[Rossoneri]

Yes, I know short triangles but silly, but this was due to circumstances beyond my control.

I have tried some way of manually deriving a VP table, but I'm not quite sure if I'm right. I've also searched and not been able to find much. Would anyone happen to be able to shed more light on how to do the scoring?

[gordontd]

Rossoneri, on 2011-July-31, 21:51, said:

Yes, I know short triangles but silly, but this was due to circumstances beyond my control.

I have tried some way of manually deriving a VP table, but I'm not quite sure if I'm right. I've also searched and not been able to find much. Would anyone happen to be able to shed more light on how to do the scoring?

If you are using EBU VP scales, they are in the White Book. Otherwise, let us know what the basic VP scale is that you are using.

Edit: sorry I see now that you put WBF in the sub-title.

This post has been edited by gordontd: 2011-August-01, 03:03

[gordontd]

Rossoneri, on 2011-July-31, 21:51, said:

Yes, I know short triangles but silly, but this was due to circumstances beyond my control.

I have tried some way of manually deriving a VP table, but I'm not quite sure if I'm right. I've also searched and not been able to find much. Would anyone happen to be able to shed more light on how to do the scoring?

You can't do it perfectly, because a draw in the WBF scale is 15-15, so can't be halved. The simple method recommended by the WBF CTD is to add together their IMPs for the two half-matches and convert it to VPs using the 12-board scale. You'll find the VPs won't balance exactly, but any extra effort to improve this still won't get you a perfect solution.

[Rossoneri]

gordontd, on 2011-August-01, 05:11, said:

You can't do it perfectly, because a draw in the WBF scale is 15-15, so can't be halved. The simple method recommended by the WBF CTD is to add together their IMPs for the two half-matches and convert it to VPs using the 12-board scale. You'll find the VPs won't balance exactly, but any extra effort to improve this still won't get you a perfect solution.

Thanks Gordon! (And thanks Max!)

While waiting for some word, I actually did come up with something based on John Probst's article and David Stevenson's website.

So after some work in MATLAB (though a standard normal table would do just fine), I obtained:

7.5-7.5 0-1
8.5-6.5 2-4
9.5-5.5 5-7
10.5-4.5 8-10
11.5-3.5 11-13
12.5-2.5 14-17
12.5-1.5 18-23
12.5-0.5 24+

My results were less "flat" than if I had used the adding and scoring method.

[jh51]

Just so I can satisfy my curiosity about terminology, is a triangle match the same as what in the US is typically called a 3 way? (ie, a match where 3 teams play each other. It often occurs if an odd number of teams exist in a Swiss, but will also occur with certain numbers of teams in a KO.)

[gordontd]

jh51, on 2011-August-02, 14:59, said:

Just so I can satisfy my curiosity about terminology, is a triangle match the same as what in the US is typically called a 3 way? (ie, a match where 3 teams play each other. It often occurs if an odd number of teams exist in a Swiss, but will also occur with certain numbers of teams in a KO.)

Yes