Arimaa Forum
        (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/forum/cgi/YaBB.cgi)
      

        Arimaa >> Events >> 2008 World Championship Discussion
        
(Message started by: Fritzlein on Jan 4th, 2008, 11:36pm)
Title: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Jan 4th, 2008, 11:36pm
It looks like registration has closed for the 2008 World Championship.  Perhaps the finer points of some rules still need to be ironed out in the 2008 World Championship Format (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/forum/cgi/YaBB.cgi?board=talk;action=display;num=1191466059) thread, but soon the players will mark their time slots for first round games, the pairings will be up, and the games will begin, so it is high time to open a commentary thread.

We have twenty-six players registered, which is a record, but from only nine countries, down from ten last year.  With ten of the players being Omar's relatives, this tournament will be much more of a family feud than in years past.

Twelve of this year's players also participated in last year's championship, an increase from nine returning players then.  The average increase in rating among the returning players is 107 points.  This is quite similar to the 119-point year-on-year increase for returning players between 2006 and 2007.  Since bot ratings aren't inflating (at least not obviously) the increase of about 100 points per year in human ratings probably reflects a continuing increase in human understanding of Arimaa.

Each of the four previous World Champions (Belbo, Fritzlein, robinson, and chessandgo) learned the game within a year of taking the title.  Belbo and robinson are not playing this year, but perhaps one of chessandgo and Fritzlein, the top two seeds, will become the first repeat champion.  Or will history repeat itself by crowning a newcomer champion?  This year the highest-rated newcomer is mistre, the ninth seed.  

Even if a newcomer doesn't win, the champion need not be one of the previous title holders.  PMertens finished third in 2006 and second in 2007.  His upward trajectory is clear.  Also 99of9, naveed, and omar bring valuable experience to the table; each has played in every Arimaa World Championship so far.  Keep an eye out for Adanac, runner up in 2006; he has played more training games in recent weeks than anyone.

The greater number of players and the new format this year means there will be about 95 games played, compared to the 40 games last year.  Everyone is guaranteed six games regardless of results, and the Swiss pairing should make for many competitive games after the obligatory early-round blowouts.  In the last two rounds especially, every game should be a nearly equal match.

After six rounds, the top eight players will have their losses forgiven, and enter a double-elimination final for approximately six more rounds.  At a pace of one round per week, it should be near the end of March when the 2008 Arimaa World Champion is crowned.

To be in the top eight after six rounds will certainly require four wins.  Will it require more?  There might be eight, nine, or ten players with at least four wins.  The tiebreaker, if necessary, to determine whether you advance to the finals, is the number of wins your six opponents scored.  Always root for the people you play to do well, starting after you play them!  The coveted top seed into the finals automatically goes to the player who manages to win all six preliminary rounds, or if no one does, to the one-loss player with the best tiebreaker.

The most exciting thing about the upcoming tournament is that so far nobody truly understands how to play Arimaa.  The simple question of whether it is advantageous or disadvantageous to advance horses in the opening is still unanswered.  Surely it depends on the situation, but we don't know much more than that.  Anything can happen in any given game.  Stay tuned for updates from your friendly Event Reporter as the tournament gets underway.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by chessandgo on Jan 5th, 2008, 7:43am
we're certainly staying tuned, waiting for more ! :)
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Jan 5th, 2008, 9:37am
Of course, everyone is welcome to comment here on the progress of the tournament, not just the Event Reporter. ;)
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by omar on Jan 5th, 2008, 4:49pm
My little nephew Emaad set off an avalanche of kids registering for the WC tournament. I'm not exactly sure why he signed up, but when I was talking to him about how it works my other nephews (Sulaiman and Danyal) heard and signed up also. Then when my kids found out they all signed up too.  It got to be such an "in" thing that even Emaad's little brother Fraaz who had never played before also wanted to sign up. I guess it helped that I offered to cover their registration fee and buy them the commemorative t-shirts :-)

So the first few rounds will probably see some of our best players matched against the kids. But eventually the kids will get some official games against each other. Those games will be pretty fun to watch. I figured this fits in perfectly with the intent of the Open Classic part of the tournament allowing for anyone to take part and get some good/fun interactive games. This will definitely give the kids some exposure to how the WC works and maybe they might sign up again in future years.

