: Re: Quality of Quality of Direct Comparison
(2010-03-17 07:52) [#7462]
Concerning your comments on my webpage:
On my page, I state: "Only a Player's Own Performance Affects His Direct Comparison Value" This statement, like all statements on my webpage refer to an application of Direct Comparison after the one tournament has already been completed.
You are right to observe that "Opponents' performance against third players affects the DC score" if two tournaments with different game results are compared and that "Pairings affect the DC score" while the tournament is still in progress.
Neither of your two statements contradicts mine though because you study tournaments that are still dynamic with respect to their game results while I study one tournament of that the game results of all rounds are already given.
Presumably I should have stated this context more clearly. Quite like you should also make this distinction between dynamic tournament still being in progress and static, already finished tournament clearer.
The next question then might be how to interpret all these findings for better assessment of the tiebreaker's quality.
Your statement "A game of go between two players will not always produce the same result as the previous one. Therefore, it makes no sense to take the result of one game and say that its result is also the result of the next game [in] a[n omitted] playoff." is a good one; much better than what you had tried to explain about this aspect previously.
Concerning significance, we all need a much better reference to formal definitions of significance. Currently I lack time to go that deep and therefore do not discuss your related comments yet.
Concerning frequencies of how often Direct Comparison does break ties in a particular tournament system, this should still be studied in much greater detail. So far only subjective guesses have been made.
You state: "It truly is unclear why some games of a player should be evaluated more often than others"
Ok, but this consideration can be taken against every tiebreaker. E.g. against SOS, where games with a high SOS contribution value more than games with a low one.
Since you made interpretation mistakes concerning my stated advantages of Direct Comparison, your conclusion "DC has only disadvantages." is a wrong implication.
That the EGD does not show the tournaments where I made place 1 by tiebreaker proves its incompleteness. (I also do not recall details, but I am sure to have tournaments by tiebreaker.)
My anecdote I have chosen because I remember it much better than lots of similar anecdotes I have heard from others.
You write: "If a tournament system measures something, then care must be taken to measure the same thing in the tie breaker."
If the same thing were measured, there would be no tiebreaker but the Swiss / McMahon Score would simply be repeated.
You claim that coin tossing would be more meaningful than DC. Where is your proof?