Open ssardina opened 3 months ago
Correct, I have commented this in my code:
Now I am running instance 1, which has a cost of 2080, so 2 games not scheduled. It found the optional right away in seconds, but it is finding it hard to prove optimality (that is, prove that we cannot go lower than 2)
I don't understand your claim that it would be just slightly better; this is not just about "amount" of constraints right?
I thought that maybe planning for just unscheduled games would be much much faster, because it is not a numeric constraint and no-goods could get you to the optimal quick. In fact, it does, it gets immediately to 2, but then it gets stuck proving optimality, typical..
With regard to "BTW, we never tested what happens if we totally remove the "close games"optimization. Do we do well without it?"
Have not tested in a proper capacity. It would just be a matter of commenting out the soft constraints and the optimize. I assume it would be very slightly better - intuitively because there is just less to solve per model. Let me know if you really care and I can write up a results table.
Originally posted by @axelahmer in https://github.com/axelahmer/lzcup-scheduler/issues/3#issuecomment-2160632275