Overclock.net › Forums › Overclockers Care › Overclock.net Folding@Home Team › Chimp Challenge 2012??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Chimp Challenge 2012?? - Page 2

post #11 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adak View Post

It's been 5 days - Easter is over. Time to get your CC captain in here very *soon*, if he wants to have input into this CC recommendation.
Like to be more laid back and patient about it, but time is quite short.

Try a pm to zodac, she is sleeping now . wink.gif
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel i7 2600k ASUS P8Z77WS EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 EVGA GTX 980 ACX 2.0 
GraphicsRAMPower
EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0 Mushkin Enhanced Blackline 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pi... FirePower ZX Series 1250W 80Plus Gold 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel i7 2600k ASUS P8Z77WS EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 EVGA GTX 980 ACX 2.0 
GraphicsRAMPower
EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0 Mushkin Enhanced Blackline 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pi... FirePower ZX Series 1250W 80Plus Gold 
  hide details  
Reply
post #12 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adak View Post

It's been 5 days - Easter is over. Time to get your CC captain in here very *soon*, if he wants to have input into this CC recommendation.

Like to be more laid back and patient about it, but time is quite short.
 


Time has been short for quite some time. Regardless, I have discussed the system in the captains' forum, and have outlined my objections there. I'll post my main ones here too though, since you're asking.

 

1) You recommend splitting the CC up into two categories; all out PPD on one hand, and a handicap-based race on the other. From what Xavier brought to the forum, he has made it out to be Evga and OCN in the first category, and everyone else in the second. My reponse is that isn't fair. The current PPD for the teams show the difference in PPD between OCN and your team (OCF) to be 140%. However, the difference between OCF and HWC is 210%. The difference between TPU! and OCAU is 365%.

 

If you can make a handicap system which makes a race between those teams fair, why do you need to separate Evga and OCN from the rest of the pack? My opinion is that you either introduce further categories (not a good idea, since then you'd end up having 5/6, and more if we wanted to expand the CC), or you make a handicap system that is fair (which is what I have been trying to do).

 

2) Is having multiple winners in the CC's interest? This isn't as much an objection as the first point, but still a valid concern. And if we do increase the number of categories, we could end up with enough "winners" to hold another CC.

 

3) Your opinion that your system will prevent unofficial mergers like HWC and NCIX is flawed. The entire issue was that it wasn't all of NCIX moving to HWC; it was some of their larger producers, who are members on both sites moving over.

 

How is it fair that we punish HWC for that, when there are situations in many teams (OCN included) where large producers come from non-CC teams to take part for the 10 days?

 

----------------

 

I've made my opinion clear to the captains (and that's all it is - my opinion); if we can't have a fair system for this CC, and instead have to rush out an ill-thought system, we may as well not hold it. Yes, last year went badly, but there's only so much we could have done in our discussions; the CC really was the only test we had on how much teams could increase their production. I still feel the handicap-based system was a decent platform, and just needs some tweaks to be able to balance out the competition.

 

But adding multiple categories, and being inconsistent as to why some teams should be racing by PPD only and others should be handicapped, is not the solution. And having two separates systems (in consecutive years) be unfair to the majority of teams will do more harm to this competition than good. You haven't even given numbers on how your handicap category will work... in theory it all sounds great, but then, so did last year's handicap system. Have you applied current teams' PPDs into your system, and last year's PPD (through the CC), and seen how the teams will be placed? How much of a difference there will be between the teams, and whether that's actually the performance, and not the system itself? If you have, I've seen none of them yet.

 

I have no problem with OCN being at a bit more of a disadvantage as other teams; we're a bigger team, and it's our job to deal with that (we get to benefit through the rest of the year). But not with a system that just hasn't been thought out fully, and will result in many Folders giving up after 4/5 days because their team simply has no chance of winning (which, whether it's fair or not, is the only way we're going to get enough WUs to actually melt those servers).