For the initial ranking of the players I ended up using the current ratings. I had planned to use something like the P8 ratings restricted to the past years human-human games, but didn't get a chance to write the program to do this. Karl (Fritzlein) looked at possibly using the power rankings proposed by The_Jeh.

http://arimaa.com/arimaa/forum/cgi/YaBB.cgi?board=talk;action=display;num=1194066650;start=0#0

but decided that the regular ratings seemed better especially for players who did not play many games against humans.

Well I'm going to run the pairing program soon and send off the emails. Looking forward to a fun tournament.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by omar on Jan 5th, 2008, 5:01pm

on 01/04/08 at 23:36:00, Fritzlein wrote:
Stay tuned for updates from your friendly Event Reporter as the tournament gets underway.


Are you also going to post these comments into a blog entry like you did last year? Its nice that everyone can add comments here, but I really enjoyed reading your uninterrupted blog entry last year.

http://katieandkarl.pbwiki.com/
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Jan 5th, 2008, 8:38pm
I was planning to write my commentary only in this thread this year.   Would you prefer if I wrote in the Arimaa Wiki instead?
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by leo on Jan 6th, 2008, 1:15am
I'd suggest the blog or the wiki, but copying the new parts of it into this thread so that it be easier to discuss them. If this is not too much a hassle I mean.

This avalanche of kids is really funny good news :)
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Jan 7th, 2008, 8:54am
The pairings are up for the first round, and it looks bleak for the bottom half of the seeds.  The minimum rating gap is 474 points, and the mismatches go all the way up to 924 points.  According to the game room rating formula, that means the favorites each have between 93.8% and 99.5% chance to win.

Collectively, however, the underdogs can pin their hopes on this calculation: there is a 33% chance that at least one of the thirteen games will be an upset.  Fight to the death; there is always a chance your opponent's computer will crash!
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Jan 13th, 2008, 2:35pm
Due to popular demand, game commentary has been moved off-thread.  Round one commentary is available here: http://katieandkarl.pbwiki.com/FrontPage
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Jan 20th, 2008, 6:43pm
Round two commentary is up.  We have sadly had five forfeits so far, but of the twenty-one games actually played, there have been no upsets over the board.  Also (fortunately) the four games decided on time were all clearly worse on the board for the player timing out.  Apparently a flaky Internet connection hasn't cost anyone a game yet.

What are the odds of no over-the-board upsets in round three?  Anyone want to make a bet?
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by omar on Jan 21st, 2008, 8:58am
This round has games with pretty closely matched players. I would expect at least one upset this round; not including forfeits or timeouts.

In the first sentence of the Round Three section I think you meant to say 'round two'.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Jan 21st, 2008, 9:48am

on 01/21/08 at 08:58:42, omar wrote:
This round has games with pretty closely matched players. I would expect at least one upset this round; not including forfeits or timeouts.

Would you lay me three to one odds?  Too bad the prediction contest hasn't started yet, so we can't make a bet.  :-)


Quote:
In the first sentence of the Round Three section I think you meant to say 'round two'.

Fixed.  Thanks.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by mistre on Jan 21st, 2008, 2:44pm
I would say we have a 50-50 chance of having at least 1 upset in round 3, so I would take the 3 to 1 odds for a upset.  

Froody vs Naveed should be a tight match.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Jan 21st, 2008, 5:39pm
Also Adanac vs. PMertens has been entertaining in the past.  It will be hard to call that game an upset no matter who wins.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Jan 24th, 2008, 8:12am
PMertens is playing at 3:00 in the morning his local time?  I have a hard time believing his sleep schedule is so disturbed.  Or is he visiting the States this week?
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Jan 26th, 2008, 9:24am

on 01/21/08 at 17:39:36, Fritzlein wrote:
Also Adanac vs. PMertens has been entertaining in the past.  It will be hard to call that game an upset no matter who wins.

Just as I predicted, the game was highly entertaining, and the result was not an upset!
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by mistre on Jan 26th, 2008, 11:50am
So is Froody beating Naveed an upset?  Froody has a lower rating, but had a P8 rating of 7 higher than Naveed at the time of the match.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Janzert on Jan 26th, 2008, 2:10pm
I think the seed ratings should count for upsets. (I need a bikeshed (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/misc.html#BIKESHED-PAINTING) smiley*)

Janzert

*But of course I have to be able to set the color :P
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Jan 28th, 2008, 11:19am

on 01/26/08 at 11:50:38, mistre wrote:
So is Froody beating Naveed an upset?  Froody has a lower rating, but had a P8 rating of 7 higher than Naveed at the time of the match.

The best way to tell what is an upset is by who the spectators bet on.  ;-)  But since the spectator contest hasn't started yet, we might as well go by the seeding.  That means two upsets in round three: froody beat naveed; woh beat omar.

Unless round four sees a stunning upset of subs2000 beating naveed, the distribution of records after round four will be 2-6-10-6-2 (i.e. 2 players with no losses, 6 players with one loss, etc.).  That would guarantee a distribution of 1-4-8-8-4-1 heading into the final round.  Five players would already have four or more wins, and eight players would be 3-2, needing a win stay in the running for the finals.

The top 3-2 player will have to play up against the bottom 4-1 player, and will definitely qualify for the finals with a win.  The bottom 3-2 player will have to play down against the top 2-3 player, and will probably not qualify even with a win.  The results of these two matches will determine whether there are eight, nine, or ten players with at least four wins by the end of round six.

The middle six 3-2 players will play each other, with the three losers being out for sure, and the three winners probably but not necessarily qualifying, depending on how their opponents from the first five rounds do in the last round to affect tiebreak points.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by RonWeasley on Jan 28th, 2008, 12:36pm
This brings up an effect of a player forfeiting all or most matches.  The wins the forfeiting player might have had do not contribute to the tie breaker scores of their opponents.  So forfiets are annoying in yet another way.  This is not as bad as intentional losses to help "teammates", as has been alleged in Swiss system events in chess for decades.  I thought a little about whether an intentional loss could be used to obtain easier opponents later in the tournament, to somehow improve the chance of getting a qualifying win-loss record, but I think the expected value of a player's qualifying score is maximized if every game is played at one's highest level.

For the record, here is a proposed rule for next year some of us have discussed in the chat.  A player who forfeits is disqualified from the tournament unless that player asks for, and is granted, permission to continue by the tournament director.  In general, we expect players who sincerely want to continue, but missed a game due to extenuating circumstances, to ask and be permitted to continue.  A player who essentially abandons the tournament need not take any action as it will be assumed that player will not return and no games will be scheduled for that player.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Adanac on Jan 28th, 2008, 1:51pm

on 01/28/08 at 12:36:52, RonWeasley wrote:
This brings up an effect of a player forfeiting all or most matches.  The wins the forfeiting player might have had do not contribute to the tie breaker scores of their opponents.  So forfiets are annoying in yet another way.  This is not as bad as intentional losses to help "teammates", as has been alleged in Swiss system events in chess for decades.  I thought a little about whether an intentional loss could be used to obtain easier opponents later in the tournament, to somehow improve the chance of getting a qualifying win-loss record, but I think the expected value of a player's qualifying score is maximized if every game is played at one's highest level.

For the record, here is a proposed rule for next year some of us have discussed in the chat.  A player who forfeits is disqualified from the tournament unless that player asks for, and is granted, permission to continue by the tournament director.  In general, we expect players who sincerely want to continue, but missed a game due to extenuating circumstances, to ask and be permitted to continue.  A player who essentially abandons the tournament need not take any action as it will be assumed that player will not return and no games will be scheduled for that player.


I really liked the strength of schedule system when I read the rules pre-January 8th.  It's a big improvement over giving tie-breakers based upon ratings.  Unfortunately, it creates 2 problems that now seem all to obvious:
(1) Players that forfeit their games unfairly penalize their opponent(s), even if (especially if?) they're booted out after 1 round.
(2) Players with meaningless late round games can lose intentionally to help their friends that need tie-breaker help.

Is there an easy way to fix these problems?  We could brain-storm new ideas for next year like re-calculating the strength of schedule for the top players before the final round, using only the scores of the players still in contention.  However, I wouldn't be surprised if that fixes one set of problems while creating new ones.  It's too bad, because the 2008 WC has a great system in theory.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by The_Jeh on Jan 28th, 2008, 2:45pm
Just an offer for next time - I could break any ties by inputting tournament games into the Bradley-Terry model.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by mistre on Jan 28th, 2008, 2:46pm
Couldn't Head-to-Head, if applicable, be the first tie-breaker before looking at Strength of schedule?

Otherwise, I think Strength of schedule is the best method.

Karl,  can you explain your SOS column on your standings table?
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Jan 28th, 2008, 5:06pm

on 01/28/08 at 14:46:18, mistre wrote:
Karl,  can you explain your SOS column on your standings table?

At the moment, SoS is the sum of the wins of your first three opponents.  When I get a chance I will add in the wins of everyone's present (fourth round) opponent.  As the round progresses, whenever I enter the result of a game, I increment the SoS of all the opponents of the winner.  This helps me keep track, but makes SoS difficult to compare mid-round.


Quote:
Couldn't Head-to-Head, if applicable, be the first tie-breaker before looking at Strength of schedule?

I have a strong dislike of Head-to-Head as a method of breaking ties.  If two players have identical 4-2 records, the player with the better performance is clearly the one who player tougher opponents overall.  Focusing on the result of the one game the two played against each other is a way to base the decision on as little information information as possible, rather than on as much information as possible.  The present strength of schedule system is somewhat random, but head-to-head would be more random because it uses less information.

Other ways to use as less information than the entire strength of schedule include: Whoever beat the toughest opponent is best ("quality win" theory); Whoever was defeated by the weaker opponent is worst ("embarrassing loss" theory); Whoever lost later in the tournament is worse ("peaking late" theory).  All of these methods and other crazy fixations are used by humans to rank college football teams, because it is frankly information overload for humans to make a decision on the basis of an entire season.  We seek out simple rules of thumb, no matter how arbitrary or unfair, because we can't stand the thought that it would take a pocket calculator to be accurate and fair in our judgments.

Head-to-head, however, has the additional problem that it is a headache to apply unless the there are only two tied players.  In our case we will have three to five players tied at 4-2 records, which means there can easily be circularities within the group (i.e. A beat B beat C beat A).  Even if you implement measures to resolve circularities, their bare existence undermines the whole notion that X beating Y shows that X is better regardless of all the other game results.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Jan 28th, 2008, 5:23pm
In the old discussions of tournament format, I argued the whole way for pure elimination tournaments, because that is the only way to rule out collusion.  Not only is collusion ineffective in elimination format, everyone who is still playing is still in contention for the title, and thus has the original incentive to play to win.

Swiss and round-robin tournaments will always be vulnerable to collusion.  Moreover, the temptation to collusion is exacerbated among the people who are out of contention.  Since everyone plays every round, players who are eliminated from contention have nothing to lose by losing on purpose to help a friend.  Less sinister but more common in non-elimination tournament, people who are out of contention lose motivation to even play, and fail to show up for their games, distorting the standings.

The current strength of schedule tiebreaker is manifestly unfair.  PMertens, for example, has been hurt, through no fault of his own, that his first-round opponent hasn't showed up for any later games.  That said, the strength of schedule is not entirely out of the players' control.  By winning early rounds, players earn tougher pairings in later rounds, which earn them more tie-break points.  If I win my first four and then lose my last two (a genuine possibility) I will probably have more tiebreaker points than some whose record was WLWLWW.  In round five when he was playing someone 2-2, I would have been playing someone who was 4-0.

As for changing the format for next year, I am of two minds.  On the one hand, the Swiss tiebreaker isn't totally unfair, and it will only affect folks in the range #7 - #10 in measured performance, and those folks probably aren't likely to win the World Championship even if they make the finals.  So why not have a friendlier tournament server as the qualifier for the cut-throat finals?

On the other hand, maybe we shouldn't overload the World Championship tournament with too many objectives.  If we want a friendly tournament, let's wait for summer and play six rounds of the level tournament we're talking about in another thread, not worrying so much about fairness and winning as fun.  Then we can make the World Championship into a triple-elimination, take-no-prisoners, we-don't-care-if-we-hurt-someone's-feelings type of event.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Jan 28th, 2008, 5:35pm

on 01/28/08 at 14:45:10, The_Jeh wrote:
Just an offer for next time - I could break any ties by inputting tournament games into the Bradley-Terry model.

That's an interesting offer.  When this tournament is over, I will be very curious to see how closely the ranking produced by your model agrees with the ranking produced by the tournament rules.  If we all look at the two rankings and decide that your list is more reasonable than the official one, then that might be the way to go for next year.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by The_Jeh on Jan 28th, 2008, 6:14pm
Thank you, Fritzlein.

By the way, there's one sure way to avoid being a victim of collusion: don't lose.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by jdb on Jan 28th, 2008, 6:18pm
The following link talks about tiebreakers:

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/egftsr.html


If two players are tied, head to head (assuming they played) is a better tie breaker than SoS. SoS uses different information than head to head. SoS uses more information, but the information used by head to head is of a much greater quality.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Jan 28th, 2008, 7:48pm
Hmm, JDB, the link you provided says only the following about head-to-head tiebreaker: "Direct Comparison: Provided it can be applied at all, it is very meaningful because it might be interpreted as an already performed knockout playoff among the tied players. So, for the final results, generally it should be the first or even the only tiebreaker."

I find this argument entirely unpersuasive.  Suppose for example that I beat Adanac in round four but lose to chessandgo and 99of9 in the two following rounds.  Suppose meanwhile that Adanac comes back to beat chessango in the final round so that Adanac and chessandgo each finish 5-1.  Which of them should get the top seed into the final?

Applying the argument of your linked page, Adanac's victory over chessandgo can be viewed as an "already performed knockout playoff" between the two players, so Adanac is #1.  But if one loss is enough to "knockout" chessandgo, why wasn't Adanac's loss to me two rounds earlier enough to knock him out?

Why is Adanac's victory over chessandgo more meaningful than Adanac's loss to me, and chessandgo's victory over me?  There is a circularity of dominance, but it is not considered because I finished 4-2 and am ignored by the tiebreak.

Consider the absurdity that head-to-head picks Adanac over chessandgo, unless I happen to win my final game.  If I win, then I am also 5-1.  Suddenly we have a three-way tie for head-to-head as the tied players are all 1-1 against each other.  How did losing my game in the one scenario prove that Adanac was better than chessandgo, while while my winning in the other scenario evened it up?  And they talk about SoS having a luck component!

In the scenarios I describe, I was an opponent of both tied players, so how I do in my other games should reflect identically on both of them.  If I win my other games it should make them both look better, and if I lose my other games it should make them both look worse.  I don't see how you can determine which of the two performed better overall without looking at their other four opponents, and seeing which of them played tougher competition apart from me, their common opponent.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by The_Jeh on Jan 28th, 2008, 8:02pm

on 01/28/08 at 19:48:36, Fritzlein wrote:
 I don't see how you can determine which of the two performed better overall without looking at their other four opponents, and seeing which of them played tougher competition apart from me, their common opponent.


...which is exactly why the Bradley-Terry model is so brilliant. All games are interconnected. It considers your record, your opponents' records, your opponents' opponents' records, your opponents' opponents' opponents' records, etc. etc., out to an infinite degree. So rather than looking at head-to-head matchups or common opponents, we are breaking the tie by considering all paths of comparison, each weighted naturally, no matter how remote.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Adanac on Jan 28th, 2008, 8:14pm

on 01/28/08 at 17:23:51, Fritzlein wrote:
On the other hand, maybe we shouldn't overload the World Championship tournament with too many objectives.  If we want a friendly tournament, let's wait for summer and play six rounds of the level tournament we're talking about in another thread, not worrying so much about fairness and winning as fun.  Then we can make the World Championship into a triple-elimination, take-no-prisoners, we-don't-care-if-we-hurt-someone's-feelings type of event.


