Optimal seatings changes 3R+F

Please disregard those results, for some of them are wrong due to a flaw in the validation. From now on, I strongly recommand not to use the version 1.5e but version 1.5f : Excel: www.vekn.net/images/stories/downloads/thearchon1.5f.xlsx LibreOffice: www.vekn.net/images/stories/downloads/thearchon1.5f.ods Ok, I've started toying with the 3R seatings. Starting with 10 players, the current seating is : 12345|678910 101982|56437 471031|92586 with the following results: RuleExpectedResult N10 1. No pair of players repeat their predator-prey relationship. This is mandatory, by the VEKN rules.OK 2. No pair of players share a table through all two rounds, when possible. (N/A in some 2R event.)KO (player 1 shares a table with player 2 on round 2) 3. Available VPs are equitably distributed.OKOK 5. A player doesn't sit in the fifth seat more than once.OK 6. No pair of players repeat the same relative position[*], when possible.KO (players 8 and 10, table 1, round 2) 7. A player doesn't play in the same seat position, if possible.KO (player 7, table 1, position 2) 8. Starting transfers are equitably distributed. [NOAL]KO. Absolute deviation is: 1,04 => 1, 6 have 7 transfers | 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 have 8 transfers | 3, 8 have 11 transfers The first of the best results I have computed is: 12345|678910 862101|59473 103928|41756 with the following results: RuleExpectedResult N10 1. No pair of players repeat their predator-prey relationship. This is mandatory, by the VEKN rules.OK 2. No pair of players share a table through all two rounds, when possible. (N/A in some 2R event.)KO (player 1 shares a table with player 2 on round 2) 3. Available VPs are equitably distributed.OKOK 5. A player doesn't sit in the fifth seat more than once.OK 6. No pair of players repeat the same relative position[*], when possible.OK 7. A player doesn't play in the same seat position, if possible.OK 8. Starting transfers are equitably distributed. [NOAL]KO. Absolute deviation is: 0,72 => 1, 6 have 7 transfers | 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10 have 9 transfers | 4, 8 have 8 transfers So compared to the current seating, rule 2 and 7 are no longer violated and the distribution of the transfers has a lesser deviation. Plus, everyone has at least once 4 transfers. Do you see anything unoptimal with the proposed new seating? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

8 players (3R): unchanged 7 1 8 2 | 3 5 4 6 / 4 7 6 1 | 8 3 2 5 Rule 2 KO (player 1 shares a table with player 2 on round 2): 12 (once), 12 (twice) Rule 8 KO. Absolute deviation is: 1 => 1, 5 have 7 transfers | 2, 6 have 9 transfers | 3, 7 have 6 transfers | 4, 8 have 8 transfers 9 players (3R): unchanged 9 4 2 8 6 | 5 3 7 1 / 8 1 9 7 3 | 4 6 5 2 Rule 2 KO (player 1 shares a table with player 3 on round 2): 15 (once), 12 (twice), 3 (thrice) Rule 3 KO. Absolute deviation is: 0,222 => 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 have 14 VP | 5, 6, 7 have 13 VP Rule 8 KO. Absolute deviation is: 0,666 => 1, 4, 6 have 7 transfers | 2, 3, 7 have 9 transfers | 5, 8, 9 have 8 transfers 10 players (3R): unchanged 10 1 9 8 2 | 5 6 4 3 7 / 4 7 10 3 1 | 9 2 5 8 6 Rule 2 KO. (player 1 shares a table with player 2 on round 2): 18 (once), 18 (twice), 2 (thrice)) Rule 6 and 7 KO. Rule 8 KO. Absolute transfer deviation is: 1,04 The alternative seating (8 6 4 1 3 | 9 5 2 10 7 / 10 4 9 6 1 | 5 3 7 2 8 ) will not be kept because even though it doesn't violate rule 6 and 7 and has a better transfer deviation, it violates rule 2 with 3 pairs of players meeting thrice. 12 players (3R): 6 9 5 1 | 11 8 10 3 | 2 4 12 7 / 8 1 9 2 | 7 5 4 11 | 12 3 6 10 Rule 2 KO (player 2 shares a table with player 4 on round 2): 36 (once), 9 (twice) (Current seating violates rule 2 (player 1 shares a table with player 2 on round 2): 30 (once), 12 (twice)) Rule 8 KO. Absolute deviation is: 1 => 1, 5, 9 have 7 transfers | 2, 6, 10 have 9 transfers | 3, 7, 11 have 6 transfers | 4, 8, 12 have 8 transfers 13 players (3R): 12 10 1 6 8 | 11 4 2 7 | 13 5 9 3 / 9 13 7 1 11 | 5 6 10 2 | 3 8 4 12 Rule 2 KO (player 2 shares a table with player 4 on round 2): 42 (once), 12 (twice) (Current seating violates rule 2 (player 1 shares a table with player 3 on round 2): 34 (once), 16 (twice)) Rule 3 KO. Absolute deviation is: 0,071 => 1 have 15 VP | 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 have 13 VP (Current seating has the same absolute vp deviation) Rule 8 KO. Absolute deviation is: 0,804 => 1, 3, 9, 12 have 8 transfers | 2, 4, 7, 8 have 9 transfers | 5, 6, 11, 13 have 7 transfers | 10 have 6 transfers (Current seating has the same absolute transfer deviation) 14 players (3R): 12 6 1 11 7 | 14 10 2 13 3 | 4 9 5 8 / 5 11 9 6 14 | 8 13 4 12 2 | 7 3 10 1 Rule 2 KO (player 2 shares a table with player 3 on round 2): 42 (once), 18 (twice) (Current seating has the same encounter repartition) Rule 3 KO. Absolute deviation is: 0,0612 => 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 have 14 VP | 2, 6 have 15 VP (Current seating has the same absolute deviation) (Current seating violates rule 7: player 12, table 2, position 2) Rule 8 KO. Absolute deviation is: 0,734 => 1, 4, 5, 8 have 8 transfers | 2, 3, 9, 10, 13, 14 have 9 transfers | 6, 7, 11, 12 have 7 transfers (Current seating has an absolute deviation of 0,755) 15 players (3R): 5 11 6 1 12 | 13 4 7 2 8 | 9 3 15 10 14 / 14 1 4 11 7 | 12 15 2 6 9 | 10 8 5 13 3 (fixed in 1.5f) Rule 2 KO (player 1 shares a table with player 5 on round 2): 54 (once), 18 (twice) (Current seating has the same encounter repartition) (Current seating also violate rule 6 and 7: player 8, table 1, position 3) Rule 8 KO. Absolute deviation is: 0,72 => 1, 11, 12 have 7 transfers | 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 have 9 transfers | 5, 6, 13 have 8 transfers (Current seating has an absolute deviation of 1,12) 16 players (3R): unchanged 8 1 14 11 | 12 5 2 15 | 16 9 6 3 | 4 13 10 7 / 15 7 1 9 | 10 16 8 2 | 3 11 13 5 | 6 4 12 14 Rule 8 KO. (Current seating has an absolute transfer deviation of 1) 17 players (3R) (in progress) (fixed in 1.5f) For 17 players, I had to "cheat" a little by entering manually some seatings (otherwise it would take 1 year to compute), so I don't know if there is a better solution. Anyway, this seating is slightly better. What I did is that I chose 2 players that will never be seated on the only 5-players table (since only 15 players can be seated there through the 3 rounds). I chose players 12 and 17. I seated them in 4th, 3rd, 2nd position so they get in exchange the most transfers. The other players can only be seated once on the 5-players table, and I limited the number of players with 6 transfers to two. Players 1 and 14 are 1st, 2nd and 3rd (6 transfers) but some players are necessarily disadvantaged. EDIT: The seating in the version 1.5d of the archon had two pairs of players meeting each other in a prey-predator then predator-prey way. EDIT: the seating in version 1.5a had no violation of rule 1, therefore we use it until we found a better seating: 17 13 11 6 8 | 3 1 7 15 | 5 9 2 12 | 4 10 14 16 / 15 12 9 7 10 | 11 3 6 14 | 16 8 1 5 | 13 17 4 2 18 players (3R) 12 15 11 6 1 | 16 18 7 2 13 | 17 4 14 8 | 9 5 10 3 / 13 8 5 15 17 | 3 14 9 11 16 | 2 6 18 12 | 10 1 4 7 Rule 2 KO (player 3 shares a table with player 5 on round 2): 72 (once), 12 (twice) (Current seating has a worse encounter repartition: 66 (once), 15 (twice)) Rule 3 KO. Absolute deviation is: 0,222 => 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16 have 14 VP | 4, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18 have 13 VP (Current seating has the same absolute VP deviation.) Rule 8 KO. Absolute deviation is: 0,666 => 1, 2, 6, 12, 15, 16 have 7 transfers | 3, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17 have 8 transfers | 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, 18 have 9 transfers (Current seating has an absolute transfer deviation of 0,777) 19 players (3R): 12 4 11 6 16 | 17 14 7 18 1 | 2 19 9 13 8 | 5 10 15 3 / 13 3 10 17 11 | 18 5 19 12 6 | 15 8 1 16 7 | 14 9 4 2 KO (player 4 shares a table with player 5 on round 2): 84 (once), 12 (twice) (Current seating has a the same encounter repartition) Rule 3 KO. Absolute deviation is: 0,182 => 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 have 15 VP | 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 have 14 VP (Current seating has the same absolute vp deviation) (Current seating violates rule 7.) Rule 8 KO. Absolute deviation is: 0,747 => 1, 7, 11, 17, 19 have 7 transfers | 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 have 9 transfers | 3, 6, 8, 9, 10 have 8 transfers (Current seating has an absolute transfer deviation of 0,831) 20 players (3R) (in progress): 3 1 14 10 17 | 8 6 19 15 2 | 13 11 4 20 7 | 18 16 9 5 12 / 15 19 7 1 13 | 20 4 12 6 18 | 5 9 17 11 3 | 10 14 2 16 8 Rule 8. KO. Absolute deviation is: 0,72 => 1, 6, 11, 16 have 7 transfers | 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20 have 9 transfers | 3, 8, 13, 18 have 8 transfers 21 players (3R): to revalidate fixed in 1.5f The seating in 1.5a has a better score on rule 2. "No pair of players share a table through all two rounds, when possible. (N/A in some 2R event.)" It is used until we found something better Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Ok, we have a better seating for 15 players! Hooray! If you see anything strange with this seating or have any comment, feel free to post! In any case, it has a better transfer distribution, and more importantly, doesn't violate rules 6 and 7 anymore! Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

We also have a better seating for 14 players (better transfer distribution, and more importantly, it doesn't violate rule 7. "A player doesn't play in the same seat position, if possible." anymore!) Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Thank you SO much for putting time and energy for this! Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > Thank you SO much for putting time and energy for this! > Seconded! B-) National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de

Thank you for your support. I've added results for 17 players, with an explanation of how I did it. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Results for 18 players have been added. The new seating has better transfers, and no longer violates rule 7 "A player doesn't play in the same seat position, if possible." Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Results for 19 players have been added (and it was quick!). The new seating has better transfers, and no longer violates rule 7 "A player doesn't play in the same seat position, if possible." Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Current results for 20 seem optimal: all players that are at the same starting position on each table rotate the same way. I've just switched tables 3 and 4 on round 3 because there should be ordered that way by construction. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I've added the result for 21 players. The current seating violates rule 7 ("A player doesn't play in the same seat position") but has a better deviation (one less player with 6 transfers and 9 transfers, one more with 7 and 8 transfers). Which one is better? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I fixed the results for 18 (bad paste). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

We used the new seatings to our last tournament (17 players), and many players had the feeling the met the same players often. I gave a look to the seating used, and I can confirm that this feeling was true. Among all the possible seatings that are "optimal" (ie. with the lowest vp/transfers deviation), there are variations about how many times player X met player Y. For instance, the current (non-optimal) seating has 13 pairs of players that meet twice, and 58 pairs of players that meet once during the 3 rounds. The seating I took among the list of optimal seatings was: 9 14 10 15 7 | 5 12 4 2 | 3 13 17 6 | 16 1 11 8 / 13 8 6 11 16 | 15 5 14 3 | 7 4 1 12 | 2 17 9 10 It contains 1 pair of players that meet thrice (14 and 15), 14 pairs twice, 53 pairs once. But there are other optimal seatings that seem "better": 17 pairs twice, 50 pairs once, or 15 pairs twice, 54 pairs once. I think we should value more the seatings with the most "meet once" pairs. But what if it increases the number of players that meet thrice? For instance, the seating with the most "meet once" pairs is: 63 once, 6 twice, 3 thrice The seating with the most "meet once" pairs AND no "meet thrice" pairs is: 60 once, 12 twice Which seating is "better"? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

1. No pair of players repeat their predator-prey relationship. 2. No pair of players share a table through all three rounds, when possible. 3. Available VPs are equitably distributed. 4. No pair of players share a table more often than necessary. 5. A player doesn't sit in the fifth seat more than once. 6. No pair of players repeat the same relative position[*], when possible. 7. A player doesn't play in the same seat position, if possible. 8. Starting transfers are equitably distributed. [NOAL] 9. No pair of players repeat the same relative position group[^], when possible. How can two results be equally optimal if they don't have the same result for criteria 2 and 4?

> Ankha wrote: > thrice > Do not use this word. > I think we should value more the seatings with the most "meet once" pairs. > > But what if it increases the number of players that meet thrice? > Playing against the same person three times in the preliminary rounds of a tournament seems terrible. One might say suboptimal.

> BenPeal wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > thrice > > > Do not use this word. > Isn't this the plural of throuse? <INSERT CLEVER QUOTATION HERE>

> BenPeal wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > thrice > > > Do not use this word. > > > I think we should value more the seatings with the most "meet once" pairs. > > > > But what if it increases the number of players that meet thrice? > > > Playing against the same person three times in the preliminary rounds of a tournament seems terrible. One might say suboptimal. > Yes definitely in players meeting three times more than multi-pairs of players

I'm redoing the computations because rule 2 had been taken out of the equation. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> alf wrote: > Isn't this the plural of throuse? > en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thrice Finnish Politics!

I've corrected the algorithm to take rule 2 into account. The algorithm will now return the results that minimize the number of times each player meet other players, and will exclude any results where the players would meet on the three rounds. I takes a lot of computation power to get the results, so if you have a PC that runs Windows, and some spare CPU, you can help! 1/ download www.veknfrance.com/tmp/seatings19calculator.7z 2/ extract the files in it into an empty folder 3/ run the command line: ConsoleApplication5.exe X Y or double-click on ConsoleApplication5.exe and input the interval X and Y define the boundaries of the computation interval. For my part, I've already calculated the results from 1 to 127000 (over 228550), so try to take intervals of size 10000 starting from 150000. If you do, please leave a message here before launching the computation and indicate what interval you are going to computeso that other people don't compute the same thing. 4/ in the folder, files will appear: seating3r-19.txt-$$$$-$$$$-$$$$-$$$$$$$$$$-value When the computation is over, please create a zip with those files and send me that archive. Beware! It's a pretty heavy computation that will take all your powerhorses, making it laggish. The best thing to do is to take small intervals and make it run nightly. Here's the list of contributors: Ankha: 1 - 144 000 Ankha (azure81): 144 000 - 144 999 Ankha (132): 145 000 - 150 000 Ankha (build8): 150 001 - 159 999 Lestat: 180 000 - 190 000 Lestat: 190 000 - 200 000 Ankha (build8): 200 000 - 210 000 OK Mimmy: 210 000 - 220 000 Apolokia final: 220 000 - 228 550 Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Updated the list of contributors. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Current list of contributors for 19 players. Ankha: 1 - 144 000 Ankha (azure81): 144 000 - 144 999 Ankha (132): 145 000 - 150 000 Ankha (build8): 150 001 - 159 999 Lestat: 180 000 - 190 000 Lestat: 190 000 - 200 000 Ankha (build8): 200 000 - 210 000 OK Mimmy: 210 000 - 220 000 Apolokia final: 220 000 - 228 550 Anyone can help to get this computation done! Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Updated list: Ankha: 1 - 142 999 Ankha (132): 143 000 - 143 999 Ankha (azure81): 144 000 - 144 999 ETA: 12/06/2015 Ankha (132): 145 000 - 150 000 ETA: 17/05/2015 OK Ankha (build8): 150 001 - 159 999 ETA: 17/05/2015 LSJ: 160 000 - 179 999 Lestat: 180 000 - 190 000 OK Lestat: 190 000 - 200 000 Ankha (build8): 200 000 - 210 000 OK Mimmy: 210 000 - 220 000 Apolokia final: 220 000 - 228 550 OK Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Updated list: Ankha: 1 - 142 999 Ankha (132): 143 000 - 143 999 ETA: 18/05/2015 OK Ankha (azure81): 144 000 - 144 999 ETA: 08/06/2015 Ankha (132): 145 000 - 150 000 ETA: 17/05/2015 OK Ankha (build8): 150 001 - 159 999 ETA: 20/05/2015 LSJ: 160 000 - 179 999 Lestat: 180 000 - 190 000 OK Lestat: 190 000 - 200 000 Ankha (build8): 200 000 - 210 000 OK Mimmy: 210 000 - 220 000 Apolokia final: 220 000 - 228 550 OK Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Updated list: Ankha: 1 - 140 000 2wayspeaker : 140 000 - 140 500 Selim: 140 500 - 140 750 OK Ankha (132): 140 750 - 140 999 Ankha: 141 000 - 141 500 Lestat: 141 500 - 141 900 OK Ankha (132): 141900 - 142 499 OK Ankha (132): 142 500 - 142 999 OK Ankha (132): 143 000 - 143 999 OK Ankha (azure81/build8): 144 000 - 144 999 ETA: 08/06/2015 Ankha (132): 145 000 - 150 000 OK Ankha (build8): 150 001 - 159 999 OK LSJ: 160 000 - 179 999 Lestat: 180 000 - 190 000 OK Lestat: 190 000 - 200 000 Ankha (build8): 200 000 - 210 000 OK Mimmy: 210 000 - 220 000 OK Apolokia final: 220 000 - 228 550 OK Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Hey Ankha not shur if I interpreted this right: You want to calculate all instances of 1 to 228550. Green is done, Named are spoken for. I just started 140000 to 140500. ETA 24/05 16:59 Laptop i7--3610QM Also started 141000 to 141500 ETA 24/05 16:53 PC Xeon E3-1230V3 (but this might be redundant because you are already doing this) I have a xeon e3 1230 v3 usually used for renders, so if you want me to take over some other intervals let me know. Edit: the ETA moves My laptop will now be finished 25/05 03:30 Edit2: Also an overnight ETA for the Xeon: 25/05 03:08 Edit 3: ETA laptop 25/05 20:31 ETA Xeon 25/05 10:07 (Cancelled)

Cool, thanks! > 2wayspeaker wrote: > Hey Ankha not shur if I interpreted this right: You want to calculate all instances of 1 to 228550. Green is done, Named are spoken for. > You got it right. > 2wayspeaker wrote: > I just started 140000 to 140500. ETA 24/05 16:59 Laptop i7--3610QM > I'll update the post with your name. > 2wayspeaker wrote: > Also started 141000 to 141500 ETA 24/05 16:53 PC Xeon E3-1230V3 (but this might be redundant because you are already doing this) > Indeed, I'm almost done with it. > 2wayspeaker wrote: > I have a xeon e3 1230 v3 usually used for renders, so if you want me to take over some other intervals let me know. > Sure I will. Computation for 19 is almost over, but there will be more computation for 20 players for instance. > 2wayspeaker wrote: > Edit: the ETA moves My laptop will now be finished 25/05 03:30 > Edit2: Also an overnight ETA for the Xeon: 25/05 03:08 > Yes, this is because the estimated time is an extrapolation based on the number of parts already computed and the time it took. If the first parts are quick to compute, the estimated time will increase. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Ok, I'll cancel the 141000-141500. If you want you can already start me on the calcs for 20.

> 2wayspeaker wrote: > Ok, I'll cancel the 141000-141500. > If you want you can already start me on the calcs for 20. > I will post the program in a few days, but I'm trying first to optimize the algorithm further to reduce the computation time. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Updated list: Ankha: 1 - 140 000 2wayspeaker: 140 000 - 140 500 Selim: 140 500 - 140 750 OK Ankha: 140 750 - 141 500 OK Lestat: 141 500 - 141 900 OK Ankha (132): 141900 - 142 499 OK Ankha (132): 142 500 - 142 999 OK Ankha (132): 143 000 - 143 999 OK Ankha (azure81/build8): 144 000 - 144 999 ETA: 08/06/2015 Ankha (132): 145 000 - 150 000 OK Ankha (build8): 150 001 - 159 999 OK LSJ: 160 000 - 179 999 Lestat: 180 000 - 190 000 OK Lestat: 190 000 - 200 000 Ankha (build8): 200 000 - 210 000 OK Mimmy: 210 000 - 220 000 OK Apolokia final: 220 000 - 228 550 OK Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

My results are in. I ran it on my Xeon because it would outspeed by almost 10hours. 501 Parts 95403 Seconds www.mediafire.com/download/dvodb8jplk4lgb8/seatings19calculator-Results140000-140500.rar I was hesitant to shut it off because there was no new file produced at the end of the calculation. The last file created came from 3hrs earlier.

Updated list: Ankha: 1 - 140 000 OK 2wayspeaker: 140 000 - 140 500 OK Selim: 140 500 - 140 750 OK Ankha: 140 750 - 141 500 OK Lestat: 141 500 - 141 900 OK Ankha (132): 141900 - 142 499 OK Ankha (132): 142 500 - 142 999 OK Ankha (132): 143 000 - 143 999 OK Ankha (azure81/build8): 144 000 - 144 999 OK Ankha (132): 145 000 - 150 000 OK Ankha (build8): 150 001 - 159 999 OK LSJ: 160 000 - 174 999 Ankha (8): 175 000 - 175 999 2wayspeaker: 176 000 - 176 499 Ankha (132): 176500 - 176 999 OK Ankha: 177000 - 177 999 OK Mimmy: 178000 - 179 999 Lestat: 180 000 - 190 000 OK Lestat: 190 000 - 200 000 Ankha (build8): 200 000 - 210 000 OK Mimmy: 210 000 - 220 000 OK Apolokia final: 220 000 - 228 550 OK Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I'll take 176 000 - 176 499 but I can only start on it tomorrow afternoon. It'll be finished 28/05 most likely.

I calculated 176000-176499. 500 parts 79756 seconds But the program did not produce any results. Is this OK?

> 2wayspeaker wrote: > I calculated 176000-176499. > > 500 parts > 79756 seconds > > But the program did not produce any results. > Is this OK? > Yes, it means there is no result in that range Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Updated list: Ankha: 1 - 140 000 OK 2wayspeaker: 140 000 - 140 500 OK Selim: 140 500 - 140 750 OK Ankha: 140 750 - 141 500 OK Lestat: 141 500 - 141 900 OK Ankha (132): 141900 - 142 499 OK Ankha (132): 142 500 - 142 999 OK Ankha (132): 143 000 - 143 999 OK Ankha (azure81/build8): 144 000 - 144 999 OK Ankha (132): 145 000 - 150 000 OK Ankha (build8): 150 001 - 159 999 OK LSJ: 160 000 - 174 999 Ankha (8): 175 000 - 175 999 OK 2wayspeaker: 176 000 - 176 499 OK Ankha (132): 176500 - 176 999 OK Ankha: 177000 - 177 999 OK Mimmy: 178000 - 179 999 Lestat: 180 000 - 190 000 OK Lestat: 190 000 - 200 000 OK Ankha (build8): 200 000 - 210 000 OK Mimmy: 210 000 - 220 000 OK Apolokia final: 220 000 - 228 550 OK Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I managed to optimize the algorithm, and rerun the computation for 19 using the new method (it took 13 days still). I'll wait for the reamining results so I can check that I get the same results. In the meanwhile, here's the new best seating for 19: 12 4 11 6 16 | 17 14 7 18 1 | 2 19 9 13 8 | 5 10 15 3 / 13 3 10 17 11 | 18 5 19 12 6 | 15 8 1 16 7 | 14 9 4 2 Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Thanks to everyone for helping me calculating the optimal seating for 19 players: 2wayspeaker, Selim, Lestat, Scott, Mimmy and Apolokia final! (now working on 17...) Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

There was a flaw in the validation of the new results, and some manual mistakes when reporting the results. As a consequence, some of the results displayed here are wrong, and I won't continue to maintain this page: the new results will always be available in the latest version of the archon. From now on, I strongly recommand not to use the version 1.5e but version 1.5f : Excel: www.vekn.net/images/stories/downloads/thearchon1.5f.xlsx LibreOffice: www.vekn.net/images/stories/downloads/thearchon1.5f.ods Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director