JWGC USA update

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 3:51:28 PM UTC+3, wrote:
This is one of the absurdities of the IGC scoring rules: Sometimes you can gain a lot of points by waiting in front of the finish line. Day 11 in the standard class was such a day, and has cost the Polish team a medal.

If the 3 in front (2 Poles, 1 Brit) had colluded, en waited 21!!! minutes to cross the finish line, and finished all 3 with a speed of 122.82kph (instead of the real 138.14kph), this would have resulted in the following:

- T0 would have become larger than 3 hours, leading to a 1000pt day instead of a 932point day.

- n2 (returners with speed larger than 66,7% of best speed) would have increased from 3 to 12. Thus the speed points would have increased from 72 to 308 points.

- The result is, that the first 3 would have scored all 1000 points, and number 4 would have had 711 points. This is a 289point lead, instead of the real achieved 72point lead.

- For all others behind 4th place, the results would even have been worse..

- In the total final ranking of the JWGC15, Siodloczek would have become 2nd (instead of 4th in reality), Flis would have become 4th (instead of 6th), and Matt Davis, would have become 7th (instead of 10th).


I understand the reasoning behind the rules: a "lucky" outlier (such as in this case) should not have an unreasonable impact on the final competition results.

However, the implementation is totally wrong: it should never be possible to gain points (or better: increase your pointspread against the rest), by flying slower.

I have seen this happen a couple of times in the past, but never with such a substantial impact as in this case.






On Friday, 11 December 2015 15:59:53 UTC+1, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 8:41:10 AM UTC-6, Dan Daly wrote:

That's the way the international rules are (if enough people make minimum distance to have a day). One reason to fly real IGC rules for Club Class - there are no rule-based surprises.

Yet, in the Standard Class, with more completions, the day is devalued. Also interesting that to be 50 KPH slower than the guy ahead of you only cost you 70 points on this day with 50% landouts. I would only consider that to be a "no rule-based surprise" if you fully understand that the rules are not even close to anything linear to comparing your daily performance to the best performance that day.

But, this is digressing into which set of scoring formulas you prefer.

Go Boyd! Go JP! Go Daniel! Fly safe, and fly fast!

Steve Leonard

It's easy enough to ensure this, by using continuous (or at least piecewise continuous) functions in the rules, rather than step functions.

But then you have to have someone mathematically competent on the rules committee.

There are certainly a few such here (e.g. JC), but maybe not in IGC.

At 13:55 12 December 2015, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 3:51:28 PM UTC+3,
wr=
ote:
This is one of the absurdities of the IGC scoring rules: Sometimes you
ca=
n gain a lot of points by waiting in front of the finish line. Day 11 in
th=
e standard class was such a day, and has cost the Polish team a medal.
=20
If the 3 in front (2 Poles, 1 Brit) had colluded, en waited 21!!!
minutes=
to cross the finish line, and finished all 3 with a speed of 122.82kph
(in=
stead of the real 138.14kph), this would have resulted in the following:
=20
- T0 would have become larger than 3 hours, leading to a 1000pt day
inst=
ead of a 932point day.
=20
- n2 (returners with speed larger than 66,7% of best speed) would have
in=
creased from 3 to 12. Thus the speed points would have increased from 72
to=
308 points.
=20
- The result is, that the first 3 would have scored all 1000 points,
and
=
number 4 would have had 711 points. This is a 289point lead, instead of
the=
real achieved 72point lead.
=20
- For all others behind 4th place, the results would even have been
worse=
..
=20
- In the total final ranking of the JWGC15, Siodloczek would have
become
=
2nd (instead of 4th in reality), Flis would have become 4th (instead of
6th=
), and Matt Davis, would have become 7th (instead of 10th).
=20
=20
I understand the reasoning behind the rules: a "lucky" outlier (such as
i=
n this case) should not have an unreasonable impact on the final
competitio=
n results.
=20
However, the implementation is totally wrong: it should never be
possible=
to gain points (or better: increase your pointspread against the rest),
by=
flying slower.=20
=20
I have seen this happen a couple of times in the past, but never with
suc=
h a substantial impact as in this case.
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
On Friday, 11 December 2015 15:59:53 UTC+1, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 8:41:10 AM UTC-6, Dan Daly wrote:
=20
That's the way the international rules are (if enough people make
min=
imum distance to have a day). One reason to fly real IGC rules for Club
Cl=
ass - there are no rule-based surprises.
=20
Yet, in the Standard Class, with more completions, the day is
devalued.=
Also interesting that to be 50 KPH slower than the guy ahead of you
only
=
cost you 70 points on this day with 50% landouts. I would only consider
th=
at to be a "no rule-based surprise" if you fully understand that the
rules
=
are not even close to anything linear to comparing your daily performance
t=
o the best performance that day.
=20
But, this is digressing into which set of scoring formulas you
prefer.
=20
Go Boyd! Go JP! Go Daniel! Fly safe, and fly fast!
=20
Steve Leonard

It's easy enough to ensure this, by using continuous (or at least
piecewise=
continuous) functions in the rules, rather than step functions.

