Evaluating Adaptive Paired Comparison Experiments
Paired comparison experiments are effective tools when the characteristics of the objects cannot be measured directly. In paired comparison experiments the characteristics of the objects are estimated from the result of the comparisons. The concept of paired comparison experiments was introduced by Thurstone (1927). The method by Scheffé (1952) is widely used for complete paired comparison experiments and the method by Bradley and Terry (1952) is popularly used in incomplete paired comparison experiments.
In incomplete paired comparison experiments, the design of the experiment, that is, how to form the pairs to be compared, is crucial to successful analysis. Many methods including adaptive experimental designs are proposed. The tournament systems in sports and other competitions are typical examples of such designs, but their statistical properties are not fully investigated. In this paper, we discuss how tournament systems may be evaluated and propose a new criterion. We also give examples of evaluating tournaments based on the proposed criterion.
KeywordsPairing System Strong Player Paired Comparison Method Round Robin Tournament Winning Percentage
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Elo AE (1978) The Rating of Chessplayers Past and Present (second edition). ARCOGoogle Scholar
- 3.FIDE Handbook http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp
- 4.Fujino Y, Takeuchi K (1988) Mathematical Science in Sports (in Japanese), Kyoritsu PublishingGoogle Scholar
- 6.Hashimoto T, Nagashima J, Iida H (2002) A proposal of tournament system verification by the simulation –a case study using the World Computer Shogi Championship– (in Japanese). Proc. The 7th Game Programming Workshop, pp 101-108Google Scholar
- 7.ISO 5492:1992 (1992) Sensory Analysis –Vocabulary. ISOGoogle Scholar
- 8.Japan Chess Association. http://www.jca-chess.com/
- 9.Kawai T, Kawashima S, Iida H (2005) A new ranking measurement based on tournament records (in Japanese). IPSJ SIG Technical Report (2005-GI-13), pp 27-34Google Scholar
- 10.Kayama K (2003) Evaluation of Pairing Systems on Swiss-system Tournament by Simulation (in Japanese). Proc. The 8th Game Programming WorkshopGoogle Scholar
- 12.McGarry T, Schutz RW (1997) Efficacy of traditional sport tournament structures. Journal of the Operational Research Society 48:65-74Google Scholar
- 13.Nozaki Y, Minakawa H, Suzuki T (2006) A Study on Ranking Participants in Competitions (in Japanese). Proc. The 36th JSQC Annual Congress, pp 187-190Google Scholar
- 14.Nozaki Y, Minakawa H, Suzuki T (2007) Experimental Design for Adaptive Paired Comparisons. Proc. The 5th ANQ Congress, 10 pages (CD-ROM)Google Scholar
- 15.Sakoda Y, Suzuki T (2005) A Study on Sports Tournament Systems. Proc. The 19th Asia Quality SymposiumGoogle Scholar
- 18.Swiss Perfect Home Page. http://www.swissperfect.com/
- 19.Takizawa T, Kakinoki Y (2002) A Pairing System and Its Effectiveness in the World Computer Shogi Championships (in Japanese). Proc. The 7th Game Programming Workshop, pp 93-100Google Scholar
- 20.Thurstone LL (1927) A Law of Comparative Judgment. Psychological Review 34:278-286Google Scholar