Ankha#
The current seating is:
R2: 10 1 9 8 2 | 5 6 4 3 7
R3: 4 7 10 3 1 | 9 2 5 8 6
That seating violates rule 6 ("No pair of players repeat the same relative position[*], when possible."), rule 7 ("A player doesn't play in the same seat position, if possible.") and has the following transfer distribution: 1,04 => 1, 6 have 7 transfers | 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 have 8 transfers | 3, 8 have 11 transfers
On the other hand, the proposed seating is:
R2: 8 6 4 1 3 | 9 5 2 10 7
R3: 10 4 9 6 1 | 5 3 7 2 8
That seating doesn't violate rule 6 or 7, has a better transfers distribution: 0,72 => 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10 have 9 transfers | 5, 6 have 7 transfers | 8, 9 have 8 transfers
The thing is that the first proposition has 18 couples of players that meet once, 18 that meet twice and only 2 that meet three times.
The second proposition has 3 couples of players that meet three times (5 and 2, 9 and 10, 1 and 4, each time in a different configuration).
Which one is better?
Is it better to have some players repeating the same relative position but one less player meeting the same player through the 3 rounds?
Is it better to never repeat the same relative position, at the expense of having one more player meeting the same player through the 3 rounds (each time in a different relative position)?
As the rule were made, rule 2 is more important than the following rules. But does it balance the fact that rule 6 and 7 are violated, and that the starting transfer distribution is worse?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director