But then you have to have someone mathematically competent on the rules
com=
mittee.

There are certainly a few such here (e.g. JC), but maybe not in IGC.

The chairman of the annex A (Competition Rules) sub-committee of IGC is
Rick Sheppe. If you are sugesting that he is not mathematically competent
consider his CV.:

1. Gliding · Active glider pilot since 1967. Flight instructor since 1981.
Tug pilot since 1988. · Diamond Badge Nr. 6517 2. Technical · Instrument
designer: consultant to Cambridge Aero Instruments, Nielsen-Kellerman
Corporation and ClearNav Systems. Software developer for several glide
computers, variometers, and Flight Recorders. Responsible for FR security
standards and algorithms. · Functional designer of the first IGC-approved
Flight Recorder · Originator of the IGC file format. · Early consultant
to Flight Recorder Approval Committee 1996-1997. Responsible for some FR
security standards. Originator of the idea to remove Flight Recorder
specifications from the Sporting Code. · Attended numerous WGC, Pre-WGC,
and EGC competitions as technical expert for instrumentation. ·
Barograph/Flight Recorder calibration station, instrument repairman ·
Member of the organization (“GNSS Expert�) at World Air Games in 1997.
Advisor to the International Jury. 3. Administrative · Acting Team Captain
at WGC 2003 (Poland), Team Captain at WGC 2012 (Argentina) · Member of
OSTIV Working Group for Light and Ultralight Sailplanes · Former Soaring
Society of America Director. · IGC positions: - IGC Alternate Delegate
from USA - Annex A Committee member - Safety Pays Working Group member -
Scoring Software Testing Working group member (Chairman as of May 1, 2012)
- Communications and PR Committee member

Does that strike you as someone who is not mathematically competent?

More complaining about IGC rules as if US rules are the solution. Sigh.

Absurdity is spending tremendous effort developing an entirely different, watered down set of competition rules (US rules, which serve only to isolate the USA from the rest of the world) and then attending the World Championship contest once every two years vs the very best pilots in the world flying under the rules (IGC) which they are all intimately familiar, practiced and coached and expecting to be competitive.

No assigned tasks, HATs, etc.

Insanity is doing this same exercise over and over, again and again and expecting a different result.

Our junior team faught extremely hard through a myriad of institutional handicaps. Just as our overall US team does. I feel it's a good time to point out the 200 ton elephant in "the room."

Congratulations to Boyd (9th), Daniel (15th) and JP (22nd) and their great coaches and crew. They truly did an incredible job despite tremendous disadvantages against most of the other teams.

The question is will the US take any action to help be more competitive. Answer: ?. ...back to the land of the soaring vacation? And the European teams (and Australia) go back to the land of incredible Junior development, training and culture.

Sean

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 5:30:07 PM UTC+3, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
At 13:55 12 December 2015, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 3:51:28 PM UTC+3,
wr=
ote:
This is one of the absurdities of the IGC scoring rules: Sometimes you
ca=
n gain a lot of points by waiting in front of the finish line. Day 11 in
th=
e standard class was such a day, and has cost the Polish team a medal.
=20
If the 3 in front (2 Poles, 1 Brit) had colluded, en waited 21!!!
minutes=
to cross the finish line, and finished all 3 with a speed of 122.82kph
(in=
stead of the real 138.14kph), this would have resulted in the following:
=20
- T0 would have become larger than 3 hours, leading to a 1000pt day
inst=
ead of a 932point day.
=20
- n2 (returners with speed larger than 66,7% of best speed) would have
in=
creased from 3 to 12. Thus the speed points would have increased from 72
to=
308 points.
=20
- The result is, that the first 3 would have scored all 1000 points,
and
=
number 4 would have had 711 points. This is a 289point lead, instead of
the=
real achieved 72point lead.
=20
- For all others behind 4th place, the results would even have been
worse=
..
=20
- In the total final ranking of the JWGC15, Siodloczek would have
become
=
2nd (instead of 4th in reality), Flis would have become 4th (instead of
6th=
), and Matt Davis, would have become 7th (instead of 10th).
=20
=20
I understand the reasoning behind the rules: a "lucky" outlier (such as
i=
n this case) should not have an unreasonable impact on the final
competitio=
n results.
=20
However, the implementation is totally wrong: it should never be
possible=
to gain points (or better: increase your pointspread against the rest),
by=
flying slower.=20
=20
I have seen this happen a couple of times in the past, but never with
suc=
h a substantial impact as in this case.
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
On Friday, 11 December 2015 15:59:53 UTC+1, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 8:41:10 AM UTC-6, Dan Daly wrote:
=20
That's the way the international rules are (if enough people make
min=
imum distance to have a day). One reason to fly real IGC rules for Club
Cl=
ass - there are no rule-based surprises.
=20
Yet, in the Standard Class, with more completions, the day is
devalued.=
Also interesting that to be 50 KPH slower than the guy ahead of you
only
=
cost you 70 points on this day with 50% landouts. I would only consider
th=
at to be a "no rule-based surprise" if you fully understand that the
rules
=
are not even close to anything linear to comparing your daily performance
t=
o the best performance that day.
=20
But, this is digressing into which set of scoring formulas you
prefer.
=20
Go Boyd! Go JP! Go Daniel! Fly safe, and fly fast!
=20
Steve Leonard

