|
| Les appariements aux Olympiades par Ch***Ch****7633 le
[Aller à la fin] |
| Actualités | |
Bon, il s'agit bien d'un Système Suisse, n'est-ce pas ?
Je me demande pour quelle raison les appariements ont été accélérés pendant les 2 premières rondes étant donné que 11 rondes sont bien suffisantes pour départager une centaine d'équipes ?!
Ça donne des matches déséquilibrés comme, à la ronde 3 chez les hommes, Angleterre 15 ème équipe contre Malte 109eme ! Les anglais l'ont emporté logiquement 4 à 0 mais cela n'améliore pas vraiment leur départage car c'est le Sonneborn-Berger qui en pris en compte en premier départage. Le total des points de partie ne venant qu'ensuite.
Autre question, pourquoi les françaises (n°5) jouent-elles les arméniennes (n°6) aujourd'hui à la ronde 5 alors que je compte 22 équipes à 6 points ?
Ça me dépasse. Si un arbitre (Arbitro, notre grand référent ?) passe par ici, merci de m'expliquer...
|
|
|
je me pose les mêmes questions que toi.
je vais demander à arbitro de nous aider via facebook
|
|
|
Ne pensez vous pas qu'il s'agit plutôt d'un système suisse-allemand ?
|
|
|
je n'ai regardé que très vite fait mais j'avais l'impression que c'était un système suisse non pas par moyenne élo mais avec l'un des départages. En coupe d'Europe des clubs, par exemple, les appariements de la ronde 2 entre les équipes ayant gagné la ronde 1 sont en fonction du goal average (équipes ayant gagné 4 à 0 contre équipes ayant gagné 2.5-1.5).
|
|
|
ainsi que pour toutes les autres rondes..
|
|
|
exact Lapinews Il semblerait qu'ils utilisent le 1er départage (Sonneborn-Berger) avec la règle 1er-dernier, 2e-avant-dernier...
Pour la ronde 6, parmi les équipes à 8 points, celle avec le meilleur départage (Pologne) joue celle avec le pire départage (France) et ainsi de suite (Inde-Bosnie, Suède-Israël...).
|
|
|
c'est pourtant pas compliqué : euh... en fait si, c'est compliqué... voici le détail pour les rondes 1 à 3 (Bon courage !)
J. Detailed Pairings Procedure for rounds 1 to 3
28. a) In the first two rounds, two imaginary match points shall be added, for pairing purposes only, to each of the teams in the top half – rounded down to the nearest even number - of the initial list as per Section C. These imaginary points shall be deducted before making the pairings for the third round.
b) If there is an additional team starting to play from round 2, this team will also get two imaginary match points, provided it has to be ranked in the top half if the initial list.
29. a) If there is an uneven number of teams in a group in the top half of the score groups, the weakest rated team shall be dropped to the group immediately below and paired against the strongest rated team in that group, that it has not already played.
b) If the group from which the weakest rated team has been dropped is such that a complete pairing of all remaining teams in the group cannot be made, then - instead of dropping the weakest rated team - the second weakest team in the group shall be dropped, etc.
30. If the weakest rated team that is dropped to the group immediately below has already played every team in the group immediately below, then it shall be moved back to its original group and the second weakest team shall be dropped, etc.
31. If every team in an score group in the top half of the score group has played every team in the group immediately below then the same procedure is followed as per rules 29 and 30.
32. If there is an uneven number of teams in a group in the bottom half of the score groups, the strongest rated team shall be elevated to the group immediately above and paired against the weakest rated team in that group, that it has not already played.
33. If the group from which the strongest rated team has been elevated is such that a complete pairing of all remaining teams in the group cannot be made, then the second strongest team in the group shall be elevated, etc.
34. If the strongest rated team that is elevated to the group immediately above has already played every team in the group immediately above, then it shall be moved back to its original group and the second strongest team shall be elevated, etc.
35. If every team in an score group in the bottom half of the score groups has played every team in the group immediately above then the same procedure is followed as per rules 32, 33 and 34 for the next score group.
36. To the extent possible, teams in the top half of any point group shall be paired in sequence against the teams in the bottom half of the same point group.
37. For teams in the median group and higher, priority shall be given to first finding the correct pairing for the strongest team in that point group, etc.
38. For teams below the median group, priority shall be given to first finding the correct pairing for the weakest team in a given point group, then the second weakest team in that point group, etc.
