[EM] Round Robins

[Jobst Heitzig]

Dear Dave!

You wrote:
> Agreed you do not need (n-1)*n/2 pairwise comparisons BUT, seems to me
> ROWS went too far:
>      It will happily and efficiently return the CW if there is one.
>      It does not know if there is a cycle, though the winner of the n-1
> comparisons will, at least, be a cycle member.
> 
> Easiest I can think of is another n-1 comparisons to see if the apparent
> winner is CW or only a cycle member and, if a member, keep going til you
> have the complete cycle.

That's a nice suggestion for the "justification" step of the method but
it doesn't change the winner. Or did you mean to say that a method
should not elect a candidate unless it "knows" in which defeat cycles
s/he is?

Yours, Jobst