US contest scoring formula is broken

[Steve Koerner]

Over the last several years I've found it quite annoying that I cannot
read the rules and understand the US scoring formula. The
calculation of US scores has become encumbered with so many correction
factors, devaluation factors and the like that mere mortals cannot
relate soaring performance to score results. It did not use to be
that way.

Day 5 preliminary scores for the ongoing US Standard class nationals
at Montague are showing that the current complex scoring formula
generates ridiculous results. The winning performance was a 217 mile
flight at 72.50 mph (congratulations David Greenhill). The second
place speed of 61.30 mph received 85% of the winners score for a speed
which was 15% slower. So far, OK.

Then a bizarre compression comes into play for slower finishers. The
seventh place pilot flew a mere 67 miles at 23.33 mph and received 76%
of the winners score. That’s absurd. He flew only about one third of
the speed and distance that the second place finisher flew yet scored
a mere 70 fewer points.

We need to completely scrap the present over-elaborated scoring
equations and get back to a scheme for scoring that is both simple and
understandable. The simple scoring protocol of yore may have produced
minor inequities at times; but, there was never anything as crazy as
the scoring we’re generating right now at the US nationals.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jun 22, 11:08*pm, Steve Koerner > wrote:

> Then a bizarre compression comes into play for slower finishers. *The
> seventh place pilot flew a mere 67 miles at 23.33 mph and received 76%
> of the winners score. *That’s absurd. *He flew only about one third of
> the speed and distance that the second place finisher flew yet scored
> a mere 70 fewer points.

I have not studied the results but I wonder if the "worst day" rule is
being applied. It's a flag in Winscore (worst day scoring adjustment)
that has to be selected by the scorer. It can be selected for
Nationals.

Andy

[Andy[_10_]]

On Jun 22, 11:08*pm, Steve Koerner > wrote:
>
> Then a bizarre compression comes into play for slower finishers. *The
> seventh place pilot flew a mere 67 miles at 23.33 mph and received 76%
> of the winners score. *That’s absurd. *He flew only about one third of
> the speed and distance that the second place finisher flew yet scored
> a mere 70 fewer points.
>

This in part results from a change in 2007 that changed Maximum
Distance Points (MDP) from 400 to 600. The relevant rules (for MAT and
TAT - similar for AST) are:

11.6.6 Maximum Speed Points:
MSP = STF * (600 + 500 * SCR) (but not greater than STF *
1000)
11.6.7 Maximum Distance Points:
MDP = MSP * (0.8 - 0.2 * SCR)
11.6.8 Points for Finishers:
POINTS shall be equal to the largest of the following
three quantities:
MSP * SPEED / BESTSPD
MDP + 30 + MSP * 0.2 * ((SPEED/BESTSPD) - 0.4)
MDP + 30

As I understand it, the basic idea is that the rule makers (with pilot
input) are trying to make sure that pilots who have a landout can stay
somewhat competitive (See: 11.6.8 - dropping 600 points on a day is
hard to make up - 400 is still hard, but less so). There are also
provisions for devaluing tasks with lots of landouts (more than 20% -
see 11.6.6). Lots of landouts are thought to correlate to a higher
"luck factor". Short tasks are also devalued under similar logic.

The simplest scoring formulas would be to set Maximum Speed Points
(MSP) to 1000 and Minimum Distance Points (MDP) to zero and to get rid
of Scored Completion Ratio (SCR) and Short Task Factor (STF). What
this would mean is that if you finish, you get a score that is
directly proportionate to your percent of the winner's speed - no
matter how slow you go. If you land out you get zero. An alternative
is to to keep the idea of MDP (but we need to pick a number - 200,
400, 600, 800?) and relax the constraint that the best landout has to
get fewer points that any finisher. This allows us to keep the idea of
strict proportionality for any speed finisher. Under this scenario you
could see your score drop by a lot if you you are slow and finish
rather than landing out (because MDP exists, finishers whose speed as
a percent of the winner's speed is less than MDP/1000 could score less
than a long landout). This may be a bad idea as it encourages landing
out.

A third alternative is to pin any finisher's score that is less than
MDP to MDP - but this introduces the possibility that the bottom of
the scoresheet is populated with pilots who have identical scores
because they can't get above MDP. The lower you make MDP, the less
likely this is, but to avoid it for the Montague example described by
Steve MDP would need to be 300 points - which is less that it has ever
been in the rules. Obviously, that specific situation doesn't come up
often, and when it does its usually a funky day or a situation where a
pilot had something odd happen on course. It can also result from
cutting short at MAT (particularly if no turnpoints are assigned) or,
to a lesser extent, a TAT course.

I agree that the Montague example seems extreme, so it may warrant
review. It seems to me that all the alternatives have some tradeoffs
though.

9B

[Andy[_10_]]

