[2010 Ideas] Number of competitors qualified for next round

[Gilles]

There are not many competitions where the number of not proceeding competitors is exactly 1. But it is within the rules that we defined.

Of course it is within the rules. But I am questioning the rules.

The spirit of article 9p was that rounds must be selective.
That's why I proposed to make it more strict with a 50% quota, compatible with what we've seen in most serious competitions.
It seems I'm the only one to think fake competition rounds are anti-fun. So be it, forget my proposal.

What does article 9p achieve? Nothing. It's just awkward.

Round 1: 1003 competitors.
Round 2: 1002 competitors.
Round 3: 1001 competitors.
Final round: 1000 competitors.

This is not selection. So, let's be logical and remove 9p.

[Ron]

In most sports you see that at least one person/team does not proceed to a next round.
It could be one or more. I think half would be very strict. I think one is indeed a bit low.
There has to be a limit. I would not mind to change it to two (or three or four). But then it would not solve very much.
I think with the current limitation of number of rounds we make sure that noone is doing 100 rounds of one event.
So I would like to keep it this way.

[Edouard Chambon]

Totally agreed with Gilles.

I don't see the point why people want to make many rounds for everyone.
If you're not into the final, then you have to practice more for the next time. And that could be a reachable goal for you, for the next time. And you would have the pressure in the semi final because you want to qualify. That is fun !
For me, fun is not solving as many cubes as possible in competition waiting for the perfect/lucky solve which could be your official personal best.

For me, it is not "more fun" at all to be sure for everyone-2 people from the beginning to go to the final. It's boring.


It seems that we are the only one to see competitions as competitions. Most of the people see it as a cube meeting where the goal is to have the best ranking on the WCA website afterwards.

[deadalnix]

Actually, most people don"t have a chance to get the first place in a competion (that's my case).

When I come to competition, I want to see other cubers, and I compete mostly against myself, not against others. I also come to meet other competitors. I'm pretty sure many cubers feel the same - At least, it is the same for many people I frequently meet in competitions.

However, the 50% rule isn't that bad. Many competition are more strict than that. But I don't see any reason to include this into regulations. This is an useless restriction. We should just let people compete the way they want to. It's up to the organisator to choose if a competition must be higly selective or not. We shouldn't impose our vision of the competition to others, but make the regulation as fair as possible and managable. And this regulation doesn't make the competition more fair or easier to organize.

[Edouard Chambon]

On this point, I agree with you, deadalnix.

But some "problems" occur then... For instance, if there are a lot of competitors in the final, there is not enough judge/scramblers remaining.
So the organiser is forced to do two groups, with different scrambles.

And I don't really like this idea for a 3x3 final, because it is not fair between the competitors.

Again, it depends if you see competitions as competitions between competitors or as against the ranking on the WCA website.

For me, the rule "the final should have at most 50% of the registered competitors for the event" is good enough.

[BryanLogan]

And I don't really like this idea for a 3x3 final, because it is not fair between the competitors.

Why are two groups in the final more fair for other events? Many competitions only have 1 round of some events, and people may be in two groups.

[/quote]

For me, the rule "the final should have at most 50% of the registered competitors for the event" is good enough.

"Registered competitor" is a bad criteria. Does this include "no shows"? Besides, this rule doesn't work for events that have 1 round. What about when there's 3 rounds? Does each round have to cut 50% each time, or just 50% from the registered?

[Pedro_S]

And I don't really like this idea for a 3x3 final, because it is not fair between the competitors.

Why are two groups in the final more fair for other events? Many competitions only have 1 round of some events, and people may be in two groups.

Because in these events you don't have enough scramblers, most of the time. Basically anyone can scramble a 3x3, which is not true for square-1 or megaminx or clock, for example. (and these events have fewer people, which makes things even worse)

For me, the rule "the final should have at most 50% of the registered competitors for the event" is good enough.

