Micro O - Technical

[Guest]

...SI design is very deliberately unpowered for idiot proof reliability.

... The SI devices are inductively coupled; the SI Card is dumb (and cheap to produce). But a side effective is that they are slow to read.

I have to say I don't fancy writing any routines until more loop holes in the rules are closed. For example - your example 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 5, 7 - is that one penalty loop or two?

I wouldn't be surprised if it were zero laps; that is the simplest interpration.

[EriOL]

Not necessarily - this is where the game theory comes in .

Suppose you arrive at the wrong rocky patch, you can't see the other one, and reckon there's a 25% chance you're in the right spot. If you continue to navigate down the slope, it'll take 10 secs longer than just legging it to the next control. The penalty loop is, say 16sec...

If you punch the first one, you lose 16sec (penalty) 75% of the time, on average you lose 12 sec.

If you navigate on, you lose 10sec every time, and another 16 seconds 25% percent of the time. On average you lose 14 sec.

So, even though you're 75% sure its the wrong one, its still best to punch the first control you come to.

Live, televised game theory - that'll bring the punters in

Graeme

But what you're not accounting for is the fact that you aren't 100% sure where you are and will probably have problems finding nr 17 as well. Slowing down might pay off later.

Another tactic, that I don't think was used at all at NOC, is to skip control 18, run full speed down the path all the way to the open area and then punch the two most likely controls at 19 while waving and smiling to the puzzled spectators. My estimate is that a runner can save about 15 seconds by not going to 18 with the added bonus of an extra punch available for 19.

[SLOW Geek]

OK... i'm back... trying to write an algorithm for a forth coming Micro-O extravagansa...

I looked at the rules and decided they are so badly worded that they don't make sense.... Please could someone cast their eye over the following and see how it differs from the intended rules...

In particular the rules don't take into account people going back on themselves and taking controls out of order... something that wild orienteers are known to do...

My Penalty Loop calculation...

Let the total number of Micro-O Controls be N

The runner runs the controls and punches either the correct Micro-O controls and/or some of the decoys...
Let the number of correct punches be C and the number of incorrect punches be D. The first correct punch of a Micro-O control is deemed to be correct; a second punch at the same control is interpreted as Incorrect.

Let Extra (E) = max(C+D-N,0)

Let UnadjustedPenalty (U) = N-C+E

AdjustedPenalty (P) = min(U,N)


For example...

A course of three Micro-O controls has the real controls M1, M2 and M3 and a number of dummies M1b, M1c, M2b, M2c, M3b and M3c.

(i)

The competitor runs M1, M2, M3.... C=3, D=0 gives P=0
i.e. Does a perfect run

(ii)

The competitor runs M1b, M2, M3... gives P=1
i.e. Gets M1 wrong and punches decoy M1b instead.


(iii)

The competitor runs M1, M2b, M2c, M2, M3... gives P=2
i.e. Punches two decoys around M2 before finding the correct control.

(iv)

The competitor runs M2, M1, M3... gives P=1
i.e. does the controls out of order.

(v)

The competitor runs M2, M1, M2, M3... gives P=1
i.e. Finds M2 but then remembers they should have gone to M1 first.

(vi)

The competitor runs passed all Micro-O controls gives P=3
i.e. Goes for the fast run approach

(vii)

The competitor runs M1, M1b, M1c, M2, M2b, M2c, M3, M3b and M3c gives P=3
i.e. Punches everything in sight.

(viii)

The competitor runs M1, M2, M2, M3... gives P=1
The competitor punches more than once at a Micro-O control.

Comments please....

[EriOL]

OK... i'm back... trying to write an algorithm for a forth coming Micro-O extravagansa...

I looked at the rules and decided they are so badly worded that they don't make sense.... Please could someone cast their eye over the following and see how it differs from the intended rules...

In particular the rules don't take into account people going back on themselves and taking controls out of order... something that wild orienteers are known to do...

My Penalty Loop calculation...

Let the total number of Micro-O Controls be N

The runner runs the controls and punches either the correct Micro-O controls and/or some of the decoys...
Let the number of correct punches be C and the number of incorrect punches be D. The first correct punch of a Micro-O control is deemed to be correct; a second punch at the same control is interpreted as Incorrect.