On Jun 23, 6:18*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Jun 22, 11:08*pm, Steve Koerner > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Then a bizarre compression comes into play for slower finishers. *The
> > seventh place pilot flew a mere 67 miles at 23.33 mph and received 76%
> > of the winners score. *That’s absurd. *He flew only about one third of
> > the speed and distance that the second place finisher flew yet scored
> > a mere 70 fewer points.
>
> This in part results from a change in 2007 that changed Maximum
> Distance Points (MDP) from 400 to 600. The relevant rules (for MAT and
> TAT - similar for AST) are:
>
> * * * * 11.6.6 Maximum Speed Points:
> * * * * * * *MSP = STF * (600 + 500 * SCR) (but not greater than STF *
> 1000)
> * * * * 11.6.7 Maximum Distance Points:
> * * * * * * *MDP = MSP * (0.8 - 0.2 * SCR)
> * * * * 11.6.8 Points for Finishers:
> * * * * * * *POINTS shall be equal to the largest of the following
> three quantities:
> * * * * * * *MSP * SPEED / BESTSPD
> * * * * * * *MDP + 30 + MSP * 0.2 * ((SPEED/BESTSPD) - 0.4)
> * * * * * * *MDP + 30
>
> As I understand it, the basic idea is that the rule makers (with pilot
> input) are trying to make sure that pilots who have a landout can stay
> somewhat competitive (See: 11.6.8 - dropping 600 points on a day is
> hard to make up - 400 is still hard, but less so). There are also
> provisions for devaluing tasks with lots of landouts (more than 20% -
> see 11.6.6). Lots of landouts are thought to correlate to a higher
> "luck factor". Short tasks are also devalued under similar logic.
>
> The simplest scoring formulas would be to set Maximum Speed Points
> (MSP) to 1000 and Minimum Distance Points (MDP) to zero and to get rid
> of Scored Completion Ratio (SCR) and Short Task Factor (STF). What
> this would mean is that if you finish, you get a score that is
> directly proportionate to your percent of the winner's speed - no
> matter how slow you go. If you land out you get zero. An alternative
> is to to keep the idea of MDP (but we need to pick a number - 200,
> 400, 600, 800?) and relax the constraint that the best landout has to
> get fewer points that any finisher. This allows us to keep the idea of
> strict proportionality for any speed finisher. Under this scenario you
> could see your score drop by a lot if you you are slow and finish
> rather than landing out (because MDP exists, finishers whose speed as
> a percent of the winner's speed is less than MDP/1000 could score less
> than a long landout). This may be a bad idea as it encourages landing
> out.
>
> A third alternative is to pin any finisher's score that is less than
> MDP to MDP - but this introduces the possibility that the bottom of
> the scoresheet is populated with pilots who have identical scores
> because they can't get above MDP. The lower you make MDP, the less
> likely this is, but to avoid it for the Montague example described by
> Steve MDP would need to be 300 points - which is less that it has ever
> been in the rules. Obviously, that specific situation doesn't come up
> often, and when it does its usually a funky day or a situation where a
> pilot had something odd happen on course. It can also result from
> cutting short at MAT (particularly if no turnpoints are assigned) or,
> to a lesser extent, a TAT course.
>
> I agree that the Montague example seems extreme, so it may warrant
> review. It seems to me that all the alternatives have some tradeoffs
> though.
>
> 9B

Sorry - I meant to say MDP is Maximum Distance Points, not Minimum.

9B

[T8]

On Jun 23, 9:18*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Jun 22, 11:08*pm, Steve Koerner > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Then a bizarre compression comes into play for slower finishers. *The
> > seventh place pilot flew a mere 67 miles at 23.33 mph and received 76%
> > of the winners score. *That’s absurd. *He flew only about one third of
> > the speed and distance that the second place finisher flew yet scored
> > a mere 70 fewer points.
>
> This in part results from a change in 2007 that changed Maximum
> Distance Points (MDP) from 400 to 600. The relevant rules (for MAT and
> TAT - similar for AST) are:
>
> * * * * 11.6.6 Maximum Speed Points:
> * * * * * * *MSP = STF * (600 + 500 * SCR) (but not greater than STF *
> 1000)
> * * * * 11.6.7 Maximum Distance Points:
> * * * * * * *MDP = MSP * (0.8 - 0.2 * SCR)
> * * * * 11.6.8 Points for Finishers:
> * * * * * * *POINTS shall be equal to the largest of the following
> three quantities:
> * * * * * * *MSP * SPEED / BESTSPD
> * * * * * * *MDP + 30 + MSP * 0.2 * ((SPEED/BESTSPD) - 0.4)
> * * * * * * *MDP + 30
>
> As I understand it, the basic idea is that the rule makers (with pilot
> input) are trying to make sure that pilots who have a landout can stay
> somewhat competitive (See: 11.6.8 - dropping 600 points on a day is
> hard to make up - 400 is still hard, but less so). There are also
> provisions for devaluing tasks with lots of landouts (more than 20% -
> see 11.6.6). Lots of landouts are thought to correlate to a higher
> "luck factor". Short tasks are also devalued under similar logic.
>
> The simplest scoring formulas would be to set Maximum Speed Points
> (MSP) to 1000 and Minimum Distance Points (MDP) to zero and to get rid
> of Scored Completion Ratio (SCR) and Short Task Factor (STF). What
> this would mean is that if you finish, you get a score that is
> directly proportionate to your percent of the winner's speed - no
> matter how slow you go. If you land out you get zero. An alternative
> is to to keep the idea of MDP (but we need to pick a number - 200,
> 400, 600, 800?) and relax the constraint that the best landout has to
> get fewer points that any finisher. This allows us to keep the idea of
> strict proportionality for any speed finisher. Under this scenario you
> could see your score drop by a lot if you you are slow and finish
> rather than landing out (because MDP exists, finishers whose speed as
> a percent of the winner's speed is less than MDP/1000 could score less
> than a long landout). This may be a bad idea as it encourages landing
> out.
>
> A third alternative is to pin any finisher's score that is less than
> MDP to MDP - but this introduces the possibility that the bottom of
> the scoresheet is populated with pilots who have identical scores
> because they can't get above MDP. The lower you make MDP, the less
> likely this is, but to avoid it for the Montague example described by
> Steve MDP would need to be 300 points - which is less that it has ever
> been in the rules. Obviously, that specific situation doesn't come up
> often, and when it does its usually a funky day or a situation where a
> pilot had something odd happen on course. It can also result from
> cutting short at MAT (particularly if no turnpoints are assigned) or,
> to a lesser extent, a TAT course.
>
> I agree that the Montague example seems extreme, so it may warrant
> review. It seems to me that all the alternatives have some tradeoffs
> though.
>
> 9B

It's the use of MDP in formulas 2 & 3, without regard to how many
miles any given pilot actually flew, that's causing problems.

Agreed that our scoring rules are getting a little dense. I'm
curious: how are European comps scored? Anyone got a link?

-T8

[stephanevdv]

> Agreed that our scoring rules are getting a little dense. *I'm
> curious: how are European comps scored? *Anyone got a link?
>
> -T8

In Europe, most "classic" contests use the scoring formulas from the
Sporting Code Section 3, Annex A (International competition rules), §
8.4. Fairly complicated too!