Megadoomer
(14 items)
 
Family Computer
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X6 1090T @ 4.0Ghz ASUS M4A89GTD PRO Sparkle GTS 450 2x4GB G-Skill Sniper 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung F1 1TB CM Hyper 212+ Windows 7 Professional x64 Samsung T220 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech MX3000 Laser CM 1000M HAF 922 Logitech VX Revolution 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 Asus PN5-D 750i Evga GTS 250 2x2GB Crucial Ballistix 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
750GB Hitachi Samsung Super Writemaster Windows 7 Professional x64 19" Dell 
PowerCase
Corsair 450VX Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
Megadoomer
(14 items)
 
Family Computer
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X6 1090T @ 4.0Ghz ASUS M4A89GTD PRO Sparkle GTS 450 2x4GB G-Skill Sniper 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung F1 1TB CM Hyper 212+ Windows 7 Professional x64 Samsung T220 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech MX3000 Laser CM 1000M HAF 922 Logitech VX Revolution 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 Asus PN5-D 750i Evga GTS 250 2x2GB Crucial Ballistix 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
750GB Hitachi Samsung Super Writemaster Windows 7 Professional x64 19" Dell 
PowerCase
Corsair 450VX Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
post #13 of 314
I have no access to the CC captains forum (Simple Machines) yet. Our captain has not been available due to his workload, so I'm expediting the matter. (I have registered at Simple Machines, but not yet been approved.)

Current recommendation I am making up will have all teams, in both categories. I have not yet informed Xavier of that change. It is logical that only the most productive teams would have a chance at winning the unlimited bracket of the CC (the "straight" or non-handicap bracket).

You can't make a handicap race between such disparate teams, fair. There will always be a troubling unfair part of it. Thus the two brackets. They remove a great deal of it. Again, to repeat, all teams will be included in both brackets. You can't get more fair than that.

There will be two categories - that's it. There will be no plethora of winners -- just two.

My recommendations will NOT prevent team mergers, it will HANDLE teams that merge, in the most even handed way. I am not trying to prevent such team mergers as we saw last year with NCIX and HWC. There is really nothing that can be done to prevent such "mergers", either on a small, or on a large scale. I choose to embrace them, instead.

There is NO PUNISHMENT for merging teams. It's ENCOURAGED! If you have a super computer in your back yeard -- BRING IT! If you have a battery powered abacus that is a folding whiz -- BRING IT!

The more, the merrier!!

The CC last year, was the most competitive CC ever - and I have been here since the very first one. The HWC brought a lot of extra folders from NCIX, but they ALSO brought a lot of new SR-2's (I was following that thread actually), into their team. The only thing that was unfair about it was that the "basis" for the handicap, was taken from non-CC periiods of time. It should have been taken directly from their last CC race results.

That's the beauty of my format for the points - your team is compared ONLY against YOUR OWN TEAM, (which includes those you raced with in the CC last year), to get your handicap -- not other teams.

There is no unfair advantage given to the teams, within their brackets. Each bracket naturally favors teams that suit their format: Large teams will always have an advantage in the unlimited bracket, of course. Less productive teams that surge in the CC, will always have a slight advantage in the handicap bracket, because their handicap, will be larger. But note that a team that folded well last year, will have a higher BASIS, (and thus less of an advantage), for the following year.

It's a beautiful thing, really. The more a team runs away with the trophy one year, they'll have that much less of an advantage in the following year.

Yes, I'm making a detailed comparison with last years data, but I only have the final summaries, and not the update numbers, hour by hour.

Unfortunately, lots of people today don't understand what sports are about. You NEVER quit a race because you can't win it. There is only ONE absolute winner per bracket, in any race (horse, track, cars, swimming, skating, skiing, etc.), but everyone has agreed to compete, and that means do their best, within the rules. EVERY competitor puts in their best efforts, and a bit of their pride, on the line, when they compete. EVERY competitor should be given a pat on the back for making that effort.

You don't see racers quiting the race because they can't win, in any other sporting event. The CC race is no different. It is important for us to keep the race to a reasonable length, however. Some CC's have had teams racing for 3 weeks to finish, and clearly THAT is way too long - since the race was won in one week. smile.gif

We're not trying to make an unfair race, but we believe you can't make such different teams, compete fairly, using a single handicap points formula. Well, you could, but it would be too hard to understand, might still have unexpected pot-holes we could fall into, and we could never sell it to our teammates, without a lot of eyes glazing over.

This is simple, as fair as it should be** and quite workable. Used at tracks all around the world, for years.

** Races are never FAIR. You and I will never be able to compete with Usain Bolt in a sprint, because 1) Our legs lack sufficient length. 2) We don't have that massive amount of fast twitch muscle fibers, and we can't get it, no matter how hard we train.

