[CQ-Contest] The Unassisted Myth - Now the Rest of the Story: The Assisted Myth (?)

[Ted Bryant]

Very interesting and well-stated post from Jose. (personally, I'd like to know what Jose's
pshchologist wife thinks of contesters in general - or - maybe not :))

Let me offer another perspective on "Assisted".

There is no doubt that DX spotting networks, ie. "packet", can provide a significant advantage. It's
an absolute requirement to be competitive in a multi-anything environment. But, for the
single-operator, the degree of the "assistance" gained is often variable and even sometimes
detrimental. I have nothing against the assisted category, having entered some contests in that
category myself.  However, I do believe assisted and unassisted should be separate categories for
many of the same reasons others have stated.

Consider these personal observations:

1. Every station on a particular band does not necessarily get spotted, especially the ones who are
s&p. The ones who seemed to be spotted most are stations who CQ a lot (obviously).

2. There are usually many more stations available on a band than what the packet shows. (I believe
the 80/20 rule applies here...at any given time, 20 percent of the stations on a particular band
will be CQing and 80 percent will be s&p)

3. Often, I find that I don't have propagation to many spotted stations (a real time-waster)

4. A spotted station often has QSY'd since the spot (another real time-waster)

5. There seems to be an inordinately high number of busted calls spotted which diminishes the value
of the spot and can waste time, especially (usually?) if the spotted station rarely identifies.

To catch those stations who are not spotted in (1) you need to be running and let them find you.  I
am always amazed at how often I get called by a rare mult. If my observation/assumption is correct
in (2) then, again you need to be running. With SO2R, the second radio can be used to effectively
chase that 20 percent who are CQing on another band - and you don't need packet to find them.

What's stated here, I believe, has long been common knowledge to the top-scoring operators.  They've
already figured out that SO2R without the "assistance" of packet is currently the most efficient,
competitive operating method. And, I believe, this is the primary reason top operators choose the
single operator (unassisted) category.

Seasons Greetings!
Ted W4NZ



-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of José Nunes CT1BOH
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 9:06 AM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] The Unassisted Myth


There seems to be this myth around that the SOAB Unassisted does better than
the SOAB Assisted.

In Portugal there is an old saying that a repeatedly told lie becomes a
truth, I hope it is not the case about this myth because there is absolutely
no chance that an unassisted operator can do better than an assisted
operator, given the same circumstances, so that we can compare apples to
apples. People will come up with past results that may seem to indicate
there is some truth in the myth, but they are not comparing apples to
apples, and to do that we need the clones…

When it comes to the Single Operator category there are four different
realities:

SO1R
SO1R(A)
SO2R
SO2R(A)

If we pick an operator from the world top ten best, and clone him so that we
have in total 4 equal operators in four equal locations and stations there
is absolutely no doubts that the SO1R clone will come last and the SO2R(A)
will come first in the final score listing of the four. I'm not so certain
who will do better from the two:  SO1R(A) or SO2R, but for sure both will do
better than the SO1R and worse than the SO2R(A).

-----The thing about SO2R is "gaining more time".-----

While the SO1R is narcissistically listening to his own transmitting the
SO2R clone is listening to another band. Comparing with the SO1R clone it is
as if the SO2R buys more time for the contest. He is no longer operating a
48 hour contest. He is operating a parallel contest listening to another
band while transmitting, i.e about 60% of the contest time, or to put it in
another way - about 28.8 hours. In conclusion the SO1R clone does a 48 hour
contest and the SO2R clone does a 76.8 hour contest so there should be no
doubt about the winner.

-----The thing about Assisted is "saving more time".-----

While the Unassisted clone must do it all by himself – apart from the run
- look for multipliers, new QSOs, band openings, odd openings, etc. the
Assisted clone has access to information that give him all that data in a
plate, so he saves time not doing those activities. If we compare the SO1R
to the SO1R(A) or the SO2R to the SO2R(A) the (Assisted) clone has plentiful
of information at his disposal. He saves the time to find that information
so there should be no doubt about the winner.

-----The funny doubt of the  SO1R(A) and the SO2R clones-----

The real question mark, happens when it comes to determine the winner
between the two, either the SO1R(A) or the SO2R clone.

The parallel contest of the SO2R clone is a chaotic one, suitable for
schizophrenic minds as my psychologist wife likes to put it. This parallel
contest exists in short burst of time – every two or three seconds during
the transmitting of radio one - a very mind consuming and confusing
activity.

On the other hand SO1R(A) reality is a quiet one, with all the information
orderly arranged in a screen. But this clone has a draw back. He has to stop
the Run in order to work packet multipliers or packet new QSOs.

I'm not certain who will do better between the two:
The SO2R will do better on QSOs than the SO1R(A).
The SO1R(A) will do better on multipliers than the SO2R.

Ahh the old times dilemma of rate versus S&P…
--
José Nunes
CONTEST CT1BOH - http://www.qsl.net/ct1boh
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest