Advertisement

Central European Journal of Operations Research

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 783–803 | Cite as

Ranking by pairwise comparisons for Swiss-system tournaments

  • László CsatóEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Pairwise comparison matrices are widely used in multicriteria decision making. This article applies incomplete pairwise comparison matrices in the area of sport tournaments, namely proposing alternative rankings for the 2010 Chess Olympiad Open tournament. It is shown that results are robust regarding scaling technique. In order to compare different rankings, a distance function is introduced with the aim of taking into account the subjective nature of human perception. Analysis of the weight vectors implies that methods based on pairwise comparisons have common roots. Visualization of the results is provided by multidimensional scaling on the basis of the defined distance. The proposed rankings give in some cases intuitively better outcome than currently used lexicographical orders.

Keywords

Multicriteria decision making Incomplete pairwise comparison matrix Ranking for Swiss-system tournaments Multidimensional scaling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arsigny V, Fillard P, Pennec X, Ayache N (2006) Fast and simple calculus on tensors in the log-Euclidean framework. Magn Reson Med 56(2): 411–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bozóki S, Fülöp J, Rónyai L (2010) On optimal completion of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices. Math Comput Model 52(1–2): 318–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crawford G, Williams C (1980) Analysis of subjective judgment matrices. The Rand Corporation, Office of the Secretary of Defense USA, R-2572-AFGoogle Scholar
  4. Crawford G, Williams C (1985) A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. J Math Psychol 29: 387–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Graan JG (July 22–25 1980) Extensions of the multiple criteria analysis method of T.L. Saaty. Presented at EURO IV Conference, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Fedrizzi M, Giove S (2007) Incomplete pairwise comparison and consistency optimization. Eur J Oper Res 183(1): 303–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gass SI (1998) Tournaments, transitivity and pairwise comparison matrices. J Oper Res Soc 49: 616–624Google Scholar
  8. Handbook of FIDE. D.II.02 (2010) Regulations for specific competitions, Chess Olympiad, Olympiad pairing rules. Approved by the 1994 and 1998 Executive Councils, amended by the 2006 Presidential Board and the 2007 and 2009 Executive Council. http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=95&view=article
  9. Harker PT (1987) Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Math Model 9(11): 837–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kéri G (2011) On qualitatively consistent, transitive and contradictory judgment matrices emerging from multiattribute decision procedures. Central Eur J Oper Res 19(2): 215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kruskal JB, Wish M (1978) Multidimensional scaling. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  12. Norris AN (2005) The isotropic material closest to a given anisotropic material. J Mech Mater Struct 1(2): 231–246Google Scholar
  13. Perron O (1907) Zur Theorie der Matrizen. Mathematische Annalen 64: 248–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Results of the 39th Olympiad Khanty-Mansiysk 2010 Open tournament (2010) http://chess-results.com/tnr36795.aspx?lan=1
  15. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Spearman C (1904) The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am J Psychol 15: 72–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tarsitano A (2008) Nonlinear rank correlations. Working Paper. Agostino Tarsitano, Italy (in press). http://eprints.bice.rm.cnr.it/586/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Operations Research and Actuarial SciencesCorvinus University of BudapestBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations