AB I totally agree with you about  what needs to be done
 
I believe the teams need to start workin the day after the last contest ends to setup the new one (fix any issues and make improvements) rather than wait to the last weeks again and force a format/formula on the teams with only a few days to read and chose anything (leaving a lot of input from the teams out - and most from not having any say at all)
 
this is no way to run or organize the CC. If the teams are serious we have to start from day 1 after this one.
 
ie lets fix it for good...even if it means we work on it all year
 
 

BTW... A little history lesson for those who do not know...
 
http://clintdavis.us/chimp_challenge_2009/history.php
 

history

In 2006, the Chimp Challenge was created. This initial race was between the folding teams of Overclockers.com and MaximumPC. Although a close race at many points, Maximum PC triumphed in the end. A graph of this battle to 500,000 points is availiable here.
 
The next race in 2007 brought together the same teams as before. Each side motivated to beat the other. MaximumPC didn't want to lose their title. But the Overclockers.com team was more motivated and won in the epic race to 1,000,000 points. A graph of the race is availiable here.
 
2008 brought two additional teams to the race. [H]ardOCP and OCAU joined the battle with Overclockers.com and MaximumPC. The four-way brawl was a hard fought match but in the end MaximumPC emerged victorious and passed the 5,000,000 point finish line first. The graph of this battle can be seen here.
 
Eight teams competed in the 2009 Chimp Challenge: Overclockers.com, MaximumPC, [H]ardForum, Overclockers Australia, EVGA, Overclock.net, TSC! Russia, and CustomPC. Overclock.net jumped out of the gate at full throttle and smoked all the other teams to win the jaded monkey. A graph will be provided when all the teams have crossed the finish line.
 
 
 

Afterburner

BTW... A little history lesson for those who do not know...

Eight teams competed in the 2009 Chimp Challenge: Overclockers.com, MaximumPC, [H]ardForum, Overclockers Australia, EVGA, Overclock.net, TSC! Russia, and CustomPC. Overclock.net jumped out of the gate at full throttle and smoked all the other teams to win the jaded monkey. A graph will be provided when all the teams have crossed the finish line.

Tired of hearing about the jade monkey. You know what the most tragic thing missing from all of this discussion is? There will be EIGHT "losing" teams that WON'T be sporting the dreaded cursed monkey paw! And that, my friends, is the greatest travesty of the ENTIRE contest!

just check your stats(eoc) from the time you started to now against the full team production
no breakdown because there is no signup this year

Well, I got thrown a monkey wrench in my 24/7 folding plans.  I moved in to my new home, but only have WiFi network, and my other older router does not support bridge mode.  So I'm stuck swapping a USB WiFi stick between my main rig and the folding rig.  And I can't use the powerline ethernet adapters as they cause noise interference in my sound system.  Will need to run a ethernet hardline up the wall across the attic to the other side of the house where the router is.  So for now, I'm partially folding.

Well I can say this... Some of the confusion may be in what/how is being written vs. being said... And I quote...
 

Adak1 


The handicap system is simple as pie, and anyone who has ever run in a race, will know it is fair (as can be). First, the goal of the system is not to make all the teams finish EQUAL (a photo finish if you will) - that's NOT it. The goal is to give every team an equal opportunity, to win. The stronger teams in the race, SHOULD win. 

What doesn't matter: 

* size of the team 
* growth of the team 
* ability to sign up it's folders to a single folding name 
* production during the rest of the year 

First and foremost, the CC is a RACE - not a F@Home promotional event. A good race will always be a promotional event - people REALLY LIKE races, they always have. They like watching them, reading about them, if there is good writing on them, and they like racing in them, but the CC is a *race*, before anything else. 

 
 
And then in this post it is written... (For integrity purposes this is the entire post unedited in fairness to the author) http://forums.evga.com/fb.ashx?m=1913113
 
I highlighted the part that is confusing me..
 

