Re: Seeding Mini-Spingold

Obviously, measuring skill is the problem here. In the real events,
the implicit assumption is that all the top players play in all the
events, and measuring their performance over a 10-year period is a
decent approximation to their skill. The whole point of this thread
is to explore how that skill should be assessed.

Just as one more example of how it's sometimes done (not that I think
this would work here) - I think that at one time, in New England, the
first round of the knockout was seeded judgmentally, with only the top
half of the field being seeded and the bottom half being random.
During the first round, a seeding form was distributed. Captains of
all the winning teams turned in the form, and the field was seeded
into fixed brackets based on the captain's votes, beginning in the
second round.




On Mar 1, 8:24 pm, "henrysun...@xxxxxxxxx" <henrysun...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Mar 1, 5:04 pm, Hank Youngerman <dontspa...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Seeding should be about skill, not brownie points.

**************

I doubt that anyone would disagree with this.  The problem becomes,
how does one quantify 'skill,' since seeding by its very nature places
some teams higher than others.

I earned LM in 8 months a decade or so ago, and now play almost
exclusively online because of family issues.  I'm probably not a
genuinely flight A player, certainly not in terms of my masterpoints
and attendance, but on a good day I can hold my own against pretty
good competition.

How would one 'seed' me for the purposes of the mini-spingold?  Check
my posts on rec?  Check my performance on BBO (and how would one
handicap playing with Steven?)

No, assuming that there is some value to seeding (I agree), then
masterpoints is the only convenient relative measuring stick
available, even if it has warts and problems.

Henrysun909

.