Two different flights flown by two different pilots only scored one maneuver differently....the rest of the maneuvers had identical scores. The flights are practically identical in nearly every way except this one. The pilot with the higher score in that one maneuver would win the round. <br>
<br>
The difference in score could be as little as 1/4 point in a potential of around 660 avg points (2 judges where one scored every maneuver the same and the other's only difference was in that maneuver). In normalized terms, that's about 3/8ths of a point in 1000. Not much of a difference but many times at large meets, that's where it comes down to. One chap goes away the Champion and the other just goes away<br>
<br>
We have to have a yardstick and this is it<br>
<br>
MattK<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: glmiller3@suddenlink.net<br>
To: NSRCA List <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><br>
Sent: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:50 pm<br>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Scoring Process Question<br>
<br>
<div id=AOLMsgPart_0_dacb9bc4-04e9-4c4a-a76a-d45044b96a24 style="FONT-SIZE: 12px; MARGIN: 0px; COLOR: #000; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff"><PRE style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><TT>I'm going to open a can of worms here in hopes of coming up with a better system
out of the discussion. Perhaps this has been discussed before and I'm not aware
of it. Let me preface this by saying I am not a mathematician or statistician,
but I have some familiarity with both subjects and the following question has
been growing in my mind for some time.
It seems to me that we are judging our maneuvers with limited accuracy (within 1
point in FAI and X.5 points in AMA classes) we are then creating the ILLUSION of
accuracy by multiplying that score by a K factor and then normalizing to a 1000
point scale. Here is a fairly brief explanation of "Significant Digits" that
I've copied from the web which will introduce you to this thought if you haven't
seen it before:
****"SIGNIFICANT DIGITS
The number of significant digits in an answer to a calculation will depend on
the number of significant digits in the given data, as discussed in the rules
below. Approximate calculations (order-of-magnitude estimates) always result in
answers with only one or two significant digits.
When are Digits Significant?
Non-zero digits are always significant. Thus, 22 has two significant digits, and
22.3 has three significant digits.
With zeroes, the situation is more complicated:
Zeroes placed before other digits are not significant; 0.046 has two significant
digits.
Zeroes placed between other digits are always significant; 4009 kg has four
significant digits.
Zeroes placed after other digits but behind a decimal point are significant;
7.90 has three significant digits.
Zeroes at the end of a number are significant only if they are behind a decimal
point as in (c). Otherwise, it is impossible to tell if they are significant.
For example, in the number 8200, it is not clear if the zeroes are significant
or not. The number of significant digits in 8200 is at least two, but could be
three or four. To avoid uncertainty, use scientific notation to place
significant zeroes behind a decimal point:
8.200 ´ has four significant digits
8.20 ´ has three significant digits
8.2 ´ has two significant digits
Significant Digits in Multiplication, Division, Trig. functions, etc.
In a calculation involving multiplication, division, trigonometric functions,
etc., the number of significant digits in an answer should equal the least
number of significant digits in any one of the numbers being multiplied, divided
etc.
Thus in evaluating sin(kx), where k = 0.097 m-1 (two significant digits) and x =
4.73 m (three significant digits), the answer should have two significant
digits.
Note that whole numbers have essentially an unlimited number of significant
digits. As an example, if a hair dryer uses 1.2 kW of power, then 2 identical
hairdryers use 2.4 kW:
1.2 kW {2 sig. dig.} X 2 {unlimited sig. dig.} = 2.4 kW {2 sig. dig.} "******
My Point is this:
I've seen many contests decided by less than 10 points on a scale of 4000 which
has been expanded from (at most) 2 significant digits. As a matter of
"statistics" I think that any separation of less than 100 points (two
significant digits, ie, 3X00 points) is "artificial accuracy". Unfortunately,
I don't have any great ideas about how to improve upon the current system, I'm
just pointing out what I think is a scientifically valid problem with it.
I smile when I see round scores posted to ten thousanths of a point on a scale
that has been expanded from two significant digit accuracy to a 1000 point
scale. This turns a two significant digit answer into eight significant digits!
(ie, 1234.5678) I think that scientifically, the scores would be more
accurately posted as in scientific notation at x.x * 10 to the second power.
Most of the contests that I've been to this year have been decided essentially
by random statistical "noise" rather than actual scoring decisions.
Has anyone ever thought/talked about this before ?
Let me add, that despite what I think are statistically invalid methods, in most
cases the system seems to work pretty well. In general the superior pilots get
enough better scores to overcome the "noise" but it sure would be nice to come
up with a more mathematically valid solution, IMO.
George
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<A href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>
<A href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A>
</TT></PRE></div>
<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_0_dacb9bc4-04e9-4c4a-a76a-d45044b96a24 --><div class="AOLPromoFooter">
<hr style="margin-top:10px;" />
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at <a href="http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437" target="_blank"><b>AOL.com</b></a>.<br />
</div>