Adak1 

The whole concept of handicapping is to give every racer the OPPORTUNITY to race well and win - it's not to give each racer an equal outcome in the race. This is the BIGGEST misunderstanding, and the source of a lot of bad feelings about the handicap system, this year. 

OCN, for example has certainly raced well in the past, but was almost certain not to finish well this year, because: 

1) Zodac (their captain in previous years) stepped down. There wasn't much enthusiasm by others, to step up and assume the position. 

2) Axipher took the captaincy, but also had a Captain's forum and a stats website to set up. That keeps him away from rallying OCN teammates. 

3) OCN's raw ppd, from May of 2012, has not risen as much as say EVGA, Vietnam Global, or OCF. 

Knowing this, I could have designed a system that would have allowed OCN to have a higher handicap (multiplier), and thus race better. Same for OCAU - they lost their captain a few weeks before the race, and valuable days were lost trying to even find someone to replace him. Same for HWC. They have lost some strong folders, and just have a "let's do it", level of enthusiasm for the race.  Which isn't enough to do your best. 

But that's not what handicapping does or should do. That would be me, introducing several bias factors to favor certain teams, and that's the LAST THING you want to do, when you handicap an event. How could you explain it if OCN actually won the race? Try explaining just WHY you gave them such an advantage? How would THAT be fair to the other teams, when they didn't receive any such advantage? It wouldn't be, obviously. 

There's no way you can quantify enthusiasm, or racing preparations, etc., but without them, a folding team will not fold its best.  That makes a lot of difference over the course of a 10 day race. 

Who SHOULD be doing well in the race this year? Based on team growth from May 2012 to April 2013, it should be: Vietnam Global, EVGA, and OCF. Not only did these three teams have excellent growth over that period, but they also showed a high level of enthusiasm. Indeed one power folder from VGT has been posting here, in OCN, and in other forums, as well, about the CC. Two others have posted PM's to me, in other forums. They're VERY enthusiastic! 

And THAT's why I get so hot under the collar when you post up about the bad handicapping system. You don't KNOW what handicapping is - and what you believe you know, is not correct. 

The FACTS (not your opinions or mine), are clear looking at the stats - the handicapping system is working just fine. Not because your team or my team are leading the race - because the teams that have strengthened the most over the past year, and are running well in the race, are the teams that are leading the race. 

So why do some teams seem to never do well in the race? Because they're not highly motivated, and they're not well prepared, and their team has not gotten stronger over the last year. 

That makes all the difference in the race, 

 
 
How is it that in the same post, we go from "Everyone" having the opportunity to race, to the other teams have no chance of winning because they are not motivated or well prepared? 

1. If this is true (Not doubting here) than is that not a failure on the Captains not helping teams out? I mean come on. What race do we as humans not prepare for? Does not have rules/guides? Is not fair for all who participate to win? Let's see... A Person in a car, Person on a horse,  and a Person on a bicycle enter the same race. The one in the car hardly has to work at all... The horse does most of the work, and the hardest working human is on the bicycle... Yet dead last, exhausted, and told he/she sucks because the motivation was not there. It was not because of the way the race was designed... I see now...
2. If this is not the case, than this seems more like an excuse to why the formula is not working or remove the weakness of the formula used? 
3. If this is a "Race" does that not mean all are racing? Not "Three teams raced and six of us other teams just showed up to watch".

I could very well be not understanding the intent. It happens. However, how do any of us who reads that post of yours wonder how those "Other" teams would feel about your opinion of them and your formula once they read your explanation as to why the formula works but looks like it is not, in your words, So why do some teams seem to never do well in the race? Because they're not highly motivated, and they're not well prepared, and their team has not gotten stronger over the last year. ? I would not think it would be received very well.  
 
And lastly... In one post it is said, "It does not matter about the growth and successes before the race", and then in another post it is said, "Those that are going to have success in the race are those that have grown during the year"... huh?
 
