I have the general background to understand and agree with what Mr. Good is
saying, but I do not have the math to demonstrate the truth (or falsity, if
that should be the case) of the argument. In words, it would be this: the
conditions for voting have changed between the first and second ballots.
Specifically, ten games compete not only against all the other games, but
also have a 'to the death' competiton with another member of the ten. By
changing the conditions under which some but not all of the games are
judged, there is an unavoidable bias introduced. A subset of the whole is
being judged by different and more stringent standards. Thus the playing
field is no longer level. The only question becomes how the two different
groups are affected. I believe it is apparent that the result is to lessen
the chances of the ten relative to the other games.
I am forced to predict that a lesser percentage of the singled out games
will get into tournaments under these conditions. But this again may be
misleading, because a closer examination of the ten shows some of them
both represented and voted on in the first poll, CC/CRC and FC/FC100, and
some that were represented by a single entry which was then split into
two, GrandSD/GrandSR, GreatSD/GreatSR, and Mir36/Mir32. This also must
skew the results. I believe I must predict that the seven initial entries
that became ten will be underrepresented statistically, although one
contest does not give an adequate sample.
On the specific question of Mir36 and Mir32, if there were no Mir36 in the
tournament, I would put Mir32 in the exact place that I will put Mir36.
However, because there are two Mirs in the tournament, one of them must be
rated above the other, unless there are provisions for giving 2 different
games the exact same rating. I cannot help but believe the lower-rated Mir
has lost a little. Am I actually wrong in believing this?
I have the general background to understand and agree with what Mr. Good is saying, but I do not have the math to demonstrate the truth (or falsity, if that should be the case) of the argument. In words, it would be this: the conditions for voting have changed between the first and second ballots.
Specifically, ten games compete not only against all the other games, but also have a 'to the death' competiton with another member of the ten. By changing the conditions under which some but not all of the games are judged, there is an unavoidable bias introduced. A subset of the whole is being judged by different and more stringent standards. Thus the playing field is no longer level. The only question becomes how the two different groups are affected. I believe it is apparent that the result is to lessen the chances of the ten relative to the other games.
I am forced to predict that a lesser percentage of the singled out games will get into tournaments under these conditions. But this again may be misleading, because a closer examination of the ten shows some of them both represented and voted on in the first poll, CC/CRC and FC/FC100, and some that were represented by a single entry which was then split into two, GrandSD/GrandSR, GreatSD/GreatSR, and Mir36/Mir32. This also must skew the results. I believe I must predict that the seven initial entries that became ten will be underrepresented statistically, although one contest does not give an adequate sample.
On the specific question of Mir36 and Mir32, if there were no Mir36 in the tournament, I would put Mir32 in the exact place that I will put Mir36. However, because there are two Mirs in the tournament, one of them must be rated above the other, unless there are provisions for giving 2 different games the exact same rating. I cannot help but believe the lower-rated Mir has lost a little. Am I actually wrong in believing this?