chips high point scroring

Imported from Yahoo
1

if you require this document in pdf form let me know

Why Chips 3 Fails By David Chesworth
I'm not here to discredit the system; I'm here to prove that the
system simply is not
fair
If you take a look at the Chips 3 table of points you will see what I
mean.
If you have 3 starters the first boat gets 90 points and the second
boat 77.5 that's a
12.5 points differences. However when it comes to 25 starter race the
point's gap is
3.7. So racing in small fleets gives the first place boat an
advantage over anyone else.
But when it comes to large fleets that advantage goes to the people
down the fleet.
If you look closely at the table the first place boat with starters
of 21 and 22 have the
same points. With 23 starters it changes but for 24 and 25 starters
it is the same
points.
Looking at this is it possible for the first boats points to be less
or equal to that of the
second place boats in very large fleets? Very possible.
This proves that the chips system has flaws, large fleets.
Working out you can beat your fellow competitors was impossible.
Firstly you
cannot predict how many people are going to race on any given race.
Secondly now
that chips has a heavy wind factor it means that the weather can play
a part in the
points ultimately the overall results.
The skill factor of sailing has been taken out and it leaves your
results in the hands of
others.
If you want to change the results system for your club away from
chips then go ahead
and email your club telling them.

All about CHIPS

CHIPS 3 - TABLE OF POINTS
Number of Starters (N)
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 90 91.5 92.7 93.8 94.8 95.5 96.2 96.8 97.3 97.7 98 98.3 98.6 98.8
99 99.1 99.3 99.4 99.5 99.5 99.6 99.7 99.7
2 77.5 80 82.1 83.9 85.5 86.9 88.1 89.1 90.1 90.9 91.6 92.2 92.8 93.3
93.7 94.1 94.5 94.8 95.1 95.3 95.6 95.8 96
3 65 68.5 71.4 74 76.2 78.2 79.9 81.5 82.8 84.1 85.2 86.1 87 87.8
88.5 89.1 89.7 90.2 90.7 91.1 91.5 91.9 92.2
4 57 60.7 64 66.9 69.5 71.8 73.8 75.6 77.3 78.7 80 81.2 82.3 83.2
84.1 84.9 85.7 86.3 86.9 87.5 88 88.5
5 50.1 54.1 57.7 60.8 63.7 66.2 68.4 70.5 72.3 73.9 75.4 76.8 78 79.1
80.2 81.1 82 82.7 83.5 84.2 84.8
6 44.2 48.4 52.2 55.5 58.5 61.2 63.7 65.9 67.8 69.6 71.3 72.8 74.1
75.4 76.5 77.6 78.5 79.4 80.3 81
7 39.1 43.5 47.4 50.9 54 56.9 59.4 61.7 63.9 65.8 67.5 69.1 70.6 72
73.2 74.4 75.4 76.4 77.3
8 34.8 39.3 43.2 46.8 50.1 53 55.7 58.1 60.3 62.3 64.1 65.8 67.4 68.8
70.2 71.4 72.5 73.6
9 31.1 35.6 39.6 43.3 46.6 49.6 52.3 54.8 57.1 59.1 61.1 62.8 64.5 66
67.3 68.6 69.8
10 27.9 32.4 36.5 40.1 43.5 46.5 49.3 51.8 54.1 56.3 58.3 60.1 61.8
63.3 64.8 66.1
11 25.2 29.7 33.7 37.4 40.7 43.8 46.6 49.2 51.5 53.7 55.7 57.6 59.3
60.9 62.4
12 22.9 27.3 31.3 34.9 38.3 41.3 44.2 46.7 49.1 51.3 53.4 55.2 57 58.6
13 20.8 25.2 29.1 32.8 36.1 39.2 42 44.6 46.9 49.2 51.2 53.1 54.9
14 19.1 23.4 27.3 30.9 34.2 37.2 40 42.6 45 47.2 49.2 51.2
15 17.6 21.8 25.6 29.2 32.4 35.4 38.2 40.8 43.2 45.4 47.4
16 16.3 20.4 24.2 27.6 30.9 33.8 36.6 39.1 41.5 43.7
17 15.1 19.2 22.9 26.3 29.4 32.4 35.1 37.6 40
18 14.2 18.1 21.7 25.1 28.2 31.1 33.7 36.2
19 13.3 17.2 20.7 24 27 29.9 32.5
20 12.6 16.3 19.8 23 26 28.8
21 11.9 15.6 19 22.1 25
22 11.4 14.9 18.2 21.3
23 10.9 14.3 17.5
24 10.5 13.8
Position (P)
25 10.1
RTD 52.6 45.5 39.4 34.2 29.9 26.1 23 20.3 18 16.1 14.4 13 11.8 10.8
9.9 9.2 8.6 8 7.6 7.2 6.9 6.6 6.3

2

For me this is not really unfair that the gap between 1st and 2nd reduces when the number of competitors is higher, try to score 25, then remove randomly 10, further 8, and a 4th race with jus 3 competitors, and you will see that the average gaps between the same competitors would not be unfair…

However it is clear that if you compare with competitors removed NON-randomly, example the first 21 are removed, the gaps will be different.

On a yearly ranking, DNC’s are supposed to be randomly spread…

Phil

···

----- Original Message -----
From: “david440549” david.chesworth@btinternet.com

To: sailwave@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 3:59 PM

Subject: [sailwave] chips high point scroring

if you require this document in pdf form let me know

Why Chips 3 Fails By David Chesworth
I’m not here to discredit the system; I’m here to prove that the
system simply is not
fair
If you take a look at the Chips 3 table of points you will see what I
mean.
If you have 3 starters the first boat gets 90 points and the second
boat 77.5 that’s a
12.5 points differences. However when it comes to 25 starter race the
point’s gap is
3.7. So racing in small fleets gives the first place boat an
advantage over anyone else.
But when it comes to large fleets that advantage goes to the people
down the fleet.
If you look closely at the table the first place boat with starters
of 21 and 22 have the
same points. With 23 starters it changes but for 24 and 25 starters
it is the same
points.
Looking at this is it possible for the first boats points to be less
or equal to that of the
second place boats in very large fleets? Very possible.
This proves that the chips system has flaws, large fleets.
Working out you can beat your fellow competitors was impossible.
Firstly you
cannot predict how many people are going to race on any given race.
Secondly now
that chips has a heavy wind factor it means that the weather can play
a part in the
points ultimately the overall results.
The skill factor of sailing has been taken out and it leaves your
results in the hands of
others.
If you want to change the results system for your club away from
chips then go ahead
and email your club telling them.

All about CHIPS

CHIPS 3 - TABLE OF POINTS
Number of Starters (N) > 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 90 91.5 92.7 93.8 94.8 95.5 96.2 96.8 97.3 97.7 98 98.3 98.6 98.8 99 99.1 99.3 99.4 99.5 99.5 99.6 99.7 99.7
2 77.5 80 82.1 83.9 85.5 86.9 88.1 89.1 90.1 90.9 91.6 92.2 92.8 93.3 93.7 94.1 94.5 94.8 95.1 95.3 95.6 95.8 96
3 65 68.5 71.4 74 76.2 78.2 79.9 81.5 82.8 84.1 85.2 86.1 87 87.8 88.5 89.1 89.7 90.2 90.7 91.1 91.5 91.9 92.2
4 57 60.7 64 66.9 69.5 71.8 73.8 75.6 77.3 78.7 80 81.2 82.3 83.2 84.1 84.9 85.7 86.3 86.9 87.5 88 88.5
5 50.1 54.1 57.7 60.8 63.7 66.2 68.4 70.5 72.3 73.9 75.4 76.8 78 79.1 80.2 81.1 82 82.7 83.5 84.2 84.8
6 44.2 48.4 52.2 55.5 58.5 61.2 63.7 65.9 67.8 69.6 71.3 72.8 74.1 75.4 76.5 77.6 78.5 79.4 80.3 81
7 39.1 43.5 47.4 50.9 54 56.9 59.4 61.7 63.9 65.8 67.5 69.1 70.6 72 73.2 74.4 75.4 76.4 77.3
8 34.8 39.3 43.2 46.8 50.1 53 55.7 58.1 60.3 62.3 64.1 65.8 67.4 68.8 70.2 71.4 72.5 73.6
9 31.1 35.6 39.6 43.3 46.6 49.6 52.3 54.8 57.1 59.1 61.1 62.8 64.5 66 67.3 68.6 69.8
10 27.9 32.4 36.5 40.1 43.5 46.5 49.3 51.8 54.1 56.3 58.3 60.1 61.8 63.3 64.8 66.1
11 25.2 29.7 33.7 37.4 40.7 43.8 46.6 49.2 51.5 53.7 55.7 57.6 59.3 60.9 62.4
12 22.9 27.3 31.3 34.9 38.3 41.3 44.2 46.7 49.1 51.3 53.4 55.2 57 58.6
13 20.8 25.2 29.1 32.8 36.1 39.2 42 44.6 46.9 49.2 51.2 53.1 54.9
14 19.1 23.4 27.3 30.9 34.2 37.2 40 42.6 45 47.2 49.2 51.2
15 17.6 21.8 25.6 29.2 32.4 35.4 38.2 40.8 43.2 45.4 47.4
16 16.3 20.4 24.2 27.6 30.9 33.8 36.6 39.1 41.5 43.7
17 15.1 19.2 22.9 26.3 29.4 32.4 35.1 37.6 40
18 14.2 18.1 21.7 25.1 28.2 31.1 33.7 36.2
19 13.3 17.2 20.7 24 27 29.9 32.5
20 12.6 16.3 19.8 23 26 28.8
21 11.9 15.6 19 22.1 25
22 11.4 14.9 18.2 21.3
23 10.9 14.3 17.5
24 10.5 13.8
25 10.1
RTD 52.6 45.5 39.4 34.2 29.9 26.1 23 20.3 18 16.1 14.4 13 11.8 10.8 9.9 9.2 8.6 8 7.6 7.2 6.9 6.6 6.3

-!- http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/ -!- http://www.sailing.org/ -!- http://www.sailwave.com/ -!- Latest versions of sailwave can be downloaded from the ‘files’ section http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sailwave/ ~ On-Line Sailwave help…http://sailwave.com/help/HTML ~ Mark Thompson’s Sailwave User manual is available from the files section http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sailwave/files/Sailwave_ABYC_User_Guide_08-24-2008.pdf ~ Convert to daily digest of emails send blank email to sailwave-digest@yahoogroups.com ~ To unsubscribe from the SUG please send blank email to sailwave-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sailwave/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sailwave/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:sailwave-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:sailwave-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
sailwave-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

3

thanks for the discussion on this subject only way to improve systems
is to discuss them.

I only have three points to make

If you look at the table that comes wit chips and actually carry it
on, you will find that the first boat will eventually get less points
than the second boat thats a fact. I did this test so i know it to
be true.

Secondly if you are at a club that has varing fleets some weekend you
can end up with 25 boats racing other weekeds 5 boats racing. What
scoring systems like chips does is penaloze the 5 boats racing. You
may beat someone you've never beaten beofor when there is 4 boats and
that makes you veryt happy but it might count as your worse result
even if you came second for example.

SHOULD SAILING BE A SKILL OR SHOULD IT BE DECIDED BY HOW MANY
ACTUALLY RACE EACH WEEKEND.

Thirdly the rtd score is counted in the final results so someone can
beat a person using a rtd result even if the other person doesn't. 1
suggestion is to manually edit the sailwave file to do this, however
as at chipstead it has been proven that this can be missed, by
accident and incorrect results posted on the website.

If chips was used on the last olympic ben anslie would not have won
gold that a fact, and i have done the test on his results, so this
statement is fact.

4

thanks for the discussion on this subject only way to improve systems
is to discuss them.

I only have three points to make

If you look at the table that comes wit chips and actually carry it
on, you will find that the first boat will eventually get less points
than the second boat thats a fact. I did this test so i know it to
be true.

Secondly if you are at a club that has varing fleets some weekend you
can end up with 25 boats racing other weekeds 5 boats racing. What
scoring systems like chips does is penaloze the 5 boats racing. You
may beat someone you've never beaten beofor when there is 4 boats and
that makes you veryt happy but it might count as your worse result
even if you came second for example.

SHOULD SAILING BE A SKILL OR SHOULD IT BE DECIDED BY HOW MANY
ACTUALLY RACE EACH WEEKEND.

Thirdly the rtd score is counted in the final results so someone can
beat a person using a rtd result even if the other person doesn't. 1
suggestion is to manually edit the sailwave file to do this, however
as at chipstead it has been proven that this can be missed, by
accident and incorrect results posted on the website.

If chips was used on the last olympic ben anslie would not have won
gold that a fact, and i have done the test on his results, so this
statement is fact.

5

david440549 wrote:

thanks for the discussion on this subject only way to improve systems
is to discuss them.

I only have three points to make

If you look at the table that comes wit chips and actually carry it
on, you will find that the first boat will eventually get less points
than the second boat thats a fact. I did this test so i know it to
be true.

For the umpteenth time coming first in a race of 3 may not require the
same skill as 2nd in a race of 25. Design not Flaw.

Secondly if you are at a club that has varing fleets some weekend you
can end up with 25 boats racing other weekeds 5 boats racing. What
scoring systems like chips does is penaloze the 5 boats racing. You
may beat someone you've never beaten beofor when there is 4 boats and
that makes you veryt happy but it might count as your worse result
even if you came second for example.

No what CHIPS does is not EXCESSIVELY reward the 5th place boat for
coming last.

SHOULD SAILING BE A SKILL OR SHOULD IT BE DECIDED BY HOW MANY
ACTUALLY RACE EACH WEEKEND.

Have you shown skill if you beat 4 other boats or if you beat 24 other
boats. You are wrongly measuring skill as first over the line.

Thirdly the rtd score is counted in the final results so someone can
beat a person using a rtd result even if the other person doesn't. 1
suggestion is to manually edit the sailwave file to do this, however
as at chipstead it has been proven that this can be missed, by
accident and incorrect results posted on the website.

Now thats an intricacy of the results. If you were telling me that was
THE FLAW - I'd say lest sit down and discuss it. However - sicne what
you were saying was that CHIPS punished small numbers - surely you'd
rather have 6 start a race and 4 finish than just 4 start?

If chips was used on the last olympic ben anslie would not have won
gold that a fact, and i have done the test on his results, so this
statement is fact.

I haven't studied Ben's race tactics. But I did watch an immensely
boring race where GB kept a Sweedish (?) boat in last position so they
couldn't win, meaning that GB did win overall... If they were using
CHIPS they'd need to have recalculated their tactics. However CHIPS is
not needed for the Olympics - fleet numbers stay fairly similar.

6

yes you have cause you bothered to turn up and race and the 4 boats
you raced against might be great saliors.

If someones bothered to turn up they should be rewarded. in chips
high point scoring for example small fleets get penalised./

1 factor in high points scoring like chips is that if small fleets
turn out is it your fault? no but in these type of system you are
penalised for that.

For instance what happens if you race against the best in your club
and beat them and you never done that before but it actually works
out that this is your worst reult cause of it being a small fleet.
that deflates you and make you feel disenchanted with sailing.

You should reward people for sailing regardless of the size of fleet.

take a very windy day and say only 4 boats in a class go out. does
it show skill for them to race in this challanging conditions. yes
it does. but under chips it doesnt, it puts the skill down to large
fleets not weather conditions, or wether you race regardless of the
fleet size
At the end of the day your season can hinder on wether enough boats
race in the races you race. in certain situation someone can win all
races required to complete a series. say 9 races for example but
still end up 4 or 6th overall due to the number of people racing.
As i said before if this was used to choose our olympic racers we
would not of had ben anslie sailing for us and that is a fact. we
would not have won gold in the fin or even had him sail a lazer one
previous olympics. That speaks volumns for the failure of high
points scoring to take into account wind conditions and people
determination to sail in challanging conditions, regardless of fleet
size
you seem to think that sailing in large flets is more important than
having skill, to race when others decide not too.
Should a race series be decided on who turns up to race or by skill
it self.
take a look at this as well

written by someone else

What is for me unfair in Chips is that a DNF out of 3 receives more
points than 14th out of 25...

Comparison with Olympic results is no good method.
If you give a scale 0 to 10 for the skill of competitors (10 being
according to ISAF standard, World's top 30), all Olympic athletes
rank 10 or 9. Gaps in skills are almost equally spread.
In a World Championsip Laser Radial Women, 10 to 7
National regatta, 8 to 2
Club regatta, 7 to 0. There is probably a larger gap in skill
between the 1st and 2nd in a local regatta than between the last two,
both being probably 'deep" 0's, and even that difference of gaps is
not considered in Chips.

In Europe, we are using commonly the "Austrian" high point system (as
name doen't tell, used il all countries except Austria).
Points=101+1000*log(s/p). DNC scored 0, last boat always 101 if all
boats finised, DNF scored as number of starters, 101 (more realistic
than Chips), points for the first place growing with the number of
starters.
.
Any system used for club racing seems unfair but this is only true as
the final results calculated on a small number of races, in some of
our local championships, the number of races is "just" 3 races every
sunday, May 1st to October 31st (78 races, not all sailed), and the
results are fair, and looking at 5 consecutive years, this sow a
clear progress of some crews, decline of others, but certainly no
unfair rankings.

With Chips, at 1st impression, only the points for the last boats are
over-evaluated for low number of competitors.
Imagine a championship with 5 - 5 - 5 - 25 competitors, with boat A
finiship DNF - DNF - DNF - DNF (160.4) and boat B DNC - DNC - DNC - 1
(99.7)... that's wrong ...

Phil

7

yes you have cause you bothered to turn up and race and the 4 boats
you raced against might be great saliors.

If someones bothered to turn up that should be rewarded. in chips
high point scoring for example small fleets get penalised./

1 factor in high points scoring like chips is that if small fleets
turn out is it your fault? no but in these type of system you are
penalised for that.

For instance what happens if you race against the best in your club
and beat them and you never done that before but it actually works
out that this is your worst reult cause of it being a small fleet.
nthat deflates you and make you feel disenchanted with sailing.

You should reward people for sailing regardless of the size of fleet.

take a very windy day and say only 4 boats in a class go out. does
it show skill for them to race in this challanging conditions. yes
it does. but under chips it doesnt, int puts the skill down to large
fleets not weather conditions.

At the end of the day your season can hinder on wether enough boats
race in the races you race. in certain situation someone can win all
races required to complete a series. say 9 races for example but
still end up 4 or 6th overall due to the number of people racing.
As i said before if this was used to choose our olympic racers we
would not of had ben anslie sailing for us and that in a fact we
would not have won gold in the fin or even had him sail a lazer one
previous olympics. That speaks volumns for the failure of high
points scoring to take into account wind conditions and people
determination to sail in challanging conditions.

you seem to think that sailing in large flets is more important than
having skill.
Should a race series be decided on who turns up to race or by skill
it self.

take a look at this as well

On your first point, the points for 1st are tending to 100.0 for a
very high number of competitors
The gap between 2 subsequent boats is the same for a given number of
starters (except for ronding to 1 decimal: for 25, the gap is always
3.7 or 3.8), so it's just impossible to have higher point for 2nd
than for 1st in the same race, and same points are posible, but for
an extremely high number of competitors.
But indeed, 1st out of 8 or less receives less points than 2nd out of
25.
You can also accept that it could be much more difficult to be 2nd or
even out of 25 than 1st out of 3 or 4...

What is for me unfair in Chips is that a DNF out of 3 receives more
points than 14th out of 25...

Comparison with Olympic results is no good method.
If you give a scale 0 to 10 for the skill of competitors (10 being
according to ISAF standard, World's top 30), all Olympic athletes
rank 10 or 9. Gaps in skills are almost equally spread.
In a World Championsip Laser Radial Women, 10 to 7
National regatta, 8 to 2
Club regatta, 7 to 0. There is probably a larger gap in skill
between the 1st and 2nd in a local regatta than between the last two,
both being probably 'deep" 0's, and even that difference of gaps is
not considered in Chips.

In Europe, we are using commonly the "Austrian" high point system (as
name doen't tell, used il all countries except Austria).
Points=101+1000*log(s/p). DNC scored 0, last boat always 101 if all
boats finised, DNF scored as number of starters, 101 (more realistic
than Chips), points for the first place growing with the number of
starters.
.
Any system used for club racing seems unfair but this is only true as
the final results calculated on a small number of races, in some of
our local championships, the number of races is "just" 3 races every
sunday, May 1st to October 31st (78 races, not all sailed), and the
results are fair, and looking at 5 consecutive years, this sow a
clear progress of some crews, decline of others, but certainly no
unfair rankings.

With Chips, at 1st impression, only the points for the last boats are
over-evaluated for low number of competitors.
Imagine a championship with 5 - 5 - 5 - 25 competitors, with boat A
finiship DNF - DNF - DNF - DNF (160.4) and boat B DNC - DNC - DNC - 1
(99.7)... that's wrong ...

Phil

···

--- In sailwave@yahoogroups.com, Calum Polwart <yahoo@...> wrote:

david440549 wrote:

8

I tried to initiate a discussion on this topic last summer but no one
was interested at the time. It sounds like someone might be interested
now. Let me share my thoughts.

FLEET-SIZE BIAS

Pure low point systems base a score on the number of boats that beat
you. Therefore, they bias in favor of small fleets (since there are
fewer boats to finish ahead of you). Pure high point systems base a
score on the number of boats that you beat. Therefore, they bias in
favor of large fleets (since there are more boats available for you to
beat).

For a contiguous regatta (weekend or week-only) essentially the same
number of boats sails in each race so the bias isn't relevant (it has no
practical impact on the results). That is why the low point system is
used - it is simple and the bias is irrelevant.

CHIPS

Someone (I think maybe the author of CHIPS but not sure) pointed out
that CHIPS makes the assumption that boats in larger fleets should score
more points. So, YES there clearly is a bias in favor of larger fleets
(or races) built into CHIPS. It apparently is intentional. You could
reasonably describe it as a "flaw" or as a "design highlight." The
difference is semantics and in my opinion really doesn't matter.

FAIRNESS

To my way of thinking, the essential question should be "Is it fair to
treat boats in different-sized fleets (or races) differently?" CHIPS
assumes the answer is YES and benefits the boats in larger fleets. Using
the rulebook Low Point System for a long series also assumes the answer
is YES but benefits the boats in smaller classes instead.

Personally, I don't think either system is "fair" because I don't think
it is fair to treat boats in different-sized fleets differently.

So, what do I mean by treating boats in different-sized fleets alike? A
boat that is the middle boat in a 5-boat fleet should get the same
points as a middle boat in a 25-boat fleet. [Just to be clear, these
might be the same "fleet" but in different weekly races or completely
different fleets competing for an "overall" trophy.] So, class size is
taken out of the mix.

SUNSET SCORING SYSTEM

At my club (California Yacht Club, Marina del Rey, Calif. USA), we had
exactly this concern for our summer weekly series (20-22 Wednesdays).
Back in 2002, we came up with our own system which is a blend of some
others. In my opinion, it is better than either choices that Chipstead
is considering.

The criteria we wanted to meet:

1. No bias based on fleet-size
2. More chance to do better by doing more races
3. A boat that is DNF can NEVER get more points than a boat that raced
and finished
4. A boat that doesn't come out shouldn't get as many points as a boat
that comes out

How we calculate points:

We decided to use a modified high point system of some kind. But, we
wanted to normalize for fleet size. So, our principle is to take the
number of boats that you beat and divide by the number of boats that
came out that night. This results in something like a "percentile"
score. A middle boat always gets the same points. Scores of the other
boats will vary based on fleet size. 1st gets slightly more points in a
bigger fleet; last gets slightly less.

[Our system is kind of like a "percentage of perfection" system in which
you count the boats beat only but at the end of the series divide your
total by the total of a hypothetical boat that won every race. We
thought that was too confusing so we divide the score each race. In
theory that may lose a little accuracy but it is MUCH easier for the
sailors to comprehend.]

Now our specific formula is a bit complicated. It starts out with:
(starters_beat + 0.5)/starters [adding 0.5 to the starters_beat means
that it is neutral for class size, using either 0 or 1 would give a
slight bias to larger or smaller fleet/races]. This gives a percentile
number. We want whole numbers so we multiple by some number to make it
bigger. We want a difference between boats that start and those that
don't - 0 for DNC or DNS and 1 for DNF, DSQ or OCS. So our final
complete formula is:

1+ ( (starters_beat + 0.5)/starters ) X 9 )

Boats with finishing positions are spread equally between 10 and 1 (with
the difference between 10 pts and the 1st boat & between the last boat
and 1 pt equal to 1/2 the difference between adjacent boats). This
formula can be typed into Sailwave using the built-in abbreviations.
Someone has put a table with points on-line at:
www.lizzieb.org/sunsetpoints.html.

Other stuff we do to make it fair:

We wanted to encourage folks to sail. So, we lean toward counting every
race. But, that isn't really fair so our compromise is to say your best
X scores (out of Y races scheduled) will count. [In 2008 we used best 18
of 21.] Since it is hard to do worse than one of your throwouts that
encourages folks to come out and improve their overall score. [Aside, to
encourage participation we also have 3 mini-series trophies within the
overall series but that is another story entirely.]

BOTTOM LINE

I think the fairest scoring method for a season-long series of races
MUST treat boats in differently-sized races and classes the same (or a
least somewhat similarly). Neither CHIPS nor the rulebook Low Point
System does that.

Art Engel

--- In sailwave@yahoogroups.com, "david440549" <david.chesworth@...>
wrote:

···

if you require this document in pdf form let me know

Why Chips 3 Fails By David Chesworth
I'm not here to discredit the system; I'm here to prove that the
system simply is not
fair
If you take a look at the Chips 3 table of points you will see what I
mean.
If you have 3 starters the first boat gets 90 points and the second
boat 77.5 that's a
12.5 points differences. However when it comes to 25 starter race the
point's gap is
3.7. So racing in small fleets gives the first place boat an
advantage over anyone else.
But when it comes to large fleets that advantage goes to the people
down the fleet.
If you look closely at the table the first place boat with starters
of 21 and 22 have the
same points. With 23 starters it changes but for 24 and 25 starters
it is the same
points.
Looking at this is it possible for the first boats points to be less
or equal to that of the
second place boats in very large fleets? Very possible.
This proves that the chips system has flaws, large fleets.
Working out you can beat your fellow competitors was impossible.
Firstly you
cannot predict how many people are going to race on any given race.
Secondly now
that chips has a heavy wind factor it means that the weather can play
a part in the
points ultimately the overall results.
The skill factor of sailing has been taken out and it leaves your
results in the hands of
others.
If you want to change the results system for your club away from
chips then go ahead
and email your club telling them.