And maybe I look for to much in a race. I for one am not a fan of one that you can see who is going to win early on. I would rather see at least half of the teams racing into the last day as a possible winner. THAT is exciting to me. Not sit back and watch one team win it while everyone else still tries to not finish last... That is what creates more production and a lot of fun.

Afterburner

Well I can say this... Some of the confusion may be in what/how is being written vs. being said... And I quote...

Adak1 
How is it that in the same post, we go from "Everyone" having the opportunity to race, to the other teams have no chance of winning because they are not motivated or well prepared? 

Imagine you're running a 100 meter dash. Your opponent has not been training - he's out of shape, and in warm ups, he's slow out of the starting blocks.
 
He has the opportunity to race - but his handicap won't change until AFTER this race, since he was in top form in previous races. He has no chance today of winning this race, but he had the opportunity to train, and arrive strong and fast - he just didn't do it.

1. If this is true (Not doubting here) than is that not a failure on the Captains not helping teams out? I mean come on. What race do we as humans not prepare for? Does not have rules/guides? Is not fair for all who participate to win? Let's see... A Person in a car, Person on a horse,  and a Person on a bicycle enter the same race. The one in the car hardly has to work at all... The horse does most of the work, and the hardest working human is on the bicycle... Yet dead last, exhausted, and told he/she sucks because the motivation was not there. It was not because of the way the race was designed... I see now..
2. If this is not the case, than this seems more like an excuse to why the formula is not working or remove the weakness of the formula used? 
3. If this is a "Race" does that not mean all are racing? Not "Three teams raced and six of us other teams just showed up to watch".

I could very well be not understanding the intent. It happens.

Yes, with handicapping, it happens a lot. It's best to discuss the role of Captains, separately. They play an important role within the team, but not within the handicap. Only race results count - nothing else.

However, how do any of us who reads that post of yours wonder how those "Other" teams would feel about your opinion of them and your formula once they read your explanation as to why the formula works but looks like it is not, in your words, So why do some teams seem to never do well in the race? Because they're not highly motivated, and they're not well prepared, and their team has not gotten stronger over the last year. ? I would not think it would be received very well.  

Handicapping doesn't care how the system is received. It's an algorithm - or math expression if you will. Emotions aren't involved. It's like if you drop a glass - it will fall at the same speed whether you like it, or not.

And lastly... In one post it is said, "It does not matter about the growth and successes before the race", and then in another post it is said, "Those that are going to have success in the race are those that have grown during the year"... huh?

The growth and success in recruiting or upgrading, etc. before the race (that is, between the last race, and the current upcoming race), don't matter to the handicap. ONLY race performance, matters). In some sports they have rigid pre-race trials that DO affect the handicapping. Not the case for the CC, however. The monthly points of a team not racing, is wildly different than the ppd of the same team, during the race.

And maybe I look for to much in a race. I for one am not a fan of one that you can see who is going to win early on. I would rather see at least half of the teams racing into the last day as a possible winner. THAT is exciting to me. Not sit back and watch one team win it while everyone else still tries to not finish last... That is what creates more production and a lot of fun.

I agree. (That's a type of handicapping though, that can't work in the CC, unless you have some on-going monthly race or trial of some kind, to reflect the relative strengths of the teams, throughout the year.) Also, the actual CC race would require the teams to use that same mix of folders.
 
That was a problem with the CC two years ago. HWC had low monthly ppd, (which was used to set up the system), and then brought in NCIX and friends, and the handicap system went right out the window, if you recall. HWC told us they were racing with NCIX, but the system didn't handle it well - and HWC had a GREAT race, anyway.
 
The three teams that have strengthened most during the year are EVGA, VGT, and OCF (no order here), so I know that that these three teams, like three runners that arrive on race day having strengthened themselves with training, are very likely to be the winners and top finishers.
 
Just common sense, right?
 
The thing is, they HAVE strengthened their teams, they've done the training, if you will. Shouldn't they be most likely to win or place near the front, in the race?  Isn't this the gripe I read about the most on the EVGA forum? "The rules don't let the strongest team win!"
 
