Scoring Discussion

Interesting proposal, but it creates massive incentive to glide home over that last unlandable forest no matter what altitude. Everyone landing out 5 km short on last good landing place, one tries risky glide home and scores extra 250 points. Current formula gives risk taker only small benefit.
____________

I believe this is only true if practically everyone lands out and you are the sole finisher. The more common case is you are (or believe you may be since you don't have perfect information) one of a few landouts. In Sean's example landing out cost him nearly 700 points. In general IGC rules are much harsher on outlandings than US rules which are harsher on outlandings than John's proposal (most of the time except in the case of a distance day with near 100% landouts). You are really describing only the case of the one guy who manages to get close to home on a difficult day where IGC rules say "don't bother".

Having looked at the issue of marginal glides home and scoring quite a lot I've concluded that most pilots, if they get within a marginal glide from home, will go for it - for reasons unrelated to points. A landout and retreive is a significant risk and hassle all by itself.

Andy Blackburn
9B

I've concluded that most pilots, if they get within a marginal glide
from
h=
ome, will go for it - for reasons unrelated to points. A landout and
retrei=
ve is a significant risk and hassle all by itself.

Andy Blackburn
9B


It all depends on the landable fields on the final glide to the finish
line. Given good fields and no obstructions, I think most WGC
contenders will drive straight ahead hoping for some "help" plus
ground effect in order to get across that finish line. If they fall
short,
they just land safely straight ahead. It's when there are obstructions
or poor landing choices on short final where that decision comes more
into play.

RO

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 6:43:59 PM UTC+3, Andy Blackburn wrote:
Interesting proposal, but it creates massive incentive to glide home over that last unlandable forest no matter what altitude. Everyone landing out 5 km short on last good landing place, one tries risky glide home and scores extra 250 points. Current formula gives risk taker only small benefit.
____________

I believe this is only true if practically everyone lands out and you are the sole finisher. The more common case is you are (or believe you may be since you don't have perfect information) one of a few landouts. In Sean's example landing out cost him nearly 700 points. In general IGC rules are much harsher on outlandings than US rules which are harsher on outlandings than John's proposal (most of the time except in the case of a distance day with near 100% landouts). You are really describing only the case of the one guy who manages to get close to home on a difficult day where IGC rules say "don't bother".

Having looked at the issue of marginal glides home and scoring quite a lot I've concluded that most pilots, if they get within a marginal glide from home, will go for it - for reasons unrelated to points. A landout and retreive is a significant risk and hassle all by itself.

If you've got any brains you'll have scouted safe landout places 5km, 10km, 20km from home field in various directions -- or, better, responsible contest organizers will have done that for you. So hassle, yes, but hopefully not as much risk as pressing on with zero safety margin.

Hi Mike - Two thoughts.

1) It's hard not to have points on the table if you want to have speed finishers ALL earn more than the longest landout AND you want some points spread across speeds. The additional variable is how much gaggling is induced by a system where lone landouts take a 700 point hit and line finishers get zero credit.

2) How much are points the primary motive for pressing a marginal glide home versus a "deliberate" landout? I guess some, but my sense is there is a lower limit attributable to "get-home-itis". People want to get home for risk and convenience reasons no matter what so that's what plays against safety concerns once points are off the table. There's only so much you can do to discourage retreive aversion. IGC rules are particularly harsh on land outs if they are in the minority (up to 700 points) and mild if there are lots of finishers, but how is a pilot to know exactly which in a case where he MIGHT be able to get home but it's marginal. There will likely be gliders behind you who might get home, and who really gives up if they think they can make it? An uncertain number of points at stake (but probably some) and a desire to get home anyway.

3) The bigger issue for me is the complexity, misunderstanding, adverse incentives (gaggling, start-gate roulette and deliberate landouts to deny a competitor points - which has happened on rare occasions which is pretty bad) of the current scoring. Mostly I wonder about the appropriateness of a system where you can drop 700 points by landing 2km short. That seems pretty harsh. I question the whole system of using other pilots flights to determine my score. I get the rationale, but I don't think it necessarily holds water AND it's complex. I think all of this is worthy of some deeper consideration. John's proposal does a pretty decent job at addressing many of these issues, though a thorough pressure testing would be needed.

Andy Blackburn
9B

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 12:59:48 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:

Three thoughts.

("Our main weapon is fear - and surprise!")



.. Hi Mike - Two thoughts.

1) It's hard not to have points on the table if you want to have speed finishers ALL earn more than the longest landout AND you want some points spread across speeds. The additional variable is how much gaggling is induced by a system where lone landouts take a 700 point hit and line finishers get zero credit.