"Registered competitor" is a bad criteria. Does this include "no shows"? Besides, this rule doesn't work for events that have 1 round. What about when there's 3 rounds? Does each round have to cut 50% each time, or just 50% from the registered?

Edouard's text is very clear saying that the FINAL round should have at most 50% of the competitors. I agree with you that it should be 50% of the # of competitors in the first round, because many people don't show up.
The rule is of course not meant for events with just one round...

[Edouard Chambon]

Thank you Pedro. Sometimes I don't see how to be more clear.

If you prefer it like that: "it's forbidden to do more than one group in a final of an event which had more than one round".

Sounds good.

[deadalnix]

That's sound fair.

[BryanLogan]

If you prefer it like that: "it's forbidden to do more than one group in a final of an event which had more than one round".

That seems like a completely arbitrary rule. If I have a single round of 4x4, it's OK to have separate groups for the final, but once I move to 2 rounds, then having separate groups for the final is bad? If having separate groups for the final is such an awful situation (which I don't think it is), then it should be prevented at all times.

For 3x3 finals, I do grouping, but I sort the groups by their prior round results, so that the people most likely to take 1st, 2nd, and 3rd are in the same group. (I know some people will argue that if someone doesn't stand a chance at getting third, we shouldn't move them to the final anyways....)

A lot of time, my volunteers are people who practice, so even if I cut 50% of the competitors, many of the judges and scramblers are in the final round anyways. Organizationwise, it's best to have 2 groups to get stuff done faster.

[Ron]

The Board's decision for this year is to keep the current regulations for this subject.

I think our two main design goals are: 'fairness' and 'fun for everyone', because our hobby is for slow and fast cubers.
That includes a rather liberal regulation on qualification for next rounds.
We will however inform WCA delegates on applying this regulation a bit more consistently.

[deadalnix]

What do you mean by applying this regulation a bit more consistently ?

[Ron]

What do you mean by applying this regulation a bit more consistently ?

Consistent as in "consistent across competitions". So not one competition doing it this way and another doing it another way.
We DID contact the WCA delegates of the n-1 competitions regarding this subject.

[jazzthief81]

What do you mean by applying this regulation a bit more consistently ?

Consistent as in "consistent across competitions". So not one competition doing it this way and another doing it another way.
We DID contact the WCA delegates of the n-1 competitions regarding this subject.

Sorry, but I don't get this at all. Doing what this or another way?

The way I see it there only two ways to apply this rule: you either follow it or you don't follow it. If you let n-1 people through, you follow the rule. If you let 50% of the people through, you follow the rule. If you let 8 people through, you follow the rule (provided there were more than 8 in the round before). All three decisions are equally valid under the current regulations and hence none of them should be regarded as "inferior".

I was a delegate at one of those so-called "n-1 competitions". I don't really see what I have to do with this. My responsibility is approving the events and event formats. Letting n-1 people through is allowed, end of story. My or other people's personal preference shouldn't matter. If the organizer thinks he or she can handle it, I don't see any reason to stop him or her from doing that.

Right now it almost seems there is an unwritten rule but nobody knows what that rule is.

I want same clarity, please! I think you should either make a decision or leave the comments to yourself (or to this forum to discuss a change of the rule).

[Thom]

Most of the people see it as a cube meeting where the goal is to have the best ranking on the WCA website afterwards.

Is there anything wrong with them thinking this?

[Ron]

Hi all,

Here is a new proposal.
For each round at least one third of the competitors must not proceed to the next round. See article 9p2 in the version on the server.
We have only day left before finalisation, so please send your feedback asap.

Thanks,

Ron

[Thom]

Woah woah woah. You're about to change a rule and give us a single day's notice? Most people check this forum much less than once per day, couldn't you of suggested this for next year instead of pushing it through without anyone commenting on it?

I preferred your original suggestion to leave the rules as they were and allow the organiser/delegates to make this decision with guidance from WCA board members.

[CharlieCooper]

I couldn't agree more with what Lars said.