It's easy enough to ensure this, by using continuous (or at least
piecewise=
continuous) functions in the rules, rather than step functions.

But then you have to have someone mathematically competent on the rules
com=
mittee.

There are certainly a few such here (e.g. JC), but maybe not in IGC.

The chairman of the annex A (Competition Rules) sub-committee of IGC is
Rick Sheppe. If you are sugesting that he is not mathematically competent
consider his CV.:

1. Gliding · Active glider pilot since 1967. Flight instructor since 1981.
Tug pilot since 1988. · Diamond Badge Nr. 6517 2. Technical · Instrument
designer: consultant to Cambridge Aero Instruments, Nielsen-Kellerman
Corporation and ClearNav Systems. Software developer for several glide
computers, variometers, and Flight Recorders. Responsible for FR security
standards and algorithms. · Functional designer of the first IGC-approved
Flight Recorder · Originator of the IGC file format. · Early consultant
to Flight Recorder Approval Committee 1996-1997. Responsible for some FR
security standards. Originator of the idea to remove Flight Recorder
specifications from the Sporting Code. · Attended numerous WGC, Pre-WGC,
and EGC competitions as technical expert for instrumentation. ·
Barograph/Flight Recorder calibration station, instrument repairman ·
Member of the organization ("GNSS Expert") at World Air Games in 1997.
Advisor to the International Jury. 3. Administrative · Acting Team Captain
at WGC 2003 (Poland), Team Captain at WGC 2012 (Argentina) · Member of
OSTIV Working Group for Light and Ultralight Sailplanes · Former Soaring
Society of America Director. · IGC positions: - IGC Alternate Delegate
from USA - Annex A Committee member - Safety Pays Working Group member -
Scoring Software Testing Working group member (Chairman as of May 1, 2012)
- Communications and PR Committee member

Does that strike you as someone who is not mathematically competent?

Nice CV but the results speak for themselves -- there are nearly as many mathematical absurdities and perverse incentives in the contest scoring rules as there are in the interactions between most countries tax and welfare systems.

Rick is a smart guy who understands all these problems deeply.

The perversities of the IGC scoring formulas are well known. The problem is huge institutional inertia against change, not that the person in charge of the subcommittee doesn't understand the issues.

The US scoring formula is monstrously over complex. But at least it has no known incentives to deliberately stop short of the finish or land out. It had those in the past, and they were promptly removed.

John Cochrane BB

On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 14:17:12 +0000, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

Does that strike you as someone who is not mathematically competent?

He sounds like a competent software designer and implementer with a good
grounding in electronics, but says nothing about his competence or
otherwise as a mathematician.

In short, not unlike myself, though his electronics design skills are
probably better than mine.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

I don't know the man and have no dog in this fight, but I did not see
anything in the resume you stated that would indicate mathematical
competency, such as a degree in math, physics, or engineering. Not
saying he doesn't have that but you just threw a bunch of snow and
claimed something for which I see no proof. Maybe I missed that. I
have a degree in electrical engineering and a diamond badge, but I don't
consider myself very competent in math any more, though I can add 2 + 2.

