The Chattanooga system was developed prior to the first year there was a
separate 18xx Grand Prix tournament (year 3-4 I believe) largely based on input
from Steve Thomas based on a system he told me had been used in England. The
basic difference was to make it different from the puffing billy system. The
main feature of the Puffing Billy system which did not work with an 18xx system
is that with the PB scoring system your score is basically maximized when you
win a very close game. This could lead to players far ahead sandbagging a little
to increase their tournament score. This could lead to a minor kingmaker effect
in altering the finish of the other players which seems unfair to me.

the cap at 70% and 130% which is then tripled was so that no single game score
early in the tournament could secure the win too early or knock someone out.
Steve suggested this specific range and I don't know the specific history behind
it. I know that the bonus for individual opponents played has been tweaked
somewhat over the years but the idea there is to encourage people to seek
different opponents over the weekend. It is not intended to be a major component
of a player's final tournament score but could matter if two players are very
close otherwise. I do think that the system works pretty well and has proven
itself over the 9-10 years it has been used.

In previous years we have offered a featured game bonus to encourage the play of
a new game. Again, it is not intended to be a major score component but to
encourage the play of newer designs. We didn't have a featured game in 2009
since there weren't any widely available new 18xx games published. We have tried
a team tournament for a few years now as well.

Some years we have had a playtester award when we had multiple prototypes
available for play. I think this decentralizes the emphasis on winning the
overall tournament which is fine by me. I am always looking for suggestions for
ways to improve the tournament to make it as much fun for as many people as
possible. I think next year's facility will increase the comfort at least for
everyone and I hope to have another big turnout.




--- In 18xx@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Monical" <mike.monical@...> wrote:
>
> -- In 18xx@yahoogroups.com, Scott Petersen <scott@> wrote:
> >
> > Is Mike Monical the keeper of the scoring system?
>
> No, I just implemented what Dave and Mark came up with. They are
significantly different.
>
> Chattanooga
>
> Place points: .5 per person beat - .5 per person who out scored you.
> + % pts: your score/ave score times 3 cut off at 3.9 and 2.1 (a formula I
think was derived similar to puffing billy)
>
> Portland
>
> Place points: 1 point per person out scored.
> +% pts, winner/ave for winner, score/winners score for everyone else
>
>
> Mike and others, have you
> > put thoughts into this that you could comment on?
> >
>
> While we have discussed seeding in the past I see it as unworkable and
unnecessary. Who would develop, keep or certify results. Even with simple
criteria it would require recording, reporting and tracking. Do we want another
dues paying organization? I think not.
>
> Unnecessary because most of us already know who the sharks are and they are in
demand as opponents. With only one exception, I can think of no time the last
10 years where someone deliberately "gamed" the scoring system and I don't think
that will happen again. The tournaments I have been at have had remarkable
success in getting games organized for everyone and people having fun. Not that
everyone got to play every game they wanted or everyone one but enough to keep
it fun and entertaining for everyone(as far as I know). I do not think anyone
can dispute who won Chattanooga or Portland this year and it would be
interesting to see a scoring system where Bruce did not come out on top any way
you looked at it.
>
> Subscribing to the age old adage, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, talk all
you want but I think any advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.
>