Optimal seatings changes

Timo wrote:

Why that ?

What I mean is that the rules which FORBID to have a player playing 5th in 2 different rounds could potentially prevent a better VP/transfer repartition while having no good effect.

Because the more constraints we have, the less possibilities we have. And since possibilities are exponentials, having the tighest constraints is essential to achieve computation.
The rule "COULD potentially prevent" (emphasis mine) some better results. But maybe it doesn't. On 2R it doesn't change anything, I haven't studied 3R yet.
If you have some spare time, try to find one seating where the rule prevents a better seating. If it does, okay we may think about dropping it. If it doesn't, it's a easy way to reduce the number of possible seatings.

Timo wrote:

It is only a constraint of computing time ?

So you will gain some time when checking your conditions and so deleting this rule which is redundant with the rule 7 every time when you have reach a number of player big enough to avoid infringing rule 7 (always for 2R+F as you have pointed out).

And for the few cases where you have to add some odd seatings which would have been already eliminated, I guess the additional compuing time is meaningless compare to the size of the data no ?

If you inforce strictly rule 7 (7. A player doesn't play in the same seat position, if possible.), it cuts branches in the tree of possibilities.

For instance, when I must seat player 4 of a 10-players table, it removes 2 possibilities for 4. Let's say I have 5,6,7,8,9 and 10 to seat afterwards, I'm saving 2 * (5 * 4 * 3 * 2 * 1) possibilities (because there would be 5 possibilities for 5, 4 possibilities for 6, 3 for 7 etc.). A little less in truth because 5, 6, 7... also have constraints, but it's really a huge save.

I'm done with 2R+F computations for up to 31 players. Some computations couldn't have been done exhaustively (the more 5-players tables there is, the more exponential it becomes).

I'm starting to work on 3R+F.

Lönkka wrote:

Last tournament we had (10 plrs with 3R+F) two players were on the same table the whole game. Apparently Marko's deck shut down Tom's pretty well in all of those so he wasn't exactly happy about it.

vekn.net/forum/9-event-reports-and-twd/69254


Used the latest Archon (1,5c) for the first time and I don't reacll if I ever encountered that before with the previous versions.

Not really optimal if you play all three games in the same table as one other player... :/

Archon 1.5c contains the historical seating. The new seatings for 2R+F will be in the next archon.
I haven't started to work on 3R+F yet, but with 10 players, there is a high possiblity that you are obliged to have 2 players share the same table the whole 3 rounds.