[rhwoody]

On Jun 23, 7:51*am, T8 > wrote:
> On Jun 23, 9:18*am, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 11:08*pm, Steve Koerner > wrote:
>
> > > Then a bizarre compression comes into play for slower finishers. *The
> > > seventh place pilot flew a mere 67 miles at 23.33 mph and received 76%
> > > of the winners score. *That’s absurd. *He flew only about one third of
> > > the speed and distance that the second place finisher flew yet scored
> > > a mere 70 fewer points.
>
> > This in part results from a change in 2007 that changed Maximum
> > Distance Points (MDP) from 400 to 600. The relevant rules (for MAT and
> > TAT - similar for AST) are:
>
> > * * * * 11.6.6 Maximum Speed Points:
> > * * * * * * *MSP = STF * (600 + 500 * SCR) (but not greater than STF *
> > 1000)
> > * * * * 11.6.7 Maximum Distance Points:
> > * * * * * * *MDP = MSP * (0.8 - 0.2 * SCR)
> > * * * * 11.6.8 Points for Finishers:
> > * * * * * * *POINTS shall be equal to the largest of the following
> > three quantities:
> > * * * * * * *MSP * SPEED / BESTSPD
> > * * * * * * *MDP + 30 + MSP * 0.2 * ((SPEED/BESTSPD) - 0.4)
> > * * * * * * *MDP + 30
>
> > As I understand it, the basic idea is that the rule makers (with pilot
> > input) are trying to make sure that pilots who have a landout can stay
> > somewhat competitive (See: 11.6.8 - dropping 600 points on a day is
> > hard to make up - 400 is still hard, but less so). There are also
> > provisions for devaluing tasks with lots of landouts (more than 20% -
> > see 11.6.6). Lots of landouts are thought to correlate to a higher
> > "luck factor". Short tasks are also devalued under similar logic.
>
> > The simplest scoring formulas would be to set Maximum Speed Points
> > (MSP) to 1000 and Minimum Distance Points (MDP) to zero and to get rid
> > of Scored Completion Ratio (SCR) and Short Task Factor (STF). What
> > this would mean is that if you finish, you get a score that is
> > directly proportionate to your percent of the winner's speed - no
> > matter how slow you go. If you land out you get zero. An alternative
> > is to to keep the idea of MDP (but we need to pick a number - 200,
> > 400, 600, 800?) and relax the constraint that the best landout has to
> > get fewer points that any finisher. This allows us to keep the idea of
> > strict proportionality for any speed finisher. Under this scenario you
> > could see your score drop by a lot if you you are slow and finish
> > rather than landing out (because MDP exists, finishers whose speed as
> > a percent of the winner's speed is less than MDP/1000 could score less
> > than a long landout). This may be a bad idea as it encourages landing
> > out.
>
> > A third alternative is to pin any finisher's score that is less than
> > MDP to MDP - but this introduces the possibility that the bottom of
> > the scoresheet is populated with pilots who have identical scores
> > because they can't get above MDP. The lower you make MDP, the less
> > likely this is, but to avoid it for the Montague example described by
> > Steve MDP would need to be 300 points - which is less that it has ever
> > been in the rules. Obviously, that specific situation doesn't come up
> > often, and when it does its usually a funky day or a situation where a
> > pilot had something odd happen on course. It can also result from
> > cutting short at MAT (particularly if no turnpoints are assigned) or,
> > to a lesser extent, a TAT course.
>
> > I agree that the Montague example seems extreme, so it may warrant
> > review. It seems to me that all the alternatives have some tradeoffs
> > though.
>
> > 9B
>
> It's the use of MDP in formulas 2 & 3, without regard to how many
> miles any given pilot actually flew, that's causing problems.
>
> Agreed that our scoring rules are getting a little dense. *I'm
> curious: how are European comps scored? *Anyone got a link?
>
> -T8- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Has anyone thought of getting back to basics - by that I mean getting
rid of TAT and all of the follow on tasks to POST - and fly only AST -
Assigned Speed Task - start gate, finish gate, all competitors fly the
same turnpoints, finish gate - fastest pilot wins?

[Steve Koerner]

I would urge that instead of looking at this in terms of ‘how can we
fix the Montague problem’ lets look at this much more fundamentally.
The Montague example shows that year after year of elaborating the
scoring formula has resulted in a mess.

It is time to step way back and start over. Let’s get rid of the
alphabet soup that now exists in the rules for scoring. All (or at
least most) of the accumulated complications in the rules were
undoubtedly made in the interest of improving fairness. Yet at the
most elemental level it is really unfair to be using a set of scoring
formulas that cannot be comprehended by an intellectually
sophisticated competitor who applies reasonable diligence in studying
the rules. That is what we have now. It is especially irksome that
competitors should put up with the unnecessary complication and still
not have a scoring system that produces reasonable results.

So here’s a simple proposal to get this discussion going in the right
direction: Let’s give 500 points for speed and 500 points for
distance. Period. Speed points are proportioned to the fastest
finisher’s speed; if you don’t finish you get zero speed points.
Distance points are proportioned to the best distance achieved.

Yes, on TAT and MAT style tasks, my formula would change the game plan
a bit. It would introduce an objective to go forth and fly far (like
OLC) as well as fast. Wouldn’t that be fun?

[Tim[_2_]]

But then what would happen to US Sports Class the best bureacraticly
created catch-all class in the world...

Her's to real racing, with a minimum of complicated rules... and bring
Club Class tot he U.S. so we c;ub class pilots can actually fly AT
speed tasks in official contests.

EY

[Tim[_2_]]

On Jun 23, 9:31*am, Steve Koerner > wrote:
> So here’s a simple proposal to get this discussion going in the right
> direction: *Let’s give 500 points for speed and 500 points for
> distance. * Period. *Speed points are proportioned to the fastest
> finisher’s speed; if you don’t finish you get zero speed points.
> Distance points are proportioned to the best distance achieved.
>
> Yes, on TAT and MAT style tasks, my formula would change the game plan
> a bit. *It would introduce an objective to go forth and fly far (like
> OLC) as well as fast. *Wouldn’t that be fun?


This idea would be a terrific start... or we could just score
according to the FAI rules and use SeeYou to score cotnests like the
rest of the world. You can definitely overcook the rules and we are
definitely in that kitchen.