39. Assuming 2N teams in a group, it is first attempted to pair the first team in the group with the N + 1 team. If that is possible, we are left with a subgroup of 2N - 2 teams. The same procedure is now applied to the subgroup. Wherever a match is not possible because the teams have already played each other, or the subgroup is unsolvable, the first team in the group (or subgroup) is matched with N + 2 (instead of N + 1), then N + 3, until 2N, and if still unsuccessful, against N-1, N-2, etc.
40. In order to illustrate this procedure, suppose there are six teams in a group, 1 through 6. There will be 15 combinations of pairing within the group, in the following descending order of priority:
(1) 1 x 4, 2 x 5, 3 x 6
(2) 1 x 4, 2 x 6, 3 x 5
(3) 1 x 4, 2 x 3, 5 x 6
(4) 1 x 5, 2 x 4, 3 x 6
(5) 1 x 5, 2 x 6, 3 x 4
(6) 1 x 5, 2 x 3, 4 x 6
(7) 1 x 6, 2 x 4, 3 x 5
(8) 1 x 6, 2 x 5, 3 x 4
(9) 1 x 6, 2 x 3, 4 x 5
(10) 1 x 3, 2 x 5, 4 x 6
(11) 1 x 3, 2 x 6, 4 x 5
(12) 1 x 3, 2 x 4, 5 x 6
(13) 1 x 2, 3 x 5, 4 x 6
(14) 1 x 2, 3 x 6, 4 x 5
(15) 1 x 2, 3 x 4, 5 x 6
41. In any group below the median group priority shall be given to pairing the weakest team in the group and the same logic shall apply as outlined in rule 37 but in reverse order.
42. If the top ranked team in a group (the strongest team) has played all the other teams in the same point group, priority shall be given to pairing this team against the strongest team in the next point group below that it has not already played. This applies to teams in the median group and above.
43. For the similar case in a group below the median group the lowest ranked team (weakest team) in that point group that has played all other teams in the same point group, priority shall be given to pairing this team against the weakest team in the next point group above that it has not already played.
44. For teams in the median group and above if the top ranked team in a group has played all the teams in its own point group and all teams in the point group immediately below it, its opponent shall be found by selecting the highest rated team in the group next below, that it has not already played.
45. For the similar case of teams in a group below the median group if the lowest ranked team in that point group has played all the teams in the point group immediately above it, its opponent shall be found by selecting the lowest rated team in the group next above that it has not already played.
46. The same pattern of pairings shall be followed in the case of other teams in a given point group in the groups below the median group that have already played all other teams in their own point group as has been followed in pairing rules 42, 43, 44 and 45.
47. Priority shall be given to making a pairing of all teams in a single group with other teams in the same group before dropping a team to the group below (if not all, not necessarily the maximum). In all such cases the same general logic as detailed above shall be followed.
vous voulez la ronde 4 ?
|
|
|
note : j'ai arbitré à Turin, les dernières Olympiades. Cette année, c'est Laurent Freyd qui représente la DNA et la FFE à Dresden. Place aux jeunes !
|
|
|
Merci à tous, Lapinews et menfous ont raison, j'ai vérifié ;-)
Arbitro aussi certainement, mais c'est un poil trop technique pour moi. :-(
Ce n'est donc pas un appariement fort/faible.
Peut-on parler de Système Suisse ici ?
|
|
|
si c'est premier contre dernier ce n'est pas système suisse. Exemple à 4 joueurs :
1 vs 3 / 2 vs 4 = système suisse
mais là c'est 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3, donc plutôt appariement type coupe (élimination)
|
|
|
Le système Lapinews Je trouve que c'est un nom assez marketing pour ce nouveau système. Les GM (on peut presque le dire maintenant) laissent tjs leur nom à un système !!!
|
|
|
maintenant ue tout le monde a compris le système (sauf moi!), le trouvez-vous bien ?
si j'ai pigé c'est un accéléré basé non pas sur la moyenne élo mais sur les points de départage (l'un et l'autre indépendant sont bien, mais les 2 à la fois ça donne des trucs bizarres), mais je le répète j'ai peut-être rien pigé.
|
|
|
mon précédent message est merdique. faisons plus simple
accéléré basé sur le élo+appariements basés sur le départage=mélanger les torchons et les serviettes. ou alors j'ai pas compris.
|
|
|
Avoir la Nouvelle-Zélande au 5e échiquier (avec une perf moyenne de 2195) contre la Bulgarie après 7 rondes, ce n'est pas le signe que quelque chose cloche ?
|
|
|