2) How much are points the primary motive for pressing a marginal glide home versus a "deliberate" landout? I guess some, but my sense is there is a lower limit attributable to "get-home-itis". People want to get home for risk and convenience reasons no matter what so that's what plays against safety concerns once points are off the table. There's only so much you can do to discourage retreive aversion. IGC rules are particularly harsh on land outs if they are in the minority (up to 700 points) and mild if there are lots of finishers, but how is a pilot to know exactly which in a case where he MIGHT be able to get home but it's marginal. There will likely be gliders behind you who might get home, and who really gives up if they think they can make it? An uncertain number of points at stake (but probably some) and a desire to get home anyway.

3) The bigger issue for me is the complexity, misunderstanding, adverse incentives (gaggling, start-gate roulette and deliberate landouts to deny a competitor points - which has happened on rare occasions which is pretty bad) of the current scoring. Mostly I wonder about the appropriateness of a system where you can drop 700 points by landing 2km short. That seems pretty harsh. I question the whole system of using other pilots flights to determine my score. I get the rationale, but I don't think it necessarily holds water AND it's complex. I think all of this is worthy of some deeper consideration. John's proposal does a pretty decent job at addressing many of these issues, though a thorough pressure testing would be needed.

Andy Blackburn
9B

US rules had a "drop a day" provision, brilliantly worked out by John Good to overcome the obvious problems. It was optional. I thought it was great in addition to the obvious reasons because it keeps a pilot's interest in a contest. If you land out on the first day of the contest its no longer, well that's over let's wait until next year, and your 10 day gliding vacation is now just fun flying.

It died on the vine as no CD ever wanted to try it. I guess figuring out the existing rules is hard enough, nobody wants to try new ones. And pilots didn't ask for it. If you only ask for things in winter on RAS and don't pester CDs to try it, it never happens. Same thing happened to racehorse starts and an integration of grand prix type racing to US contest tasks. They were introduced as rules options after a RAS storm over the winter on how much fun it would be, then nobody ever used it.

John Cochrane

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 1:32:10 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:

US rules had a "drop a day" provision, brilliantly worked out by John Good to overcome the obvious problems.

The brilliance of the design was that it permitted a pilot to select a day to match the winner's score instead of the one (s)he was awarded. This is profoundly different from literally dropping your lowest score because it eliminates the unfairness of dropping devalued days.

Most local racing series have a "best "N" scores" provision. It's odd that no one wanted to try it in a sanctioned contest. It would still be available under waiver - so bring it on!

Andy Blackburn
9B

On Friday, 20 January 2017 12:02:01 UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 1:32:10 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:

US rules had a "drop a day" provision, brilliantly worked out by John Good to overcome the obvious problems.

The brilliance of the design was that it permitted a pilot to select a day to match the winner's score instead of the one (s)he was awarded. This is profoundly different from literally dropping your lowest score because it eliminates the unfairness of dropping devalued days.

Most local racing series have a "best "N" scores" provision. It's odd that no one wanted to try it in a sanctioned contest. It would still be available under waiver - so bring it on!

Andy Blackburn
9B

Has the feature to drop a day been left in WINSCORE?

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 2:17:46 PM UTC-5, Ron Gleason wrote:


Has the feature to drop a day been left in WINSCORE?

Hey Ron,

I don't think so. I believe it's a relatively simple work-around, though obviously automated is always better. I remember you and I ended up in a useful discussion about racehorse starts a few years back that ended up as not practical to try manually - and you and Bruno are more up for trying things than most.

It's the classic chicken-egg problem - how much coding to ask programmers to do on spec versus how much effort to ask scorers to go through just to try out innovations in how contests are scored. It's a giant doom-loop without some effort somewhere.

9B

On Friday, 20 January 2017 12:35:15 UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 2:17:46 PM UTC-5, Ron Gleason wrote:


Has the feature to drop a day been left in WINSCORE?

Hey Ron,

I don't think so. I believe it's a relatively simple work-around, though obviously automated is always better. I remember you and I ended up in a useful discussion about racehorse starts a few years back that ended up as not practical to try manually - and you and Bruno are more up for trying things than most.

It's the classic chicken-egg problem - how much coding to ask programmers to do on spec versus how much effort to ask scorers to go through just to try out innovations in how contests are scored. It's a giant doom-loop without some effort somewhere.

9B

To try I am assuming we could just delete the IGC file for the day and have that day scored as a DNF. On the other hand that would require only 'n' days scored for each pilot. Workable. Let's talk again at Nephi and maybe try something there