On 12/12/2015 7:17 AM, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
At 13:55 12 December 2015, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 3:51:28 PM UTC+3,
wr=
ote:
This is one of the absurdities of the IGC scoring rules: Sometimes you
ca=
n gain a lot of points by waiting in front of the finish line. Day 11 in
th=
e standard class was such a day, and has cost the Polish team a medal.
=20
If the 3 in front (2 Poles, 1 Brit) had colluded, en waited 21!!!
minutes=
to cross the finish line, and finished all 3 with a speed of 122.82kph
(in=
stead of the real 138.14kph), this would have resulted in the following:
=20
- T0 would have become larger than 3 hours, leading to a 1000pt day
inst=
ead of a 932point day.
=20
- n2 (returners with speed larger than 66,7% of best speed) would have
in=
creased from 3 to 12. Thus the speed points would have increased from 72
to=
308 points.
=20
- The result is, that the first 3 would have scored all 1000 points,
and
=
number 4 would have had 711 points. This is a 289point lead, instead of
the=
real achieved 72point lead.
=20
- For all others behind 4th place, the results would even have been
worse=
..
=20
- In the total final ranking of the JWGC15, Siodloczek would have
become
=
2nd (instead of 4th in reality), Flis would have become 4th (instead of
6th=
), and Matt Davis, would have become 7th (instead of 10th).
=20
=20
I understand the reasoning behind the rules: a "lucky" outlier (such as
i=
n this case) should not have an unreasonable impact on the final
competitio=
n results.
=20
However, the implementation is totally wrong: it should never be
possible=
to gain points (or better: increase your pointspread against the rest),
by=
flying slower.=20
=20
I have seen this happen a couple of times in the past, but never with
suc=
h a substantial impact as in this case.
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
On Friday, 11 December 2015 15:59:53 UTC+1, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 8:41:10 AM UTC-6, Dan Daly wrote:
=20
That's the way the international rules are (if enough people make
min=
imum distance to have a day). One reason to fly real IGC rules for Club
Cl=
ass - there are no rule-based surprises.
=20
Yet, in the Standard Class, with more completions, the day is
devalued.=
Also interesting that to be 50 KPH slower than the guy ahead of you
only
=
cost you 70 points on this day with 50% landouts. I would only consider
th=
at to be a "no rule-based surprise" if you fully understand that the
rules
=
are not even close to anything linear to comparing your daily performance
t=
o the best performance that day.
=20
But, this is digressing into which set of scoring formulas you
prefer.
=20
Go Boyd! Go JP! Go Daniel! Fly safe, and fly fast!
=20
Steve Leonard
It's easy enough to ensure this, by using continuous (or at least
piecewise=
continuous) functions in the rules, rather than step functions.

But then you have to have someone mathematically competent on the rules
com=
mittee.

There are certainly a few such here (e.g. JC), but maybe not in IGC.

The chairman of the annex A (Competition Rules) sub-committee of IGC is
Rick Sheppe. If you are sugesting that he is not mathematically competent
consider his CV.:

1. Gliding · Active glider pilot since 1967. Flight instructor since 1981.
Tug pilot since 1988. · Diamond Badge Nr. 6517 2. Technical · Instrument
designer: consultant to Cambridge Aero Instruments, Nielsen-Kellerman
Corporation and ClearNav Systems. Software developer for several glide
computers, variometers, and Flight Recorders. Responsible for FR security
standards and algorithms. · Functional designer of the first IGC-approved
Flight Recorder · Originator of the IGC file format. · Early consultant
to Flight Recorder Approval Committee 1996-1997. Responsible for some FR
security standards. Originator of the idea to remove Flight Recorder
specifications from the Sporting Code. · Attended numerous WGC, Pre-WGC,
and EGC competitions as technical expert for instrumentation. ·
Barograph/Flight Recorder calibration station, instrument repairman ·
Member of the organization (“GNSS Expert�) at World Air Games in 1997.
Advisor to the International Jury. 3. Administrative · Acting Team Captain
at WGC 2003 (Poland), Team Captain at WGC 2012 (Argentina) · Member of
OSTIV Working Group for Light and Ultralight Sailplanes · Former Soaring
Society of America Director. · IGC positions: - IGC Alternate Delegate
from USA - Annex A Committee member - Safety Pays Working Group member -
Scoring Software Testing Working group member (Chairman as of May 1, 2012)
- Communications and PR Committee member

Does that strike you as someone who is not mathematically competent?




--
Dan, 5J

2 plus 2 still 22 ?

Looking forward to reading the "how I dunnits" and "how I shoulda dunnits" from the team.

******** to arguing about the rules. Every game has rules and is entered knowing them. People seem to accept American "football" teams standing there with a ball and watching the clock tick down to zero. It's the same thing.

Zulu Romeo, good finish.
(now you can give Attila his glider back)
Jim

On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 11:45:07 AM UTC-6, JS wrote:
Looking forward to reading the "how I dunnits" and "how I shoulda dunnits" from the team.

******** to arguing about the rules. Every game has rules and is entered knowing them. People seem to accept American "football" teams standing there with a ball and watching the clock tick down to zero. It's the same thing..

Zulu Romeo, good finish.
(now you can give Attila his glider back)
Jim

Yep. I let out a scream of "NOOOOOO!!!!" on the last day when Boyd's tracker said he had landed out. I think based on the altitude, that he probably won the Limbo Contest that day! Or maybe it was a Monty Python moment. He landed out. But, he got better.

Well done, guys! Looking forward to hearing more about it.

Steve