EY

[Nine Bravo Ground]

On Jun 23, 7:31*am, Steve Koerner > wrote:
> I would urge that instead of looking at this in terms of ‘how can we
> fix the Montague problem’ lets look at this much more fundamentally.
> The Montague example shows that year after year of elaborating the
> scoring formula has resulted in a mess.
>
> It is time to step way back and start over. *Let’s get rid of the
> alphabet soup that now exists in the rules for scoring. *All (or at
> least most) of the accumulated complications in the rules were
> undoubtedly made in the interest of improving fairness. * Yet at the
> most elemental level it is really unfair to be using a set of scoring
> formulas that cannot be comprehended by an intellectually
> sophisticated competitor who applies reasonable diligence in studying
> the rules. *That is what we have now. *It is especially irksome that
> competitors should put up with the unnecessary complication and still
> not have a scoring system that produces reasonable results.
>
> So here’s a simple proposal to get this discussion going in the right
> direction: *Let’s give 500 points for speed and 500 points for
> distance. * Period. *Speed points are proportioned to the fastest
> finisher’s speed; if you don’t finish you get zero speed points.
> Distance points are proportioned to the best distance achieved.
>
> Yes, on TAT and MAT style tasks, my formula would change the game plan
> a bit. *It would introduce an objective to go forth and fly far (like
> OLC) as well as fast. *Wouldn’t that be fun?

Pretty simple - which is an appealing place to start. Would you stop
getting credit for distance after some period of time? Otherwise, on
a MAT you'd think many pilots would start as early as the gate opens
(and they can make decent progress) and fly until the end of the day -
maybe 5-6 hours each day. On a TAT you'd be encouraged to fly the
maximum unless it entailed flying into dead air and a landout. I think
distance strategies would dominate speed strategies because it's
harder to fly a lot faster than the other guy than a lot farther -
especially when you don't know until after you land - best to keep
pushing just in case someone else decided to go to the fartherst point
in the task area.

Without a time limit I'd be less interested in competing because I
just don't want to fly for that long every day for 5 or 10 days in a
row. But I expect a time limit creates other complications - like
trying to run downwind for 3 hours then beat your way home when speed
counts but miles don't.

Would we still include devalued days for short tasks or high non-
completion?

9B

[Mike the Strike]

A couple of years ago, I experienced some similar scoring issues at
Region 9 and, like Steve, think the rules are just too complex. We
have the situation where only one specific computer program can
produce the official results, it's almost impossible to work them out
for yourself and it's virtually impossible to decide on the optimum
strategy while you're flying.

We need rules that you can understand and don't need special programs
to figure out. That's why many of us enjoy participating in OLC -
it's dead simple and you know how it's scored.

Steve's proposal has a lot of merit, but probably has a low chance of
being adopted because of inertia in the system.

The problem Andy raises could probably be addressed by assigning both
a minimum and maximum task duration.


Mike

[T8]

On Jun 23, 12:16*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> That's why many of us enjoy participating in OLC -
> it's dead simple and you know how it's scored.

Right, the guy that lives next the biggest wave (or ridge, or thermal)
machine, wins. That's not a dig, that's an observation.

The OLC is fun, I like it. But it isn't a meaningful competition.

-T8

[John Cochrane]

I also dislike the complexity of the scoring formula. But every bit of
this comes from pilot demand!

You basically can't get less than 600 points, no matter how slow you
go, because a) pilots want a landout not to be a catastrophic end to
the contest, as it would be if you got 0 points for landout and b)
pilots do not want a "finisher" to receive less points than a
"landout". (FAI rule fans note, the change from 400 to 600 points, by
the way, was made in part to harmonize US with world treatment of
landouts vs. speed points.)

I happen to disagree with the latter objective, especially on MAT and
turn area tasks. If you fly 400 miles and land 10 miles from the
airport, I think you should get more points than the guy who does 61
miles and lands 2 hours early. The guarantee puts too much emphasis on
coming home very early to "get a finish." But that's just me, everyone
else likes the current system.

If you want "simpler", so that a very slow finisher always gets his
fraction of the winner score, tell the rules committee which of a or
b above you want to give up.

The big complication with the rules involves day devaluation, all that
scored completion ratio and other stuff. I'd be happy to get rid of
that too, but pilots want it. If every day is 1000 points, so the mass
landout day where the best pilot goes 60 miles, or the 1.5 hour dump
task day counts exactly as much as the other days, then contests will
all be won and lost on those weak short days. That used to happen,
pilots felt it wasn't fair, so we have our current system. Do you
really want to go back to the old system where every day is 1000
points?

Then we get "use the FAI rules" as in the quote below. Have you read
the FAI rules? "Simplicity" and "use the FAI rules" are two separate
ideas! If you don't like our day devaluation formulas, look at
theirs! The FAI devaluation formulas also lead to much more gaggling.
Since the "lone wolf" doesn't gain much by being the only finisher,
everybody sits in one big gaggle until sunset and then lands out
together.

Again, I dislike the complexity and the fact that it's very hard to
check your score just like everyone else. But the scoring formulas in
US contests evolved over the years responding to specific and valid
complaints from pilots. Simplicity is important, but fair and fun
contests are also an important goal! So it would be much more
productive to understand those goals and suggest a simpler system that
addresses them, or makes a clear case for abandoning them

John Cochrane BB.

>
> This idea would be a terrific start... or we could just score
> according to the FAI rules and use SeeYou to score cotnests like the
> rest of the world. You can definitely overcook the rules and we are
> definitely in that kitchen.
>
> EY

John Cochrane BB

[T8]

On Jun 23, 12:56*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:

> If you fly 400 miles and land 10 miles from the
> airport, I think you should get more points than the guy who does 61
> miles and lands 2 hours early.

I agree. What I would suggest is replacing "MDP" in the scoring
formula for finishers with MDP*DIST/BESTDIST.