Let Extra (E) = max(C+D-N,0)

Let UnadjustedPenalty (U) = N-C+E

AdjustedPenalty (P) = min(U,N)


For example...

A course of three Micro-O controls has the real controls M1, M2 and M3 and a number of dummies M1b, M1c, M2b, M2c, M3b and M3c.

(i)

The competitor runs M1, M2, M3.... C=3, D=0 gives P=0
i.e. Does a perfect run

(ii)

The competitor runs M1b, M2, M3... gives P=1
i.e. Gets M1 wrong and punches decoy M1b instead.


(iii)

The competitor runs M1, M2b, M2c, M2, M3... gives P=2
i.e. Punches two decoys around M2 before finding the correct control.

(iv)

The competitor runs M2, M1, M3... gives P=1
i.e. does the controls out of order.

(v)

The competitor runs M2, M1, M2, M3... gives P=1
i.e. Finds M2 but then remembers they should have gone to M1 first.

(vi)

The competitor runs passed all Micro-O controls gives P=3
i.e. Goes for the fast run approach

(vii)

The competitor runs M1, M1b, M1c, M2, M2b, M2c, M3, M3b and M3c gives P=3
i.e. Punches everything in sight.

(viii)

The competitor runs M1, M2, M2, M3... gives P=1
The competitor punches more than once at a Micro-O control.

Comments please....

(iv) Should give p=2. M2 is the only correct punch.

(v) Should give p=2. The first punch at M2 is the only correct one.

(vii) Should give p=2. The first punch at M1 counts as correct regardless of what the runner does later.

(viii) Should give p=0. The runner shouldn't be punished for obsessive behaviour. (Did I hear a beep or not..?)

Note that these are just my opinions and not at all based on the rules. My reasoning is that a punch at control Mn is only correct if it's done in the first n punches. The number n increases with one for each skipped control.

[SLOW Geek]

Thanks for the response... nice to know someone bothers to read my ramblings...

Note that these are just my opinions and not at all based on the rules. My reasoning is that a punch at control Mn is only correct if it's done in the first n punches. The number n increases with one for each skipped control.

I'm not convinced... In normal O you have to take the controls in order but you are allowed to correct your mistakes...

e.g. a course S, 101, 102, 103, 104, F

can be run as S, 102, 101, 102, 103, 104, F

the penalty is obviously the extra time taken to go to 102 un-necessarily and then back to 101.

The same should apply in Micro-O...

i.e. when the course is M1, M2, M3 you should be allowed to do...

M2, M1, M2, M3 with only a single penalty.

[Paulo]

In summary, from reading the Rules, I agree with SLOWGeek on (i)-(vii), but agree with EriOL on (viii).

From reading the Rules, as far as I can tell:

* Every additional punch gives 1 penalty loop (ie every punch more than 3 gives you 1 penalty loop, up to a maximum of 3 loops) - so this agrees with all of your logic
* Every missing punch gives you 1 penalty loop
* Controls must be visited in correct order

The Rules do not specify that punch 1 has to be control 1, punch 2 has to be control 2 etc. And clearly this is not the intention, as the Rules talks about tactics of missing an early control if you don't know where you are and having 2 goes at a later one.

Therefore on (iv), I agree with SLOWGeek and disagree with EriOL - this should just be 1 penalty loop. Either 2-3 or 1-3 are valid combinations here, but it still results in 1 penalty loop.


In your example (v), there are 4 punches therefore 1 penalty loop, but all 3 controls are there in the right order, therefore no further penalty. Thus 1 penalty loop, as you say.


Interesting point here, in that 2-1-2-3 gives you 1 penalty loop, whereas 2-3 only also gives you one penalty loop - ie if you punch number 2 first and then realise, there is no point going back to number 1, as in punching 2 first you've earnt yourself 1 penalty loop anyway, there is nothing you can do about it.

Point (vii) is indeed 3 penalty loops as there are 3 extra punches.

The only one I disagree on is (viii), purely for the double-punching thing - punching the same control twice in a row shouldn't count as 2 punches, but that should be the only exception.


In summary, tactics wise, as far as I can see there is absolutely no point in punching anything morethan the required number of punches, ie in this example, tactically you have to punch 3 controls (or less). You can try missing one and having 2 goes at another, but whatever you have punched as your first 3 controls, there is no way you can reduce your number of penalty loops by punching a 4th (Can anyone think of an example to disprove this?)

[FatBoy]

I have to confess I've not read all the scenarios listed but I think I stand by my decision to not write one until the rules have settled down!

[Paulo]

Another important point to note from the Rules is the quote:
"If the competitor punches at more controls than there are Micr-o controls the number of correct punches are reduced accordingly. (If there are 6 punches at 5 Micr-o controls, and 3 are correct only 2 will be accepted as there is an additional punching.) Thus there will be 3 penalty loops."

Thus if you punch 1 correctly, and miss no. 2, if you have 3 attempts at punching number 3 (ie 4 punches in total), and get it right at one of them, you get one of your correct punches removed by having had 4 punches, so still end up with 2 penalty laps. Hence again showing you should only punch the required number of controls, no more.

Certainly going 2-1-2-3 would be very stupid, as you waste all the running time of going back to 1 and back to 2 again for no gain.

[Guest]

Thus if you punch 1 correctly, and miss no. 2, if you have 3 attempts at punching number 3 (ie 4 punches in total), and get it right at one of them, you get one of your correct punches removed by having had 4 punches, so still end up with 2 penalty laps. Hence again showing you should only punch the required number of controls, no more.

M1, M3, M3b, M3c

E=max(2+2-3,0)=1
U=3-2+1=2
P=min(2,3)=2

i.e. 2 Penalty Laps


also...

(viii)
The competitor runs M1, M2, M2, M3... gives P=1
The competitor punches more than once at a Micro-O control.

I agree this is a bit mean... SI helps by not recording the punch twice if they are done in quick succession (with no intervening punch by another competitor)... I guess I could filter these out.

I have to confess I've not read all the scenarios listed but I think I stand by my decision to not write one until the rules have settled down!

Having no defined rules won't stop us having an event!

[David May]

Sorry to put a damper on this fascinating analysis, but the next version of the Micr-O Rules is likely to see a simplification of the punching possibilities.

Firstly, competitors WILL now have to punch something (even if a dummy control) at each Micr-O control else they will be disqualified, as in normal orienteering.

Secondly, and again as in normal orienteering, they can punch again if they think they've made a mistake. So, if there are 5 Micr-O controls (another change - reduced from 6) and a runner has 5 correct punches, there will be no penalty loops even if there are several incorrect punches too.

Hope this clears the muddy water a little (and I hope that no one raises the issue of 30 max punches on an SI card at this point too ...)

David

[EriOL]

Sorry to put a damper on this fascinating analysis, but the next version of the Micr-O Rules is likely to see a simplification of the punching possibilities.

Firstly, competitors WILL now have to punch something (even if a dummy control) at each Micr-O control else they will be disqualified, as in normal orienteering.

Secondly, and again as in normal orienteering, they can punch again if they think they've made a mistake. So, if there are 5 Micr-O controls (another change - reduced from 6) and a runner has 5 correct punches, there will be no penalty loops even if there are several incorrect punches too.

Hope this clears the muddy water a little (and I hope that no one raises the issue of 30 max punches on an SI card at this point too ...)

David

Good to hear. I guess everyone agrees that a simplification was in order.

[mikey]

Won't having only 30 available punches on most SI cards make micro-o problematic?

[Simon]

The version 6 cards can take more punches (64 controls) and I would assume that these will be required at any event with Micro-O.

[FatBoy]

Having no defined rules won't stop us having an event!

When's the event? As I expected the rules have had to be tightened because there was holes everywhere.

David - any solutions to the mid-course download with SI yet?

[Paulo]

Secondly, and again as in normal orienteering, they can punch again if they think they've made a mistake. So, if there are 5 Micr-O controls (another change - reduced from 6) and a runner has 5 correct punches, there will be no penalty loops even if there are several incorrect punches too.

So now it doesn't matter if you're sure whether it's your control or not, you just punch everything in sight if you think there's the slightest chance it's your control. Seems to me to be against the original concept of Micr-O?

Does make the programming simpler though.

Gavin, have you worked out how you're going to download the SI cards during the race so that people can run the penalty loops. Looking forward to the event!