After considerable criticism for an "n-1 competition" I feel I should comment on this matter. There seems to be some discontent regarding such a format, which is unnecessary as it is completely allowed according to the regulations. The bottom line is that regardless of personal preferences (which appear to be getting in the way here) there should be a rule that can be followed to the letter, even if this is difficult for the board to agree on. The hobby we are all so fond of is growing so quickly that organisers need clearer guidelines. I don't want to feel like I've done something wrong when all I've done is read the regulations and do precisely what IS allowed.

My reasons for having this format:
1) It is a friendly competition, not a fierce and heated competition (I think there is room for stricter cut off points in larger events where competitors win "titles" such as WC or EC)
2) I don't think that because you are slower than other competitors you should have fewer opportunities in which to compete (I understand that it can be a motivator to reach semi finals etc, but again, this is for a more relaxed environment)
3) I want to encourage the cubing scene as much as possible in England, which I feel has happened due to such formats as new competitors are involved throughout the day(s).
4) It doesn't give faster people any higher chance of breaking records, which seems to be implied, as those people would make later rounds anyway. Why can't everybody just have the same amount of attempts to break personal bests?
5) Travelling. I know people shouldn't expect additional rounds of things because they are travelling far, it would be over the top to suggest that as a reason for an n-1 format but I am sympathetic to it. If the time schedule allows for more people to progress then why not?
6) This n-1 situation was only for 3x3x3 for the reasons outlined above, and because it is obviously the most popular puzzle. Every other event has a stricter cut off)

The reasons I can think of for not having this format:
1) Personal preference for fiercer competition
2) The idea that it makes a competition not look like a competition or very "professional" (the whole casual vs. formal competition debate)
3) Time schedule not allowing it

While I have gone into some detail there, it is predominantly personal preference that appears to dictate the formats of competitions. As we will forever be divided on the matter, this cannot continue as we are not really to say whose preference is the correct one. There absolutely needs to be a clear cut regulation that we can follow to avoid feelings of discontent over this issue. If organisers are never supposed to use the n-1 format, why is it even mentioned? When is an appropriate time to implement it? Leaving things as they are and having organisers and delegates liaising with the board members seems impractical and unnecessary as opinions differ greatly on the matter and there would still be no regulation to follow.

What Ron proposes is a good idea. I would suggest that at least 25% must be cut for each round. This seems like a reasonable limit and avoids an "n-1 competition". This allows for the minimum of 25% to provide a more relaxed and fun competition, while the cut off can be raised for events that are necessary.

[BryanLogan]

Hi all,

Here is a new proposal.
For each round at least one third of the competitors must not proceed to the next round. See article 9p2 in the version on the server.
We have only day left before finalisation, so please send your feedback asap.

Thanks,

Ron

Out of curiosity, where did 1/3 come from? I can see that being a bit high if people announce a Round 2 that has X competitors and there's a low turnout for some reason.

For example, Twin Cities 2009 had 42 competitors, so when I planned Cubetcha, I expected a similar number, so I announced that the second round of 3x3 would be the top 24. However, only 25 people came to Cubetcha, so I adjusted it down to 20. I didn't want to cut too much because I knew some people had come and expected to be in a second round by being top 24.

Of course, "Top 24 or 2/3 of competitors, whichever is smaller" could just be standard disclaimer on competition websites.

Is there time to make a quick analysis to see how many "compliant" competitions we would have had in 2009 based on the criteria of 1/3, 1/4, and 1/5? If 40% of competitions have broken the 1/3 rule, but only 15% have broken a 1/4 rule, I'd go with 1/4. I'm just making up those numbers, it would be good to see the actual data.

[deadalnix]

Edouard's proposition (avoid more than one group in final) is the only one tha make sense for me.

All other are quite subjective and do not make de competition easier to organize. So they are pretty useless.

However, aving only one group in final ensure more fairness in the competition because verybody have the same scramble. It can be very important in some events like sq-1, where scrambles are very unequel in difficulty.