If you are the most improved team, regardless of size, since the last race, and race well - you should finish near the front of the race, or even win it, with a good handicap system.
 
What you have described (where the goal is that all the teams arrive near the last day, still in contention), is different. It requires more time, and more data, and it's more complex. I don't even call it handicapping here, because it is completely different in it's goals. Most teammates won't understand it, and will cry "Cheat!" "Bias!" etc., whenever they lose, until the desire to race is wiped out, The image of the CC will have been torn apart and flushed.
 
My handicap system is simple, and everyone can understand it, if they set aside their initial contempt for all things that aren't stamped with "EVGA" on 'em. You have a foot race, and the person in the best shape AT THAT TIME, is likely to win, if he/she has a good race that day.
 
That's something every grade school kid can understand, and hopefully, still respect as adults. No, all the racers don't finish in a dramatic lean at the tape, but it's fair - no doubt about it, and there can be dramatic finishes between teams - but it's very unlikely to be more than two or three teams in a group.

Adak1  

Well. I tried to help. Back to you Troy... Let's see what those numbers look like.

The links to graphs for CC 2006 thru 2008 are in post #33 in this thread.  The graph for 2009 can be found here. 
 
Not sure if raw data is around, but may be able to eyeball it with the graphs.

Macaholic

It is hard to come up with a "fair" contest between nine teams in two weeks. More analysis needs to be made, as stated, once completed. Quick and dirty analysis says VGT will come out on top due to the large effect of a single individual. Large duck in a small puddle, if you will, since this is their first involvement. OCF is reaping the benefits of a strong benching and SETI team to keep it close, and EVGA is being pushed by the "buck effect" right now. The whole "recruiting" notion is a noble idea, but it is tainted by easy team switching and the "let's beat Goliath" attitude that is very palpable. As long as more folding gets done, that is really the most important "jade monkey" badge. If it ceases to be fun and just a gripe fest, then the contest is pointless. 

Totally agree with you. 

*Caution* Lot's of "I's" ahead .
 
I thought this was without saying, but it looks like I should...
 
I am a cup half full fella. 
 
I am normally a positive thinker and want what we cannot have. "Fairness" for all. 
 
However, the work that has been done by the many with any events we choose to participate in should not be overlooked because of a post here or there.
 
I for one think that this years (2013) CC is moving in the right direction and has fun in it... I mean three teams are fighting for first! 
 
However, because this is a "Race" it should be worked on with much more effort than we have seen the last few years. Two weeks to get it all done is what is causing the issues. Not the "We have to do something" answers. 
 
My point in all this is simple. For this to be the one time a year event, more effort by all teams is in order for it to be fun for all.
 
How can we call it a race with only a third are actually racing?
 
The focus ha been directed to the "Race" not growing or spreading the word about what we all do. I think that is where we need to work on it a bit as well...
 
Regardless. I value and appreciate all the feedback we see, even if it hurts a little...

An improvement should be indeed getting more people to fold and not simply using the contest as a guise to have several teams just join up under one "supersize" team. That gets no more folding done, it just stacks the deck against any fair competition of the intended point of the contest which is getting more people to fold. What is the point of having a handicap if you just stack the deck. Those smaller teams should be invited to participate on their own if you already have the handicap system in place.

So, we schedule the ringers for day 2?

simple math to average out each additional day
 
avg handicap =sum (start handicap point handicap+ each additional day points) /(1+no days)
 

Macaholic

An improvement should be indeed getting more people to fold and not simply using the contest as a guise to have several teams just join up under one "supersize" team. That gets no more folding done, it just stacks the deck against any fair competition of the intended point of the contest which is getting more people to fold. What is the point of having a handicap if you just stack the deck. Those smaller teams should be invited to participate on their own if you already have the handicap system in place.

 
This is exactly along the lines of what I was thinking.  Borrowing folders from other teams isn't recruiting...its simply changing the flag under which a folder flies and not getting any more work done.  I do believe there are those that have lost sight of what is actually important here.