I mentioned this idea in another thread - but I think its worth a separate discussion.
Every tie-break method attempts to discern the appropriate order of players within a score group by determining the relative value of their performance in a tournament. Different methods focus different approaches of doing this - and so different methods may produce different results.
Given the computer pairing era, there is an opportunity to create methods that in the past would have not been feasible. I think we should give thought to creating the following new method, where we allow the COMputer to indDEX the player rankings by using the other tie-break systems. This method I refer to as Comdex.
The Comdex method recognizes that all existing tie-break systems have positives and negatives. Therefore, under the Comdex method we look for AGREEMENT in these other systems with respect to a player’s indexed order of finish based on each system. (If desired, we can tweak this system by recognizing that some Tie-break systems seem to be more valid than others, and so we can weight the order, rather than using each order equally; additionally, weighting the systems, even slightly, seems to me to be more likely to break all ties on one shot, for reasons outlined below)
In current tie-breaks, the systems are used sequentially. A first system is used to break a tie, then if ties remain a second system, and then a third, and so on. In Comdex, we are using the various systems simultaneously.
So let’s suppose we start with the “standard order” of and do a VERY SIMPLE example. (Those of you with scholastic events know that we could easily have 10 or more ties in some cases - but the principles below would be the same.)
- Modified Median
- Solkoff
- Cumulative
- Cumulative of Opposition
Let’s assume we have 2 players, A and B, tie for first in a section with a trophy prize at 4-1. Let’s further assume that based on each of the standard tiebreaks the players finish as follows in their section:
A: 2, 1, 1, 1
B: 1, 2, 2, 2
Under Standard Tiebreaks - “B” would take the trophy. Comdex would say that A’s average finish was 1.25, and that B’s average finish is 1.75 - so by Comdex A would be ranked as 1, B as 2.
Further, we could decide to weight results. Let’s assume that we add "Average Rating of Opposition as #5; but we know this has some downsides (as described in the rulebook) So we could weight as follows:
1: 30%
2: 25%
3: 20%
4: 15%
5: 10%
Then with results:
A: 2, 1, 1, 1, 2
B: 1, 2, 2, 2, 1
We would get:
A: (.6 +.25 +.2 + .15 +.2)=1.4
B: (.3 + .5 + .4 + .3 + .1) = 1.6
So A would be ranked ahead of B again.
Weighting factors would have to be suggested by experience.
The idea here is simple: the players are INDEXED based on the results of each tiebreak system, and then the average Index determined - thus looking for agreement between systems.
And of course, this is all done withing the tournament management software.
Calculating Comdex based on the Unweighted Standard Order would seem to be the standard approach.