSoccer has not been made to recognize that there are 5 points per game, so the code assumes whoever has 0 points lost and anything else is tied.
-
Duke of Prunes at 2011-07-06
sorry if I am off-topic. What do you mean, Chess has not game points? In team tournaments?
-
Ingo Althofer at 2011-07-06
I think that a team championship without importance of
team scores does not make sense. Four wins (in ewn team
championship) with 10:6 each is clearly better than
a single 16:0-win plus three 8:8-draws, although they
have the same number of match wins.
It is in the nature of a team that scores are not built like
in case of “independent” single players. For instance, from
time to time I also have a look in the game standings of my
team partner to see in which games I invest most of my energy.
(Such thing is also normal in German chess Bundesliga: players
are allowed - during their games - to have look at the boards
of their partners - and to make, dependent on what they see,
decisions for risky or for safe play.)
Ingo.
-
MRFvR at 2011-07-06
That's way usually team score is the tie-breaker for team competitions. In your example, those two teams would indeed have the same number of points (40), but the first would have a better tie-breaker (8 points for 4 wins against 5 for the other team).
If, however, second team, instead of being equal in all three other team matches, would only tie two and win one 9:7, then it would be better.
-
MRFvR at 2011-07-06
@Duke of Prunes - In most chess team tournaments, historically, game points was used to build the standings. That means if in a 6 all-play-all team competition, team A won 5 matches 2,5:1,5 each and team B lost 1,5:2,5, tied with C and won 4:0 his remaining matches, B would be declared champion. Now (for the last 4 or so years) the most important chess team championships, A would be declared champion. But gamepoints would be the tie-breaker, so if C had won all his 3 remain matches 3,5:0,5, than although both B and C would have 7 team points (3 victories and 1 draw), B would be second on the account of having better game points (15,5 against 14) than C.
-
MRFvR at 2011-07-06
@Ingo - obviously I do now how chess team competitions work, believe me.
Paradoxically enough, team scores do NOT highlight the interdependence of a team. Modifying my example to DoP, suppose B would also beat C 4:0. To make the exemple even more didactic, suppose that in AxB the first three boards were draws and A won the fourth board. If game points are used B is better. If team points are used A is better. But that would be decide the whole championship in a single - and somewhat random - game (the fourth board in this example). Hell will freeze before you can convince 35% of top chess players that A was better than B.
-
Dvd Avins at 2011-07-06
@MRFvT That's certainly not my experience of chess team tournaments. The Scholastic tournaments I participated in in the 1970s did not work that way. The US Amateur Team Championships, which is by far the largest team tournament in the US doesn't work that way. I know the Olympiad used to, and I assumed it still did, but I think that's the exception. Your way has the team vs. team aspect reduced to a scheduling convenience. IMO, that's not what a team tournament is about.
-
Ingo Althofer at 2011-07-06
Already for several years, Chess Olympiads have as first rule
the team points:
2.5-1.5, 3-1, 3.5-0.5, 4-0 all give 2 points for the winning team,
2-2 gives one team point.
Ingo.
-
MRFvR at 2011-07-06
I must confess I do not know much about US chess. But that was the way in Olympiads, World Team Championships (Open, Women and age groups) and still is in most European leagues.
-
Ingo Althofer at 2011-07-26
Congratulations to the 2-player Polska team
for winning the first Championchips with
100 % score!
Ingo.