There are those who would say, to make a race with Usain Bolt FAIR, we should cut 3 inches off his legs, and tear out a bunch of muscle fibers, from each of his legs. Yes, that would make a race with Usain a lot more FAIR -- but is that a race that you really want to watch?

No. You'd eventually wind up with a lot of dwarl like runners, trying to run down the track, at ridiculously slow speeds. smile.gif

VERY few things in life, are really FAIR.
Edited by Adak - 4/11/12 at 3:01pm
post #14 of 314

Apologies for misunderstanding your categories system; sounded like you wanted to separate some of the teams. But I'm still missing some information:

 

• What's the handicap that you're using for category two?

• How do you intend to merge the two categories? If a team is first in one category, and third in the second, how much is that worth?

• If you were to add another category - for example for WU count - wouldn't it also be possible to merge the categories into one formula, with different weighting? Which might actually look simpler than separate categories, but achieve the same result?

 

I'm not saing things have to be 100% equal; of course we're going to have a bit of bias one way or the other. However, what you look for in this kind of competition is relative effort - that's what we tried to do with last year's event. The problem we had was we only went with one variable; production increase. Adding more varibles to last year's system - absolute points, how many people you get to switch over to the team name (WU count would also be nice for points/WU, but it's too easy to manipulate) - would not only give us the competition we had last year, but would swing some of the balance away from the smaller teams, which was in fact the only issue.

 

 

Megadoomer
(14 items)
 
Family Computer
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X6 1090T @ 4.0Ghz ASUS M4A89GTD PRO Sparkle GTS 450 2x4GB G-Skill Sniper 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung F1 1TB CM Hyper 212+ Windows 7 Professional x64 Samsung T220 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech MX3000 Laser CM 1000M HAF 922 Logitech VX Revolution 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 Asus PN5-D 750i Evga GTS 250 2x2GB Crucial Ballistix 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
750GB Hitachi Samsung Super Writemaster Windows 7 Professional x64 19" Dell 
PowerCase
Corsair 450VX Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
Megadoomer
(14 items)
 
Family Computer
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X6 1090T @ 4.0Ghz ASUS M4A89GTD PRO Sparkle GTS 450 2x4GB G-Skill Sniper 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung F1 1TB CM Hyper 212+ Windows 7 Professional x64 Samsung T220 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech MX3000 Laser CM 1000M HAF 922 Logitech VX Revolution 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 Asus PN5-D 750i Evga GTS 250 2x2GB Crucial Ballistix 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
750GB Hitachi Samsung Super Writemaster Windows 7 Professional x64 19" Dell 
PowerCase
Corsair 450VX Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
post #15 of 314
I haven't seen the latest update by Adak yet

Id would be Okay with two winners - just that you can't win both categories
there is no overall - to make a king between the two - so if you win the bottom you get the chimp just like the winner of the top - I'll say it again 2 WINNERS

if you wanted that then you would have to look at OCAU format or One I suggested earlier that had something like that
this is Adak's baby - there was similar talk in by some of the other team this week

I talked to adak - he mention this format - I didn't give it to him
some on EVGA were checking other teams CC threads to see what they were discussing...even me

others like EVGA ,HWC,and OCAU had similar talk on this format - seems the most common ground so we went with it
time was short -we did't have any extra time

EVGA members gave me last week as a deadline to give to the CC for a format & formula - Im already stretch to this week for a contest ..I did this because there was movement
otherwise we be out already

I also haven't seen his latest formula tweak and I wouldn't mind some changes - but nothing complicated (most of the teams agree on this)
and I show Adak your formula ...it was fatally flawed - so there was no using it (the way it was)

EVGA was never against a handicap - just your formula - I offer suggestions - i waited for others to add their own - for heaven sakes it just can't come from the two of us
i suggested tweaks to change yours as well It was your baby - so I wanted you to look at the other stuff and consider them too...

that's what the CC forums was for ...discussing and taking stuff from others to improve your own ideas
then everybody see each others points and develops a better plan/format/formula

as for the suggestion of getting rid of the chimp names I leave to the others - as I pointed out at HWC ..it kills another aspect of the original contest
1/2 the challenge was to get the team moved over - and for people to sacrifice their own gains for the team
I prefer to keep it but I won't stand in it way...even when parts of my team both agree(keep it) with me and some want it gone

I will try to update the CC forums and this thread with Adak's clarified format

just so you know we have bit-tech,HWC,OCAU,EVGA,OCF on board with it - confirmed yes

just OCN,TSC,and TPU left

and MPC as adak has said is out (but I still haven't seen a confirmation)

I have tried everything in the book to get TPU -Ive PM both captains . I've posted on their forums - and they haven't been on the CC forums
TSC is most likely yes - I have talked to them already...waiting for a final response soon


as for getting movement and the discussion rolling - seems the CC forums were a dud... we got more accomplished by opening up the process and talking directly with the teams

Id give the CC forums another try in the future but we have to have more team capts or if capts don't show up for a another to be selected - to take over -
that means we as capts have to visit and talk to the other teams(pm and post) on a more regular basis...part of our jobs

I don't mind that...give the teams to get to know each other more and build some friendships


as for the problems ...when less than 1/2 the teams show up in the CC forums how do you expect to get majority support?
let alone concensus


as for CC data - troy8d(evga) has the last two years of stats data on the CC
Edited by Xavier Zepherious - 4/11/12 at 7:37pm
post #16 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by zodac View Post

Apologies for misunderstanding your categories system; sounded like you wanted to separate some of the teams. But I'm still missing some information:

• What's the handicap that you're using for category two?
• How do you intend to merge the two categories? If a team is first in one category, and third in the second, how much is that worth?
• If you were to add another category - for example for WU count - wouldn't it also be possible to merge the categories into one formula, with different weighting? Which might actually look simpler than separate categories, but achieve the same result?

I'm not saing things have to be 100% equal; of course we're going to have a bit of bias one way or the other. However, what you look for in this kind of competition is relative effort - that's what we tried to do with last year's event. The problem we had was we only went with one variable; production increase. Adding more varibles to last year's system - absolute points, how many people you get to switch over to the team name (WU count would also be nice for points/WU, but it's too easy to manipulate) - would not only give us the competition we had last year, but would swing some of the balance away from the smaller teams, which was in fact the only issue.


What's the handicap that you're using for category two?


um that be last years CC PPD from what I saw - I don't know if adak changed it

How do you intend to merge the two categories? If a team is first in one category, and third in the second, how much is that worth?

no merging categories

there is one winner in the PPD race and 1 winner in the handicap
the winner of one can't win the other ...this gives OCN two tries for a win - if you are so sure EVGA gets #1 outright

EVGA is not so sure in a straight PPD if EVGA has to convert over to the Chimp name
last year: ocn conversion 88% - evga 56%

run the numbers with your MAX MONTH and EVGA MAX month - very close

only 25 % difference in TOTAL TEAM PPM (actually more like 20)
EVGA almost 800M - OCN over 600M - so we are less than 25%


we have that difference in conversion that is 32%(88-56) from last year

if we conclude that if things stay the same you win the upper bracket (you have a 10% margin)


If you were to add another category - for example for WU count - wouldn't it also be possible to merge the categories into one formula, with different weighting? Which might actually look simpler than separate categories, but achieve the same result?

I think I mentioned a system like that in the CC threads once before - sort of a mix of that and OCAU idea if I remember

they want different things to collect - I suggested that too - keep the data - and run the numbers for a tweaked formula in the next year if we had to

I remember a weighting system by position(in each category) If I remember right for overall

it something similar to ideas discuss in our own contest threads
Edited by Xavier Zepherious - 4/11/12 at 8:07pm
post #17 of 314
@Zodac
Quote:
• What's the handicap that you're using for category two?

• How do you intend to merge the two categories? If a team is first in one category, and third in the second, how much is that worth?

• If you were to add another category - for example for WU count - wouldn't it also be possible to merge the categories into one formula, with different weighting? Which might actually look simpler than separate categories, but achieve the same result?



I'm not saing things have to be 100% equal; of course we're going to have a bit of bias one way or the other. However, what you look for in this kind of competition is relative effort - that's what we tried to do with last year's event. The problem we had was we only went with one variable; production increase. Adding more varibles to last year's system - absolute points, how many people you get to switch over to the team name (WU count would also be nice for points/WU, but it's too easy to manipulate) - would not only give us the competition we had last year, but would swing some of the balance away from the smaller teams, which was in fact the only issue.