-T8

[bildan]

On Jun 23, 10:56*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> I also dislike the complexity of the scoring formula. But every bit of
> this comes from pilot demand!
>
> You basically can't get less than 600 points, no matter how slow you
> go, because a) pilots want a landout not to be a catastrophic end to
> the contest, as it would be if you got 0 points for landout and b)
> pilots do not want a "finisher" to receive less points than a
> "landout". (FAI rule fans note, the change from 400 to 600 points, by
> the way, was made in part to harmonize US with world treatment of
> landouts vs. speed points.)
>
> I happen to disagree with the latter objective, especially on MAT and
> turn area tasks. If you fly 400 miles and land 10 miles from the
> airport, I think you should get more points than the guy who does 61
> miles and lands 2 hours early. The guarantee puts too much emphasis on
> coming home very early to "get a finish." But that's just me, everyone
> else likes the current system.
>
> If you want "simpler", so that a very slow finisher always gets his
> fraction of the winner score, *tell the rules committee which of a or
> b above you want to give up.
>
> The big complication with the rules involves day devaluation, all that
> scored completion ratio and other stuff. I'd be happy to get rid of
> that too, but pilots want it. If every day is 1000 points, so the mass
> landout day where the best pilot goes 60 miles, or the 1.5 hour dump
> task day counts exactly as much as the other days, then contests will
> all be won and lost on those weak short days. *That used to happen,
> pilots felt it wasn't fair, so we have our current system. Do you
> really want to go back to the old system where every day is 1000
> points?
>
> Then we get "use the FAI rules" as in the quote below. Have you read
> the FAI rules? "Simplicity" and "use the FAI rules" are two separate
> ideas! *If you don't like our day devaluation formulas, look at
> theirs! The FAI devaluation formulas also lead to much more gaggling.
> Since the "lone wolf" doesn't gain much by being the only finisher,
> everybody sits in one big gaggle until sunset and then lands out
> together.
>
> Again, I dislike the complexity and the fact that it's very hard to
> check your score just like everyone else. But the scoring formulas in
> US contests evolved over the years responding to specific and valid
> complaints from pilots. Simplicity is important, but fair and fun
> contests are also an important goal! *So it would be much more
> productive to understand those goals and suggest a simpler system that
> addresses them, or makes a clear case for abandoning them
>
> John Cochrane BB.
>
>
>
> > This idea would be a terrific start... or we could just score
> > according to the FAI rules and use SeeYou to score cotnests like the
> > rest of the world. You can definitely overcook the rules and we are
> > definitely in that kitchen.
>
> > EY
>
> John Cochrane BB

With respect as always.

"But every bit of this comes from pilot demand!"

True, but it gives the appearance of a few pilots who like the rules
complex because it discriminates against pilots who can't understand
the rules as well as they do. Most likely not true but it does give
that appearance and it puts newbies off.

Humble suggestion for consideration: Have two types of events,
rally's and races. A rally can have complex rules and tasks. Races
are AST's, period. Regionals could be rally's if that's what the
pilots want. Nationals would be races.

[T8]

On Jun 23, 3:21*pm, bildan > wrote:

> Humble suggestion for consideration: *Have two types of events,
> rally's and races. *A rally can have complex rules and tasks. *Races
> are AST's, period. *Regionals could be rally's if that's what the
> pilots want. Nationals would be races.

If you want A(s)Ts called, get a CD who will call them... and be
prepared to live with the results. You and all your buddies have
crews, right:-)? Exhibit A would be day 6 at Open&Stds. I don't know
what happened (no report as yet) but the score sheet makes pretty
clear it was some version of an AT gone wrong.

I haven't ever heard a complaint about lack of ATs while at a
contest. In fact the only place I've heard it is right here on r.a.s.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Andy[_10_]]

On Jun 23, 10:13*am, T8 > wrote:

> I agree. *What I would suggest is replacing "MDP" in the scoring
> formula for finishers with MDP*DIST/BESTDIST.
>
> -T8

Interesting idea.

I think you might also allow BESTDIST to go to a non-finisher to throw
more points to the pilots who have great flights but can't quite get
home. The challenge is you can always go farther by flying longer. You
might need to also multiply by MINTIME/TOC for the pilot with the
BESTDIST or you create an incentive to fly WAY over MINTIME just to
devalue everyone else's score by racking up a bunch of miles This is
particularly true for someone who gets in a hole early. Since there is
no definition of TOC for a non-finisher, you could either set it to
the time at which the achieved their maximum distance on course or you
could measure their DIST as the distance they achieved within MINTIME.

Of course that's not simpler.

9B

[Rick Culbertson]

On Jun 23, 2:11*pm, T8 > wrote:
> On Jun 23, 3:21*pm, bildan > wrote:
>
> > Humble suggestion for consideration: *Have two types of events,
> > rally's and races. *A rally can have complex rules and tasks. *Races
> > are AST's, period. *Regionals could be rally's if that's what the
> > pilots want. Nationals would be races.
>
> If you want A(s)Ts called, get a CD who will call them... and be
> prepared to live with the results. *You and all your buddies have
> crews, right:-)? *Exhibit A would be day 6 at Open&Stds. *I don't know
> what happened (no report as yet) but the score sheet makes pretty
> clear it was some version of an AT gone wrong.
>
> I haven't ever heard a complaint about lack of ATs while at a
> contest. *In fact the only place I've heard it is right here on r.a.s.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

Frankly boys, I'm with BB, it’s certainly not perfect but it really is
just what we all asked for here in the states.

Do I fully understand the rules?, no, but I do enough where it really
counts so I dont stub my toes from them very often. I just simply say,
play the cards (rules & task) your dealt, it's possible that in an
unusual and rare situation you may end up holding the short stick but
that's an available opportunity for every pilot at that race, and
therefore fair enough in my book. Leave them alone.

Bottom line; the fastest, most consistent pilot, who makes fewer
mistakes while getting around the course than his fellow competitors
will win todays SSA sanctioned contest, every time, and that works for
me.

