Hi. I noticed that if you look at the standings in tournament, let's say players A and B have the same score and they both are #1 in the standings. Now player C has less points but just behind players A and B. C should be at #3 but it shows him as #2 instead!
A and B share the first place and while it's ok to show them both as #1, it also means they both share the places #1 and #2, there's no room for C to be there and should instead be #3
Holy Moly, you're quite right - I knew something didn't quite look right, but couldn't place what it was! Good spot, Seimatrap!
Nothing says that it 'should' be like that. What you are referencing is known as 'standard' rankings. What we are using is 'dense' rankings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranking#Dense_ranking_.28.221223.22_ranking.29There is nothing wrong with this system; it helps remove gaps in rankings.
Meh. I can't think of anywhere else this system is used. All professional sports - football, rugby, cricket, even 8-ball pool - use 'standard' rankings. That's why they are 'standard'!
Seimatrap is quite right. IMHO. It ought to be changed tbh - but then lichess belongs to you guys, so it gets run your way. Your prerogative.
Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right.
Anyway, dense rankings make more sense. Presenters for all sorts of sports (like during the Olympic games) read out things like "X and Y are tied for second place". Why not write the same thing down?
I don't think you understood the point, Hellball. Tied for a place is fine... but if three people, for example, are tied for 2nd, I can't see how the person behind them is 3rd. Stands to reason that the next placing is 5th.
What would happen if you had 20 people tied in one place, and one person after that? Would it go:
1st: 20 people
21st: 1 person
That seems a little unfair. Surely that person came technically second.
Think of the Olympics. At Sochi, Slovenia's Tina Maze and Switzerland's Dominique Gisin finished the women's downhill skiing course with identical times of 1 minute, 41.57 seconds.
So what happened? They each got a gold medal, no one got a silver and a third skier got a bronze.
No one said anything was unfair!
When I saw this on the tournament standings, I thought it was a bug. It makes sense to me that if three people are tied for first, and I'm right behind them, I'm in 4th place, not second. Hey, if I'm behind three players, how is that second place? :-)
It's second place because all the others got a joint first place. You're thinking it in terms of people, rather in terms of results and positions.
If 72 people all get the same result in an exam, they all did equally as well as each other; the next best result would then be the second best result, because 72 people got the first best result. So, there may be 72 people with a better result than you, but it is only one result. So, it seems the difference is whether you look at it as the people win, or the results which win.
To me, the results make more sense than the people. It is irrelevant how many people got a certain result, it's the result themselves.
So, 72 people got the best exam result, but that was only one result, which was first place, so 1st(72p). 33 people got the next best result, which is the second best result, so 2nd(33p). And so on...
