Advertisement

Simulating competitiveness and precision in a tournament structure: a reaper tournament system

  • An Vinh Nguyen Dinh
  • Nhien Pham Hoang Bao
  • Mohd Nor Akmal KhalidEmail author
  • Hiroyuki Iida
Original Research
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

This paper explores a new perspective of finding the best tournament structures by focusing on two aspects (apart from the number of matches): competitiveness development and ranking precision. Competitiveness development emphasizes the importance of participants’ motivation while keeping the matches exciting whereas ranking precision reflects the persuasiveness of tournament result to its participants. To address competitiveness development, this paper proposes a new method that visualizes tournament structures using a tree-like graphical model called progress tree. In addition, ranking precision is addressed by considering the similarities and qualities of the ranking process by the sorting algorithm during the ranking process. With respect to these two aspects, several well-known tournament structures such as the single elimination, double elimination, Round-Robin, and Swiss systems were analyzed. Although each tournament has its own pros and cons, none of them can thoroughly convince all participants of the tournament results while keeping the matches strongly motivating. As such, a new tournament structure called Reaper tournament system with its variants, are proposed. The Reaper tournament system with its variants were evaluated on simulated football matches and validated with real-world data of previous football tournaments. Thence, practical insights into tournament structures are obtained and possible future works are discussed.

Keywords

Tournament structure Competitiveness development Stability progressing Ranking precision Reaper Football 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is funded by a grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, in the framework of the Grant-in-Aid for Challenging Exploratory Research (Grant Number: 19K22893).

References

  1. 1.
    Brejová B (2001) Analyzing variants of shellsort. Inf Process Lett 79(5):223–227MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cormen TH, Leiserson CE, Rivest RL, Stein C (2009) Introduction to algorithms. MIT Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Csató L (2013) Ranking by pairwise comparisons for swiss-system tournaments. Central Eur J Oper Res 21(4):783–803MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Csató L (2017) On the ranking of a Swiss system chess team tournament. Ann Oper Res 254(1–2):17–36MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dangauthier P, Herbrich R, Minka T, Graepel T (2008) Trueskill through time: revisiting the history of chess. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 337–344Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elo AE (1978) The rating of chessplayers, past and present. Arco Pub., NagoyaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Foundation O (2017) The on-line encyclopedia of integer sequences. https://oeis.org/A003071
  8. 8.
    Han Y (2002) Deterministic sorting in o (n log log n) time and linear space. In: Proceedings of the 34th annual ACM symposium on theory of computing. ACM, pp 602–608Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaiser E, Feng W (2009) Playerrating: a reputation system for multiplayer online games. In: Proceedings of the 8th annual workshop on network and systems support for games. IEEE Press, p 8Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Knuth DE (1998) The art of computer programming. Sorting and searching, vol 3, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, ReadingzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Minka T, Graepel T, Herbrich R (2007) Trueskill tm: a Bayesian skill rating system. Advances in neural information processing systemsGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sanderson AR, Siegfried JJ (2003) Thinking about competitive balance. J Sports Econ 4:255–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scarf P, Yusof MM, Bilbao M (2009) A numerical study of designs for sporting contests. Eur J Oper Res 198(1):190–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schmidt MB, Berri DJ (2001) Competitive balance and attendance: the case of major league baseball. J Sports Econ 2:145–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sedgewick R (1978) Implementing quicksort programs. Commun ACM 21(10):847–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shim KJ, Ahmad MA, Pathak N, Srivastava J (2009) Inferring player rating from performance data in massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs). In: 2009 international conference on computational science and engineering, IEEE, vol 4, pp 1199–1204Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stanton I, Williams VV (2013) The structure, efficacy, and manipulation of double-elimination tournaments. J Quant Anal Sports 9(4):319–335Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sucar LE (2015) Graph theory. Springer London, London, pp 27–38Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Szymanski S (2001) Income inequality, competitive balance and the attractiveness of team sports: some evidence and a natural experiment from English soccer. In: The economic journal, Blackwell Publisher, Oxford, vol 111, pp 69–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thorup M (2002) Randomized sorting in o (n log log n) time and linear space using addition, shift, and bit-wise boolean operations. J Algorithms 42(2):205–230MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Xiong S, Zin NAM, Yang L, Iida H (2016) Mathematical model of ranking accuracy and popularity promotion. In: 2016 3rd international conference on systems and informatics (ICSAI), pp 350–357Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang L, Wu J, Wang ZC, Wang CJ (2010) A factor-based model for context-sensitive skill rating systems. In: 2010 22nd IEEE international conference on tools with artificial intelligence, IEEE, vol 2, pp 249–255Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Bharati Vidyapeeth's Institute of Computer Applications and Management 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Science in Ho Chi Minh cityHo Chi Minh cityVietnam
  2. 2.Japan Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologyNomiJapan

Personalised recommendations