Hi Art

Having just recovered from curing my broken PC I have just got round to

looking at your scoring formula which I believe has the right general

characteristics and is along the same lines as Rinderle B and CHIPS although

rather more “aggressive” at the bottom end (i.e. for few starters).

Yes I have quite an interest in scoring systems having gone through such

an analysis in depth in 2003 and settled on CHIPS as the fairest and most

acceptable HPS method, well at least in my opinion. (You may find it useful to look at the Chipstead SC website

– www.chipsteadsc.org.uk, link

reproduced here since you mentioned a broken link - and also the paper by

Malcolm Clark, http://www.styvechale.net/chip.pdf

, which gives a detailed mathematical critique of CHIPS).

Rinderle B gives the same score for being last in a race irrespective of

the number of starters – which is a massive difference from one of the

principles of conventional Low Point Scoring where the score for coming last

normally equals the number of starters.

And of course the score of the last boat is important in this type of

HPS system because the points for all the intermediate positions are slotted in

between first and last. One of the features of CHIPS is that it preserves that

particular characteristic of LPS in allocating a fair score for last as a

function of the number of starters which importantly means that everyone else then

also scores fairly. But of course

the view of what is fair is totally subjective judgement – there is no such

thing as a “correct” scoring

system, they are all arbitrary.

When we came up with CHIPS a few years ago the big consideration was how

aggressive should the scheme be, and we received a great deal of stick because

competitors were unhappy if their score for a particular position could be

compromised because someone who had done “worse” – i.e. one or even 2 places

further down the fleet in another race in the series – were allocated a better

score simply because of the presence of more starters in the race. It is mainly

for this reason that we went through three versions (CHIPS 1, 2 and 3) as

described in my “All about CHIPS” paper, before we homed in on CHIPS 3 as being

the optimum. The key

characteristic was that we needed to “flatten” the curves so that the effect of

the number of starters became less dominant (i.e. less aggressive).

To illustrate this with 3 examples of why we decided that CHIPS gives a

fairer outcome and how we addressed the aggressiveness issue, it is worth

comparing the scores for your formula vs CHIPS. I will use the notation 2(5) to mean the score for coming 2^{nd}

in a race with 5 starters, and compare the Art Engel method with CHIPS: -

(i) Art Engel: 1(3) =

8.5 is the same as 2(9) = 8.5 which means in a race with 6 more starters a 2^{nd}

will equate to a 1^{st} with 3 starters - i.e. A difference of 6 boats.

CHIPS: 1(3) = 90

which is beaten by 2(11) = 90.1, i.e. a difference of 8 or more boats is

required for a 2^{nd} to beat a 1^{st}.

(ii) Art Engel:

2(3) = 5.5 is the same as 3(5) = 5.5 which means only 2 more starters

are required for a 3^{rd} to score the same – Difference of 2 boats

CHIPS: 2(3) =

77.5 is only beaten by a 3^{rd} when there are 8 or more boats (78.2),

i.e. a Difference of 5 boats.

(iii) Art Engel: 2(5) = 7.3 is beaten by 3(9) = 7.5, a difference of 4 boats.

CHIPS: 2(5) =

82.1 is beaten by 3(11) = 82.8, a difference of 6 boats.

Our sailors objected strongly to a system in which they appeared to be

excessively penalised when fewer boats raced and so using CHIPS we flattened

the curves to reduce the influence of the number of boats while preserving the

other advantages of the scheme. And we considered it essential to preserve fair

scores all the way down the fleet not just at the top.

In one of your posts I think you mentioned the benefits of a percentage

system. CHIPS aims at being a percentage system by not only making the max

possible score for winning a race 100 it works on the basis that if there is a

large turn-out then the performance of each helm can be judged as being related

to the performance for the club as a whole and spans the range 100 to 5 from 1^{st}

to last, leaving zero for a DSQ. As

the number of competitors reduces the range of scores reduces at both the top

and bottom ends which makes sense since the turn-out is less representative of

the club as a whole, while the scheme conforms to the HPS principles in which one

scores more by beating more boats and in the case of CHIPS, at the back of the

fleet one also scores more if one is beaten by fewer boats. (The latter occurs

in your system but in a very limited manner, i.e. a small effect, while in

Rinderle B there is no recognition at all that one should score better at the

back of the fleet if one is beaten by fewer boats).

The other issue raised by our club members is that the system is more complicated,

making it more difficult to work out what one needs to achieve to beat ones

competitors. In an attempt to address this, on the Chipstead website, and also in

the Sailwave Files area, I placed an Excel file that works out exactly what one

needs to do to beat ones competitors.

The other factor is that CHIPS substantially reduces the number of series

ties, and in this respect works better than Art Engel, and of course this is

one of the big problems with LPS that is not handled well by RRS A8.1, 8.2.

Sorry about this long message but I can rant on for hours about scoring

systems.

Kind regards

Geoff

## ···

-----Original Message-----

**From:** sailwave@yahoogroups.com

[mailto:sailwave@yahoogroups.com]**On Behalf Of**art.engel

**Sent:** 10 February 2008 04:08

**To:** sailwave@yahoogroups.com

**Subject:** [sailwave] High Point

Scoring Systems

I would be interested in a discussion of

some of the more complicated

scoring systems, which all seem to be high point systems. I mean

Cox-Sprague, Renderle B, etc. [I know this User Group isn’t supposed to

be about that. I would happily take the discussion elsewhere if anyone

has a suggestion.]

We have a series of summer races - 20 weeks and 5 or 6 classes of appox.

12-20 boats in each class. Traditionally, we have had a single overall

winner among all the boats and classes (usually 1 one-design class and

the rest handicap classes, PHRF TOD). So, we need a scoring system that

can “fairly” score between and among boats in different classes. In

2007

our biggest start of the year was 18 boats and the smallest was 6. So,

we have to accommodate class sizes that vary from race to race.

In 2002, our club took a look at scoring systems and put together our

own, which we think does a pretty good job. In the last few days, there

was some reference to the Renderle B and Chips systems. At the same

time, our club is questioning whether we might come up with a better

system for 2009 (it is undoubtedly too late to do anything for 2008).

That makes me wonder if there we might be able to improve the system we

are using now.

Our Sailwave formula would be: 1+( ( ( (r-p)+.5)/r ) *9 )

All abbrev. except DNC get 1 point; DNC and boats that don’t enter get

zero points.

[We don’t use Sailwave but I just inputted our scoring system into

Sailwave so that another club in our harbor could use it.]

Basically, our formula tries to score each boat based on its relative

position in the class with boats that come out to the starting area

getting at least 1 point and boats that stay ashore or don’t enter

getting zero points.

I looked at the paper that Geoff Burrell referred to (the link is broken

but the PDF file is available under “Files” in this User Group). I

was

pleased to find that I think our system is “fairer” than either

Rinderle

B or Chips. Of course, what is “fair” depends on what you think the

goal

of a scoring system should be.

Anyone interested?