Each team's handicap is the amount of daily (on average) points they scored in last years CC,

There is no "merging". It's like in Auto racing: You have the top Rail, and the top Stock car, etc. Each is separate. A first place and a third place would be worth a first, and a third place. No more, and no less.

You can't have a bracket for counting wu's, since that would immediately be hugely unfair to teams that fold bigger wu's - especially the -smp wu's.

The Handicap bracket of the race, would be a lot like last year, except the amount of the basis (the handicap itself), would be better. The Unlimited bracket, would be a straight points race.

All teams would be enrolled in both brackets, but realistically, only the larger teams would have a good chance of winning the Unlimited bracket. (Unless a smaller team finds a super computer hiding in their basement, somewhere). smile.gif

@Zodac and Xavier:

I have a formula that appears to evenly handicap both the large and the small teams - however:

1) I haven't had a chance to run it through simulations on it yet, and

2) It might not be as fair as it seems - because the numbers in the CC could be VERY different, from year to year. So what is fair in one year, may not be fair in other years AND I can't defend why it is fair. All I can say about it is that it made the 2011 Chimp Challenge VERY close between the big and the small teams. THAT IS ALL, and I don't believe that is enough to say "Yes, I'm confident this is a fair plan for a one bracket CC".

I am recommending that the team points, in total, be allowed into the CC this year. No switching folding names and passkeys. This is an idea that has been suggested many times over the years, and I believe it should be tried. If we don't like it, we don't do it in the future CC's. I can't keep telling those that suggest it that I'm listening, if I never try and implement their suggestion.

Note that anyone coming in from another team to fold for your team, WOULD have to change their team number, to allow their points to be counted. Any teams that "merge" would have to use just one single team number - not two.

Final say so is up to the Captains, of course.
Edited by Adak - 4/11/12 at 8:03pm
post #18 of 314
Please request troy8d post up the data he has from the last CC, here.

I will not be registering at EVGA - their "required" data, is more than I want to post up.

I've made some changes to the recommendations mentioned above:

1) The race would be a team race - no individuals need to change their folding name or passkey. You would race as a team.

2) The Handicap "Basis" would be calculated differently, to accomodate the team race feature.

This is a rough draft, see what you think.

The format would be the same as last year, EXCEPT:

1) This is a team race. Individuals don't need to sign up, or use a different passkey. Every team folder counts in this race.

2) The Handicap (hereafter called the "basis"), is calculated quite differently. Teams that work together in the race, will be given points just like they were one team, all along. All based on their performance of last year.

Code:

The following table is JUST a projection, to show how the points format being
proposed, works. Nothing personal!! smile.gif

It's a fairly standard format handicap race, except:

1) The basis is calculated based on EITHER the team's prior race performance,
or their average May 2011 folding totals, for ten days - whichever is higher.

and

2) The entire team (and their folding friends), will be racing, not just individuals
within the team.

Whichever team has the greatest increase in folding, compared to last year,
should win the handicap portion of the race!
Code:

  Team         CC actual 2011  Basis    Projected Projected points   Projected race points
               points total             Increase  per day, 2012      per day, 2012
==========================================================================================
C*****imps      43947959     4394795.9    7.9     34718887                79
EVGApes        120279256    12027925.6    7.5     90209442                75
ChimpPwrUp      27266335     2726633.5    6.5     17723118                65
MonkeyBollocks  15149103     1514910.3    6.3      9543935                63
MaxMonkeys      28575342     2857534.2    5.8     16573698                58
Beavers         40660364     4066036.4    5.3     21549993                53
OCNChimpin'    107318736    10731873.6    5.2     55805743                52
T32monkeys      42670316     4267031.6    5.1     21761861                51
TSChimp         45662987     4566298.7    5.1     23288123                51

Basis scores would be either the actual 2011 CC total points divided by 10 or one third the
total team points for May 2011, divided by 10, whichever is higher. This is necessary to accommodate both merging teams, and teams who had a low turnout for the 2011 CC race, but a high number of active team folders.

Please look it over, and let me know if it has an OK points format. Thanks.
post #19 of 314
This is getting way too complicated to be fun anymore, guys. 2 winners? Come on! When did this become the Special Olympics of Folding?
post #20 of 314
You guys just made this a pain in the ass. Good job thumb.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Overclock.net Folding@Home Team
Overclock.net › Forums › Overclockers Care › Overclock.net Folding@Home Team › Chimp Challenge 2012??