[blml] Swiss Teams formats

[Steve Willner]

> From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort <jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr>
> 2-day competition, 14-30 teams, 80-90 deals, 5-8 rounds, 1 or 2
> predefined rounds based on seedings. the particularity is the use of a
> bonus system to prevent swissing and to make up for the disparity of
> opposed teams: complementary VP are added to each team at the end of
> each round (except 1st and 2nd) according to their present ranking (0 to
> the last team, the most for the leader). the exact amount of bonus is an
> arbitrary parameter, the tuning of which adds to the debate.

This is perhaps a little better than doing nothing, but it seems far 
worse than matching according to record (possibly with a bit of weight 
given to seeding as in accelerated Swiss), then adding in the "strength 
of schedule" correction at the end, when you know how all the teams have 
done.  The exact amount to add in isn't clear, but simulations should 
tell us what it should be.

>   one way to analyze the accuracy of a particular swiss teams result is
> to compare it to an "objective" modelisation of the performance of the
> competing teams. this modelisation is an extrapolation of the swiss to
> what would have been the results in a complete round robin between all
> teams, using the methodology of missing-data reconstitution: results
> of actually played matches are retained; for non-played match, 
> artificial results are computed, statistically the more compatible with 
> other results of the 2 teams involved. (technical details available upon 
> request)

If I understand what you mean, I long ago suggested something similar. 
I'd do it directly by solving appropriate "normal equations," given the 
actual results.  The biggest problem with this approach is that it is 
entirely opaque to the players, but it is theoretically the best method 
because it takes full account of all results.  (Actually there are 
several possible methods, not a single "best" one, in this family.) 
I've suggested the same approach to player ratings, where it might 
receive more support because nobody expects ratings to be easily 
computable by players themselves.