Lots of good ideas are floating around about contest equalization
(a bad idea), handicapping, ranking, station classification,
skill vs. geography, etc. Let's try to define what we want to
do:
Measure contester skill
Predict outcome of future competitions
Recognize superior performance
Recognize hard work and cumulative achievement
Make everyone win or feel like a winner
Attract more contesters
Make it "fair"
Equalize all competitors
Measure contester skill
The best suggestion I have seen is to normalize scores of
similar stations in a given locale and award points based on
percentage of the highest score. This is similar to the
NASTAR method of measuring amateur ski racers against a
pro who sets a baseline for a given course on a given day.
NASTAR events stand alone - you get a medal based on your
comparison to the pacesetter. We could do likewise in radio.
For example, Hi/Lo/QRP for each ARRL Division would be a
reasonable breakdown for SS. The winner could get 100 points
and everyone else in that power and division gets a percentage
less than 100. We could measure percentile of
competitors or percent of score. In either case, a Low
Power Rating of 87 in New England would be vaguely similar
to an 87 in Pacific. If we averaged these performance
measures over many contests, or many runs of the same
contest, we might get a useful metric. e.g. "I average
about 83 in SS but only 65 in CQWW." (But we will continue
to hear "It's not fair - my division is highly competitive in SS
but one big gun skews the scores in CQWW....")
Predict outcome of future competitions
There are many ways to do this. It would be nice to have a ranking
system such as that used in chess (the "Elo System" invented
by Prof. Arpad Elo). That system is designed for one-on-one
competitions. Each player has a rating. When two players
compete, the difference between their ratings determines the
number of points at risk. If you beat a much stronger player,
your rating goes up the max and his or hers goes down the max.
You exchange less points for a draw. The number of points at
risk goes down with the rating difference, so equals exchange
a minimum of points for a decisive outcome and none for a
draw. After an initial period of settling in for a new player
in the field, ratings tend to move slowly unless a player is
really improving or declining (both happen). This system
has the advantage of adapting to the level of the competition.
It is an extraordinary predictor of results over extended
competitions (many games, many players in a tournament).
To adapt it to radio, with all of its inherent variables and
multiple concurrent competitors, would be difficult. I suspect that
the percentage/percentile of pacesetter score described above
would be a fair predictor of successor events entered from
similar stations, but far less precise than Elo in chess.
Recognize superior performance
Today's system works pretty well - just publish the results
with top ten boxes and regional listings. I'd like to see
a top ten in each division and power category in ARRL contests
or each US call area in CQWW. Since magazine space is at a
premium, maybe NCJ could publish such supplementary lists. Or
the contest reflector. The chess people have a supplement to
the Elo system with which they compute a "performance rating"
for an individual tournament. Thus a player with a rating
of 1850 might score 2200 in a particular event. He has done
very well indeed, even though his personal rating may have
risen only to 1880 or so.
Recognize hard work and cumulative achievement
The bridge world does very well with this one: Each tournament
event has a certain number of Master Points to award based on
its size and entry criteria. The points are distributed to the
winners. I think you accumulate points indefinitely, so this
system rewards active players much more than inactive but
stronger players. To compensate somewhat, they have special
color points which you can only win against tough competiton.
We could come up with a similar metric by summing percentage/
percentile scores instead of averaging them.
Make everyone win or feel like a winner
The best suggestions I've heard on the reflector have been
to invent more categories to create more winners or to
award various "most improved" citations. Someone observed
(correctly, I believe) that some of us are motivated by
winning and others by self-improvement. Perhaps better
journalism would encourage both types. Let's hear some
comments in the text about special efforts, improvements,
particularly competitive situations, etc. Not the current
pablum of prose renditions of top ten boxes and pages of
fine print, nearly identical, zero information comments.
Attract more contesters
More articles on how to do it, how much fun it is, operating
tactics, station design, interviews with famous contesters,
stories about successful newcomers, participation awards, etc.
Contest sponsors need to do more marketing.
Make it "fair"
Mainline contesting is not fair, never will be, and is particularly
interesting because of the very variables that make it unfair.
Such is life. Long live unfair contesting. Measurement of
results in creative ways can overcome some of the inequalities
and should be pursued as a marketing strategy, not as a holy
quest.
Equalize all competitors
Good heavens, no! Handicaps in golf, bowling, and Go are there
to make it POSSIBLE for unequals to enjoy a game together. Without
them, pros and amateurs can't possibly participate in the same
event. But the "real" events are among peers and are the only
ones that prove anything about individual ability. In radiosport,
K1DG and ZZ9ZZZ can QSO regardless of their respective experience
and ability and both profit from the experience. The only kind of
equalizing I'd support would be in a long-term ranking system
whose purpose is measurement, not equalization.
73,
/Rick Tavan N6XI
tavan@tss.com
|