21

[T8]

On Jun 23, 5:42*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jun 23, 10:13*am, T8 > wrote:
>
> > I agree. *What I would suggest is replacing "MDP" in the scoring
> > formula for finishers with MDP*DIST/BESTDIST.
>
> > -T8
>
> Interesting idea.
>
> I think you might also allow BESTDIST to go to a non-finisher to throw
> more points to the pilots who have great flights but can't quite get
> home. The challenge is you can always go farther by flying longer. You
> might need to also multiply by MINTIME/TOC for the pilot with the
> BESTDIST or you create an incentive to fly WAY over MINTIME just to
> devalue everyone else's score by racking up a bunch of miles This is
> particularly true for someone who gets in a hole early. Since there is
> no definition of TOC for a non-finisher, you could either set it to
> the time at which the achieved their maximum distance on course or you
> could measure their DIST as the distance they achieved within MINTIME.
>
> Of course that's not simpler.
>
> 9B

Hmmm, yes, reading the rules here... yes I think it's logical that
BESTDIST should be the best distance of the day, including non-
finishers. I'd stop there though. I don't have a beef with the
overall scoring strategy, just this little piece of it. I'll try to
find time to write this up with some real contest results as examples
and submit to RC. If it gets traction, they can put it on the poll at
year's end.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Tim[_2_]]

On Jun 23, 11:56*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> I also dislike the complexity of the scoring formula. But every bit of
> this comes from pilot demand!

John:

Respectfully, I have never had the option (that I know of), on a RC
Pilot Poll, of answering Yes/No to the following question: "Would you
prefer a simplified rule system?" Maybe if we started out with that
question, we (as pilots) could determine if we need to continually
micro-engineer the rules to eliminate every perceived inequities.

As I can now with a young child in the house, I am going to get out
there to race when and where I can, get in the start cyclinder with my
fellow competitiors, and then go try and fly as fast as I can within
my limited understanding of the current rules. In this agree
completely with 21.

Do I really understand all, or even most, of the fine nuances of the
current rules... No. Will I live with what the RC gives me to play
with ... Yes. However, management of the rules to eliminate every
single perecived flaw in the rules should not necessarily result in
more complification, year after year.

EY

P.S. - For people who like flying all AT's, really racing your fellow
pilots side-by-side, and understanding a simplifed rule system - get
your local contest organizer to run a Grand Prix Format race! Its a
lot of fun, stays pretty simple and is understandable. Why there has
not been more buy-in from the American soaring community I do not know
- but I do know the fierceness of the opposition to this style of
racing runs very deep here in the States.

[JS]

An observation from outside the Regionals/Nationals pilot group:
Makes me think of a line in 'The Sun Ship Game', along the lines of:
With something so beautiful, why would anyone bring competition into
it?
Does anyone need the complication of looking up paragraphs, pages,
reams of rules? If glider competition must be this complicated, what's
going to keep people coming back? The STD Nationals entry list should
have been at least double that size. Of course, it's easy to blame all
the usual time/cost/distance things. But there are other factors and
Steve has hit one on the head.
Jim

[T8]

On Jun 23, 8:32*pm, JS > wrote:

> Steve has hit one on the head.
> Jim

No, I disagree. If you passed your glider written without cheating,
you can understand the rules in a couple hours.

BB is right -- simple formulae gave simple minded results.

Non-rules-fanatics can stop reading here :-).

The existing scoring formulae -- which I don't like, see above -- do
function in an interesting way. What they do is substantially devalue
MATs, provided you make minimum distance and finish. Fly minimum
distance and finish, voila, you get max distance points plus 30. Fly
MD + 1 on an assigned task day, and you're toast. Example here
http://tinyurl.com/n3tg3s . One of the strangest thermal soaring days
I've flown and I read it wrong (I had some distinguished company).
Essentially, I landed out at the finish line, an hour early on a two
hour minimum MAT. But I made 52 miles (Minimum distance in this case
is 50). I gave up only 173 pts to the winner, who flew 2.5x my
distance at decent speed. On the basis of speed and minimum time, I
should have scored about 415 points less than the winner.
Essentially, I received a bonus for getting a finish of some 242
points. You can see what happened to the guys that didn't make MD and
therefore didn't get a finish. Curtains.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

On Jun 24, 7:50*am, T8 > wrote:
> On Jun 23, 8:32*pm, JS > wrote:
>
> > Steve has hit one on the head.
> > Jim
>
> No, I disagree. *If you passed your glider written without cheating,
> you can understand the rules in a couple hours.
>
> BB is right -- simple formulae gave simple minded results.
>
> Non-rules-fanatics can stop reading here :-).
>
> The existing scoring formulae -- which I don't like, see above -- do
> function in an interesting way. *What they do is substantially devalue
> MATs, provided you make minimum distance and finish. *Fly minimum
> distance and finish, voila, you get max distance points plus 30. *Fly
> MD + 1 on an assigned task day, and you're toast. *Example herehttp://tinyurl.com/n3tg3s. *One of the strangest thermal soaring days
> I've flown and I read it wrong (I had some distinguished company).
> Essentially, I landed out at the finish line, an hour early on a two
> hour minimum MAT. *But I made 52 miles (Minimum distance in this case
> is 50). *I gave up only 173 pts to the winner, who flew 2.5x my
> distance at decent speed. *On the basis of speed and minimum time, I
> should have scored about 415 points less than the winner.
> Essentially, I received a bonus for getting a finish of some 242
> points. *You can see what happened to the guys that didn't make MD and
> therefore didn't get a finish. *Curtains.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

When pilot selected tasks were first done, we had a scoring system
that awarded points partly by distance flown and partly by speed
achieved.
The SadPost as we called it back then was seen as too complicated to
fly and do strategy for, so we moved to the time limited tasks we
have today because they are simpler and easier to understand and
score. The downside is that it is arguable if they as accurately
measure pilot performance on short or marginal days.

None of the current tasking is hard to understand as far as tactics.
Time is not at all critical but, to score well, you need to fly beyond
minimum time. If you come back early, you leave points on the table.
If you have a bad spot, try to fly longer to reduce the affect of the
lost time. That pretty much covers it.

Related to the first message in this string, John Good did a quick
check and the scoring looks correct. It is worth noting that his
comparison of scores relative to current WGC scoring showed that under
WGC scoring, the points compression would have been tighter than ours.
That is the approximately 180 pt spread under US rules would have been
about 120 pt under WGC rules.
FWIW
Good discussion
UH

[toad]

On Jun 23, 7:35*pm, Tim > wrote:

> P.S. - For people who like flying all AT's, really racing your fellow
> pilots side-by-side, and understanding a simplifed rule system - get
> your local contest organizer to run a Grand Prix Format race! Its a
> lot of fun, stays pretty simple and is understandable. Why there has
> not been more buy-in from the American soaring community I do not know
> - but I do know the fierceness of the opposition to this style of
> racing runs very deep here in the States.

