[CQ-Contest] Distance-Based Ranking

[Ward Silver]

 > What I'd like to see is a contest where the rules made the trajectory 
much
 > less stable, more like a fighter plane which is designed with 
aerodynamics
 > that allow small rudder movements to result in very agile maneuvers.

You mean, "a plane that crashes a lot"? :-)  Just kidding...

We have to be careful not to turn the current game of skill into a game 
of chance.  Any successful game of skill has to have enough elements of 
chance to be exciting but still have enough consistency for devising a 
strategy to be important.  Otherwise, players will not invest in 
creating strategy.

Certainly, there are elements of chance but contesting is rewarding (and 
useful) because the dominant factor for success is radio know-how (i.e. 
skill), including, yes, choosing an advantageous location according to 
the rules.  You have to know what you're doing to place well.  
Contesting is somewhat unique as a sport in that an operator can perform 
in the top echelons for a very long time - decades, in fact - and that 
is largely due to the overwhelming importance of experience and skill.  
Reducing the value of strategy would also reduce the value of experience 
and know-how - a risky proposition.

> What if it were not obvious whether one should be running 120/hour or doing
> S&P on a band with inferior propagation?  What if it were not obvious
> whether an east coast station should beam toward EU during an opening or
> toward the west coast of the US?  What if it were not clear whether one
> would be more or less likely to win running legal limit or 300W?

There is *plenty* of uncertainty now.  There is no "winning move" 
(except possibly to Prince Edward Island or Aruba, but I digress) that 
guarantees success from any particular QTH.  Day to day, hour to hour, 
minute to minute changes in propagation; equipment failure; local 
weather or noise - all of these muddy the waters sufficiently that while 
strategy and skill are the way to bet (Damon Runyan), one can still be 
overtaken by events (Lord Chesterton).  No need to start adding 
additional random elements - we have quite enough of that now, thanks.  
It might not be a bad idea to create more options for successful 
strategies, though.

> Communications is about path optimization, and I think contest rules tend
> to reward the over-optimization of some paths and the near disregard of
> others.

I agree, more or less, in that the "sweet spots" make alternative 
winning strategies hard to find.  Every sport changes what skills it 
values over time - baseball once included the spitball, sharpened 
cleats, and "chin music" as important elements of the game.  Today, not 
so much.  You are free to propose new rules or scoring systems or 
whatever to address those inequities.  Run the numbers and see what 
happens.  Make a new rule set, run a CWAC, and publish the results.  If 
it looks like fun, people will try it.  The NA Sprints were pretty 
radical at the time - no running???!!! - yet seem to have caught on.

Remember that contesting must be about improving our understanding of 
the radio art and our communication skills.  Whatever changes are 
proposed need to keep those two principles of our Basis and Purpose 
first and foremost.  This is especially important with a number of 
previously hard-learned skills being replaced with technology - such as 
tuning one's radio to find new stations to work.  Our biggest challenge 
is to figure out how to have radio competitions in this Brave New World 
and still keep good ol' radio know-how the dominant factor in 
determining who succeeds.  Game on!

73, Ward N0AX