True, i was thinking you could switch things en route to stanford. But the point is, you are not going to get rid of cheating. Look at any sport and tell me they dont cheat. NASCAR, NFL, NHL, Indycar, Formula 1, Curling?...it's always there. Listen when I was in the military, we did ops that we knew werent perfect and sometimes not even well thought out. We didnt set around in committee discussing how to take the hill, we took the @#$% hill and compared notes afterwards to see what, if anything we did wrong, then decided if it merited a change.

troy8d

Which is what I've been saying for a while.  We've sat around talking about this long enough.  There are plenty of good ideas floating around - its time to take the hill.  Lets make some decisions and go.  Personally, I won't be at all offended if my suggestions/ideas are aren't implemented - all that is important is that we have something that has some semblance of fairness to it...and we've been headed in that direction all week.

Alright good deal. Like I sad before, we're just waiting back on more replies in the captain's formula on agreement. Weve pretty much established the date we start, again we're waiting on the teams in hiding to acknowledge us. And Im waiting for a tie breaker on the CC names.
 
I told Adak last night that since they aren't participating in the discussions, that we shouldn't have to wait on what they say but that's personal opinion.

Punchy, I did not ignore your post. I thought I addressed that by saying any kind of scaling can be implemented but we have to bring all categories to that same scale, otherwise it's just arbitrary and wrong, if the purpose is balancing the categories. Beyond that, it is just cosmetic and I don't know why it's so important, because it is really inconsequential. No offense.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting each category should have their own scale and range, but if you are it is just wrong. It beats the whole purpose of trying to balance the categories so that they affect the overall outcome equally. Please read my previous post again, it's tiresome typing the same thing over again on my phone, no offense.

Need a break from all this!
 
http://forums.evga.com/tm.aspx?high=&m=1557574
Hahahaha.. Then look at post # 9 

I'm kinda lost guys...are we still working on the formula or are we being asked to vote on a CC solution/system?  There has been so much interaction about the system formulas, and it still appears to be going on.  So, I'm not completely clear as to what we are being asked to vote upon?  If you guys are still developing, then whack me with a stick and ask me to vote when it is complete.  If we are being asked to vote on the last published system stuff from Gryphon, then forge ahead as far as I'm concerned.

devdog51

All right unofficial poll: Who on here likes the system? Who doesnt? Punchy I know you dont. Zodac dont answer because this question is specifically to EVGA members

 
What system?

I'm gonna make a post just like #671 to elaborately detail Punchy's idea. Then, all teams can see the two and vote on which one to pick. Punchy, if you have time, please go ahead yourself, copying and editing that post, because I won't have time till tonight.

This post details the CCC using Punchy's idea on score scaling. Below is the whole account of how to calculate a single score from a number of different categories (no matter what they are).

CCC - Categorized Chimp Challenge  
All teams compete in a number of categories (performance measures). Lets assume there are three categories and let's call them CAT1, CAT2 and CAT3.
At the end of the competition, each team gets their scores in all categories, and the team with the best overall performance is crowned "King of the Chimps" and receives this year's jaded monkey.  

I will now explain how to come up with that "overall performance". Let's work on a 4-Team example:  

CAT1                               CAT2                           CAT3 
Team A: 140                Team A: 50              Team A:  30 
Team B:  60                Team B: 70                Team B:  60 
Team C: 100                Team C: 90              Team C:  10  
Team D:  80                Team D: 80              Team D:  40 

At this point, the scale of scores in each category is completely different, and this poses a serious concern when you want to put them together in a single score by adding them. For example, in CAT1, Team A has an 80 point advantage over Team B and this spread is impossible to close whatever no matter how well Team B does in other categories.

To remedy this, we will bring all categories to the same scale from 0 (zero) to 100, such that the best team in each category will receive a 100, and the other teams' scores will be scaled accordingly. This way, no single category will have a dominance in the overall score and the categories will be completely balanced.
To this end, first, determine the maximum score within each category:

             CAT1                   CAT2                    CAT3 
MAX. 140. 90. 60

Let's call these values MAX1, MAX2, MAX3.

Then, multiply the scores in CAT1 by 100/MAX1, scores in CAT2 by 100/MAX2, and scores in CAT3 by 100/MAX3. This is what you get:
 
CAT1                                CAT2                            CAT3 
Team A: 100          .    Team A: 55.6             Team A:  50
Team B:  42.9               Team B: 77.8             Team B: 100
Team C: 71.4               Team C: 100             Team C:   16.7
Team D: 57.1              Team D: 88.9            Team D:   66.7


The scores can easily be interpreted as "given the best team is 100, how well Team X did in this category". A score of 50, for example means that that team did exactly half as well as the best team.

As a final step, all you have to do is sum up the scores for each team:

FINAL SCORES
Team A: 205.6
Team B: 220.7
Team C: 188.1
Team D: 212.7

Team B wins.

To summarize, what this system does is adjusting the category scores such that each category is between zero and 100. Let's call this adjusted categories ACAT1, ACAT2, and ACAT3. 

For a shorthand notation, I will use ACATi, CATi and MAXi for category i, and ACATij, CATij for Team j's scores in category i. Finally, let's call Team j's final score, SCOREj.
The formula can be written as:

SCOREj = ACAT1j + ACAT2j + ACAT3j
where
ACATij = CATij x 100 / MAXi

I like. :D

+1  Nicely played, Punchy and theGryphon!

I'm not sure guys, I've got bad news :(
 
The system in #737 looks nice with the dummy data but I ran a few scenarios with real data and the Points category ends up dominating the final score. The reason is once again, the range (or, spread, if you will). The large teams make a huge difference in the Points category and no matter how they suck in the other categories, the gap cannot be closed. So, they really runaway with it. Stamina category, for example, becomes so insignificant because the difference between the teams is incredibly minuscule compared to the difference in other categories. At the end, once again, it comes to how the spread between teams is in different categories. If one category has a wider spread, it dominates the final score. In the current situation, this category is Points, and thus, the large teams are being favored.
 
This is very concerning for me, and I cannot vouch for the system explained in #737. I was fearing this would happen and I just found the time to confirm it. I very strongly suggest using the system in #671. Although at first sight it may look worse to you, it's the only system that achieves perfect balance between categories.
 
 

planetclown

What about a simple team rank for each category?  If there's 7 teams, the highest scoring team gets 7 points, the next gets 6, etc. 

Then for total score sum up the category scores.

That was basically the starting point a few weeks ago, but people didn't like that.

zodac

How much fairer is it though? If a team in one category is miles ahead of the competition (say 50% better), they only get 1 more point. But if all the teams are bunched up, and they happen to come 6th, only 5% behind the guy in first, they lose a lot more than they gain.

Would anyone agree to using both systems? Range for the first three categories, but the new max one for the stamina category (since that's the one that doesn't work well with the first system)?

 
You guys are wasting tons of time arguing over things that don't matter.  Both ways work in that they produce a fair outcome.  Should a team like EVGA be rewarded more because it can crush smaller teams in points?  I don't think so and did not incorporate such an idea into my original proposal.  The general idea is to put all teams that come in all shapes and sizes with different strengths and weaknesses on a platform that is as equal as possible to compete with each other.

If you want to change this - that is fine.  What is unacceptable is this constant bickering over trivial matters.  Most teams are not participating in this type of discussion because they see how absurd it is.  I don't blame them.  While you're constantly going back and forth coming up with new ways to further the debate you're not helping the Chimp Challenge, you're hurting it.  You had months to do so, while no one seemed to care except for zodac and XZ.  Get over it and make a decision. 
 
The only outstanding issues I see are:
 

• How the points are distributed:  Do you want to give teams with an unfair advantage in total production a better standing in the challenge?
  • As I previously stated, we should come up with a system that minimized the different aspects of the diverse teams participating rather than one that accentuates it.
• Chimp names or no chimp names.
  • Without chimp names we do not have a true 'chimp challenge.'  This destroys the history upon which this contest was founded, but more importantly makes the contest itself rather mundane in that we are not doing anything out of the ordinary other than watching stats a bit closer.
  • It eliminates "conversion" which is a meaningful measure of how a engaged a team is in the contest.
  • It forces those that are unaware or uninterested to participate in the contest.
  • No chimp names, however, eliminates the hassle of changing clients and passkeys over (this is really not much of a hassle).
  • People like the fact that they don't have to sacrifice their individual production to participate.
• Stamina is a meaningless category with primarily random underlying drivers
  • Statistical tricks give the illusion of relevance that does not exist.

 
Its sad to see the contest falling apart because people cannot come together make a decision.  I'm not suggesting that I've listed every potential issue because I haven't paid too close attention to the mess you guys are creating, but the issues have been well defined for quite a while now.  Various workable solutions have been presented.  I don't understand why there is not a workable format in place.

troy8d
 The general idea is to put all teams that come in all shapes and sizes with different strengths and weaknesses on a platform that is as equal as possible to compete with each other.

 
 
Exactly. That is why I said the system detailed in #671 should be used, NOT the one in #737.
 

 
The only outstanding issues I see are:

• How the points are distributed:  Do you want to give teams with an unfair advantage in total production a better standing in the challenge?
  • As I previously stated, we should come up with a system that minimized the different aspects of the diverse teams participating rather than one that accentuates it.

 

 
 
Such a system exists guys, again it is the one in #671. You may dislike it cosmetically, or offer changes to make the range from 50 to 100 (which is very easy to do), but perfectly balances the categories. 
 

 
 

• Chimp names or no chimp names.
  • Without chimp names we do not have a true 'chimp challenge.'  This destroys the history upon which this contest was founded, but more importantly makes the contest itself rather mundane in that we are not doing anything out of the ordinary other than watching stats a bit closer.
  • It eliminates "conversion" which is a meaningful measure of how a engaged a team is in the contest.
  • It forces those that are unaware or uninterested to participate in the contest.
  • No chimp names, however, eliminates the hassle of changing clients and passkeys over (this is really not much of a hassle).
  • People like the fact that they don't have to sacrifice their individual production to participate.

 
 
I'm thinking on a way to handle this, and achieve both 1) uniqueness for the challenge, and 2) not losing individual points. It's gonna come with more hassle though. I'll put the proposal but it won't be possible to implement it for this year unless the challenge is postponed. 
 

 

• Stamina is a meaningless category with primarily random underlying drivers
  • Statistical tricks give the illusion of relevance that does not exist.

 

 
 
Please don't say Stamina is meaningless, you're hurting my feelings  
Jokes aside, my purpose was to come with a new category for especially in case CC names are dropped (because then there won't be Conversion). It's possible Stamina will not work perfectly, but I believe it's going to work pretty good. It would work fine along with CC names, without the CC names, or with the new scheme I will propose shortly.