It seems to me that a Grand Prix format requires identical gliders for
all participants. Where are you going to find 20-50 identical ( or at
least equal handicap ) gliders for all the pilots ?

Now if the SSA were to buy a fleet of (insert favorite super ship
here) and hire college co-eds as crew to drive the fleet from one
contest site to the next, I bet we could have a very active Grand Prix
circuit :-)

Frankly the rules don't really seem that complicated to me, but I am
not trying to analyse them, just fly them. One thing that soaring
should do in my opinion is change the time cycle for rule changes.
Keep the rules constant for 3 or 4 years, then change them. That
would reduce the constant whiplash of new rules every year.

Todd
3S

[John Cochrane]

John Good gave me permission to post his computations

I ( PBW = point behind winner - the most useful way to consider the
results of a contest day):

Pilot US score PBW WGC score PBW
16 790 0 993 0
P7 671 119 932 61
BP 641 149 861 132
7HV 622 168 861 132
2T 622 168 861 132
JP 614 176 861 132
CG 601 189 861 132
1CR 601 189 861 132
4Q 134 656 203 790

Roughly speaking, where the US compresses scores by giving you 600 for
any finish, the WGC gives you 861, and compresess the results even
more.

John Cochrane.

[Andy[_10_]]

On Jun 24, 8:22*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> John Good gave me permission to post his computations
>
> I ( PBW = point behind winner - the most useful way to consider the
> results of a contest day):
>
> Pilot * * *US score * * PBW * * *WGC score * PBW
> 16 * * * * * *790 * * * * * * *0 * * * * * * *993 * * * * * *0
> P7 * * * * * *671 * * * * *119 * * * * * * *932 * * * * * 61
> BP * * * * * 641 * * * * * 149 * * * * * * *861 * * * * 132
> 7HV * * * * 622 * * * * * 168 * * * * * * *861 * * * * 132
> 2T * * * * * *622 * * * * * 168 * * * * * * *861 * * * * 132
> JP * * * * * *614 * * * * * 176 * * * * * * *861 * * * * 132
> CG * * * * * 601 * * * * * 189 * * * * * * *861 * * * * 132
> 1CR * * * * *601 * * * * * 189 * * * * * * 861 * * * * *132
> 4Q * * * * * 134 * * * * * *656 * * * * * * 203 * * * * *790
>
> Roughly speaking, where the US compresses scores by giving you 600 for
> any finish, the WGC gives you 861, and compresess the results even
> more.
>
> John Cochrane.

Nice addition BB.

It looks as though the WGC rules give points directly proportional to
speed/winners speed down to 86.1% of the winner's speed and any
finisher slower than that gets exactly the same score. The result is
the scoring system only really serves to sort out the top few pilots
in a contest. Imagine you are anyone besides the top two finishers in
the example above - you have zero opportunity to move up in the
standings because your are in the "dead band" (not to be confused with
the Grateful Dead band). Put another way - if your pilot seeding is
less than 0.791 you will find yourself in this "dead band" nearly half
the time. Not a great way to encourage broad participation in the
sport - unless you like being in a 6-way tie for third place that is
also a 6-way tie for second to last. I vote against taking MDP from
600 to 861 just to emulate WGC. I get the impression that WGC tasking
lands out more pilots than US tasking so they may need the compression
to prevent the overall winner from being the last pilot without a
landout.

Given the choice between complex wording of the rules with simple race
strategies and simply worded rules requiring complex race strategies
(and opportunities for a "high luck" day to swing the outcome of a
whole contest), I'll take the former. I do think there are instances
where we get overly concerned about "corner cases", or pursue more
complex approaches to meeting rules objectives than we might - that is
a constant battle to find the more elegant solution.

I also disagree with the assertion that the current rules confer some
advantage to "rules wonks" who somehow work out winning strategies out
of reading the rules over and over again. I do think a plain English
translation of what the rules mean and what they are trying to
accomplish would be a more interesting and productive read than trying
to back it out of formulas. For instance, I still don't know why MDP
has an additional 30 points added in.

9B

[T8]

On Jun 24, 1:08*pm, Andy > wrote:
> For instance, I still don't know why MDP
> has an additional 30 points added in.

It doesn't.

It's an 'airfield bonus' fiddled to give a finisher 5 extra points.

Result: "Finisher" who goes minimum distance gets five more points
than the guy who flies 300 miles and lands out at an airport.

-T8

[Brian[_1_]]

On Jun 23, 6:32*pm, JS > wrote:
> <snip>
> * Does anyone need the complication of looking up paragraphs, pages,
> reams of rules? If glider competition must be this complicated, what's
> going to keep people coming back?
<snip>

I disagree, I however do agree that this may be the sterotype of
competition pilots by non competition pilots.

I am guessing that maybe 80% of the regional compention pilots haven't
actually read the rules since their 1st contest. The basics for
contest flying are 1.2.3.

1. Know how and when to start.
2. Know how fly into the turn points, TAT's and MAT require some
thought but very little understanding of the specific rules.
3. Know how and when to finish.


I know competition pilots that that is all the really know about the
competition rules and all they care to know. They just go fly the
task. One of these pilots often wins our regional contest.

Brian
HP16T N16VP
I

[Brian[_1_]]

On Jun 23, 10:16*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
<snip>
>
> We need rules that you can understand and don't need special programs
> to figure out. *That's why many of us enjoy participating in OLC -
> it's dead simple and you know how it's scored.
>
> Steve's proposal has a lot of merit, but probably has a low chance of
> being adopted because of inertia in the system.
>
<snip>
> Mike

The scoring program is not really any more complicated that what the
OLC does. I would have no problem scoring a contest manually IF (in
big letters) I could calculate the distances easily. To do so we
would have to get rid of the TAT task and any Best Distance Scoring
and go back to the old systems where the distances were fixed for AST
Tasks or at least easily calculatable for MAT task.

I personally liked the fixed distances idea in that it does simpify
the scoring, but the Best Distance Scoring appears to have some safety
benefits to it as well as additional Task options.

On days where everyone finishes in reasonable amounts of time, The
score would be really quite simple to calculate if the distance was
easy to calculate. I think this would probably apply to at least 80
percent of the contest days flown. The other 20% of the days would
invoke some of the exceptions and other score rules that would take
some time to apply but even then it usually would only apply to a few
competitors.

It would be interesting to review some score sheets and see how many
competitors scores were not the simple percentage of fastest
finisher.

As for idea of asking the poll question "Do you think the rules are to
complicated?" this is dumb question in that everyone wants simpler
rules. The much better question is "What one thing would you like to
simplfy or remove from our current rules" This is a much harder
question as John C. has pointed out each rule was put in for a
reason. To the credit of the rules commitee I do think they work hard
to keep the rules as simple as possible, Remember to 15 minute rule?
It is now gone due to popular demand as it complicated the scoring
even more..

[John Cochrane]

> One thing that soaring
> should do in my opinion is change the time cycle for rule changes.
> Keep the rules constant for 3 or 4 years, then change them. *That
> would reduce the constant whiplash of new rules every year.
>
>
So, if you see a really awful rule, a dangerous rule, or even a typo
or clear mistake (it happens), we should be forbidden to change it for
three years? That makes no sense at all.

And speaking of complication, now every single rule would need a date
by it -- "rule 10.2.3.5 (no change before 2011) ..." Or maybe you
want a new rule specifying "major changes" vs. "typos" which have
different waiting periods. And a new commitee to monitor all the
different waiting periods....

What rules change from the past several years would you really have
liked to force everyone to wait for? Would it have been good to force
start anywhere to wait three years just to watch the clock run out?
How about the new finish, which prohibits thermaling under the finish
gate or big zoomies right in to the belly of another glider? Should we
have watched people do that for three years just for funzies? How
about the new rule giving 600 points for distance rather than 400?
Would it have been good to just sit for 3 years? Why?

The RC does keep changes to a minimum, there is the cycle of "try it
in regionals first" which catches major glitches, and an extensive
"get the word out" program.

John Cochrane

[toad]

On Jun 24, 8:01*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > *One thing that soaring
> > should do in my opinion is change the time cycle for rule changes.
> > Keep the rules constant for 3 or 4 years, then change them. *That
> > would reduce the constant whiplash of new rules every year.
>
> So, if you see a really awful rule, a dangerous rule, or even a typo
> or clear mistake (it happens), we should be forbidden to change it for
> three years? That makes no sense at all.
>
> And speaking of complication, now every single rule would need a date
> by it -- "rule 10.2.3.5 (no change before *2011) ..." Or maybe you
> want a new rule specifying "major changes" vs. "typos" which have
> different waiting periods. And a new commitee to monitor all the
> different waiting periods....
>
> What rules change from the past several years would you really have
> liked to force everyone to wait for? Would it have been good to force
> start anywhere to wait three years just to watch the clock run out?
> How about the new finish, which prohibits thermaling under the finish
> gate or big zoomies right in to the belly of another glider? Should we
> have watched people do that for three years just for funzies? How
> about the new rule giving 600 points for distance rather than 400?
> Would it have been good to just sit for 3 years? *Why?
>
> The RC does keep changes to a minimum, *there is *the cycle of "try it
> in regionals first" which catches major glitches, and an extensive
> "get the word out" program.
>
> John Cochrane

Typo's or clear mistakes could be fixed, but nothing else. I think we
have the really dangerous rules gone, we have been tinkering with
these rules for a long time now.

The rules right now are pretty fair and pretty safe. Leave them alone
for a while. And no, you do not need a date on each rule. You
publish the rules for 2009 - 2012 and leave them alone. Then in 2013
you get to publish a new set of rules. In the meantime, everybody
gets to just fly without trying to figure out the latest rule changes.

By the way, quit using the Regional pilots are guinea pigs.

Todd Smith
3S

[Chip Bearden[_2_]]

I've had disagreements with the Rules Committe over the years (no
comments, guys). But not about the scoring formulas per se. I do think
they're way too complicated for most pilots to understand but UH's
advice is good: just fly the glider. There are very few situations
where doing something cute or counterintuitive just to enhance your
score will benefit you (the airport landing bonus is one of the few
examples, and I'm sure I'll get pushback on that). I flew many years
with ONLY ASTs and definitely don't want to go back! I don't like it
when CDs call MATs on days when the weather is fairly uniform and
predictable--it's lazy--but on risky days, I like having the option of
going where it's soarable rather than flying directly into a T-storm
over the TP.

My primary issue is with the way the Rules change every year and the
impact this has on the scoring program. The more changes you make to
the scoring formulas, the more chances there are for bugs to creep
into the scoring software. And most pilots will never pick this up
unless the errors are substantial.

And right now the burden is on the pilot to protest any scoring
problems, whether they relate to the scorer's mistakes or to the
software itself. The only real way to do that is to take Winscore with
you to the contest and score side by side with the scorer. Winscore
does a good job, but it's not perfect. It's process dependent (read:
the scorer has to do some manual stuff). And it sometimes has bugs.
When a bunch of us had questions about the scores at a regional
contest last year, I installed Winscore and rescored the contest and
found situations where the scores were wrong based on the rules. Yeah,
a savvy scorer might have caught it, but no pilot would have. This
particular item didn't change the overall winners but it did change
the daily winners and overall placings. I strongly suspect it affected
other contest results last year, as well.

In the interests of fairness and responding to pilot requests, the
Rules Committee makes changes to the scoring nearly every year. I
would argue that they try too hard. Anyone who's ever been involved in
software development or the implementation or modification of a
software application knows that every single one of those changes has
the potential to introduce bugs. Yeah, most of them get caught during
testing, but not all. It's not like there are millions of Winscore
users paying big bucks every year to compensate someone for making
certain it's 100% reliable. That said, we should be making Rules
changes only when there's a really good reason, and as infrequently as
possible.

The Rules Committee has done a good job of developing Rules that work
pretty well in most cases. Stop fooling around with them. Sometimes
trying to make something perfect just makes it worse.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA