If you recall, Jerry, in AMT2, we used something like what you did for lit singles, except that we changed the mixing rate so that it starts out large (50%) and goes down to a small number (like exchanging only 1 or 2 persons after the last "mixing" round). I think this is the optimal (probabilistically speaking) strategy for getting the highest rated individuals to appear in the final round in the shortest amount of time. Think of it as a simulated annealing strategy often used in physics and computer science models. With the strategy I just described, you would get everybody to play on all but a possible final round one-on-one playoff, plus we maximize the chance that we get the best possible group (given the number of rounds) at the final round. (See the results post for AMT2 where I describe this, if you want more details.) Ray. --- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, grapesmoker <no_reply_at_y...> wrote: > Looking at the literature singles results today, I saw, > unsurprisingly, that the tournament was played according to the > double-elimination format. I'm wondering why precisely this format is > used at singles tournaments when elimination formats aren't used in > team tournaments at any open, ACF, or NAQT event that I know of. At > BASQuE, we used the multiple-tier format, which I like because > everyone gets to play more games. The downside, of course, is that you > have to play against five or six people at once, which dilutes the > one-on-one appeal of singles events somewhat. Are there other formats > out there that allow more games per player while preserving the > competitive style of singles tournaments? I'm curious, as I dislike > elimination formats in general, but do like the one-on-one style, > which is logistically tough to pull off in a round-robin format (a la > Kidder Cup) because many staffers are required. > > Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:48 AM EST EST