CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Distance-Based Ranking

To: Reflector <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Distance-Based Ranking
From: Ward Silver <hwardsil@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:11:48 -0600
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
> It IS possible to design scoring rules that achieve this.

Easy to say, hard to specify. I would certainly like to see a scoring system that works across a useful fraction of the world's countries and contest populations. And that does not require complex calculations or weighting factors. And is robust enough to withstand the vagaries of propagation throughout the solar cycle and across the more than four octaves of frequency spanned during a typical DX contest.

For example, look at the relative numbers of W6-EU QSOs and mults on 15 meters in a year where the flux is, say, 140-150 and then 75-90. In the first year, you might need an equalizing factor of 3 to 5 and in the bad year an equalizing factor of 20 or higher. What about on 80 or 160 meters where the QSO ratios might be 100:1 or more? Are we going to change the scoring rules every year? Even if EU wants very badly to work the West Coast, there is no guarantee they will be able to do so - as anyone who ever contested from the West Coast knows. If there was a real-time "degree of difficulty" metric based on propagation, that might be a way to compare the value of QSOs but I don't know how to devise such a thing.

Having thought through several scoring schemes over the years, you'll find it a daunting task. Any proposal should be validated using the public log set available on the CQ WW website.

> The point is that while winning one's region may make a contester feel better, there will always be the question of how contesters compare across regions.

I didn't propose that a regional ranking system would work for inter-region comparisons. Actually, quite the opposite, recognizing that it's almost impossible to do so. The point of a regional ranking system is to provide an alternative means of peer-to-peer comparison. (The proposed system deals specifically with corner cases such as the isolated ZD8, by the way, recognizing that in some instances, a regional rating may not be possible.)

Certainly, the question will then exist - does a 700 rating from California equal a 700 rating from New England equal a 700 rating from Berlin? The only way to find out - as in chess - is to have players of equal rank compete head to head. That's what WRTC does and there is no reason except resources that there can't be NA-RTC and AS-RTC and so forth. Russia has its own version of RRTC that works really well and they hold it every year. Perhaps even a West Coast-RTC?

There are no perfect systems that solve all problems. There are some systems that address certain identified inequities - such as geography. I am not of the opinion that any of them can flatten the playing field sufficiently to reduce geography's dominant role in HF contesting.

73, Ward N0AX
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>