I'm definitely in agreement with the triple-elimination idea now.  A few weeks ago I loved the idea of having a qualifier for the WC that gave everyone had a shot at the #1 seed in the final 8, regardless of rating.  But upon reflection, I now prefer a simple, fair, control-your-own-destiny triple elimination tournament.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Jan 29th, 2008, 1:20am
Round 3 commentary is up.  I promise it doesn't contain any rantings about tie-breaking methods...   ::)

I guess we can add to the list of appealing traits of elimination tournaments: there is less controversy if everyone controls their own destiny.  Of course losing once or less in the preliminaries is a way to automatically advance even under the current rules, but for someone who does lose twice, it could be very tough to miss the finals while another two-loss player advances due to results in the bottom of the bracket.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by PMertens on Feb 3rd, 2008, 7:20am
I herewith officially resign from  the tourney ...
My newborn daughter and her older brother (and my wife and my job) are making it impossible for me to find the time.

sorry
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by RonWeasley on Feb 3rd, 2008, 10:51am
As TD I must say we are officially disappointed to lose one of the primary contenders from the tournament.  However, I realize family comes first and I know how much work a baby can be.  It's very hard to find two consecutive uninterrupted hours every week.

Thank you, PMertens, for trying to play and especially for notifying the tournament of your withdrawal.  This helps our organization of the remaining rounds.

You will be missed.  I hope you can spectate when you are available.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by omar on Feb 3rd, 2008, 11:05am
Really sorry to hear about that Paul. We will miss your exciting play style.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by RonWeasley on Feb 3rd, 2008, 12:45pm
Just to clarify, a player who withdraws does not get paired in subsequent rounds.  So PMertens will not be paired with another 2-2 player.  Instead, the bottom ranked player of rounds 5 and 6 will receive a bye according to the pairing rules.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Feb 3rd, 2008, 3:40pm

on 02/03/08 at 12:45:17, RonWeasley wrote:
Just to clarify, a player who withdraws does not get paired in subsequent rounds.  So PMertens will not be paired with another 2-2 player.  Instead, the bottom ranked player of rounds 5 and 6 will receive a bye according to the pairing rules.

This ruling improves the situation for players on the bubble of making the final eight.  Formerly there were going to zero, one, or two players with two losses that didn't qualify.  Now it is very unlikely there will be two players left out in the cold, and more likely there will be zero than one.  Everyone who is still in contention just gained a little bit more control over their own destiny.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by The_Jeh on Feb 3rd, 2008, 3:41pm
Here are the WC standings after round four according to the current system on the left and the 1:1 Bradley-Terry model on the right. Wins are in parentheses on the side.

Wins Rank Official................Bradley-Terry
(4)  1. Fritzlein....................chessandgo
    2. chessandgo....................Fritzlein
(3)  3. 99of9.............................99of9
    4. Adanac....................arimaa_master
    5. arimaa_master....................Adanac
    6. jdb.................................jdb
    7. camelback...........................woh
    8. woh...........................camelback
(2)  9. naveed...........................froody
   10. mistre...........................mistre
   11. fritzlforpresident...fritzlforpresident
   12. froody...........................naveed
   13. PMertens.......................ArifSyed
   14. ArifSyed.......................PMertens
   15. omar..............................Emaad
   16. Emaad..............................Omar
   17. ChrisB...........................ChrisB
   18. subs2000.......................subs2000
(1) 19. Aamir.............................Fisma
   20. Fisma.............................Aamir
   21. silump5.........................silump5
   22. Amina.............................Amina
   23. soldier.........................soldier
   24. Sana...............................Sana    
(0) 25. megamau.........................megamau
   26. zackry...........................zackry

Interestingly, at this point the differences are minimal.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Feb 3rd, 2008, 4:00pm
Yeah, quite small differences.  The biggest rank movers are naveed and froody changing places.  Maybe the crude strength of schedule isn't so bad after all...
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by camelback on Feb 3rd, 2008, 7:22pm

on 02/03/08 at 12:45:17, RonWeasley wrote:
Just to clarify, a player who withdraws does not get paired in subsequent rounds.  So PMertens will not be paired with another 2-2 player.  Instead, the bottom ranked player of rounds 5 and 6 will receive a bye according to the pairing rules.


So the current pairing is wrong?
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by mistre on Feb 3rd, 2008, 10:08pm
I am wondering if this is going to change the pairings too...
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by omar on Feb 4th, 2008, 12:39am
I changed the pairing program to allow removing some players and re-ran it. You should have received an updated email with the new pairing even though for most people the opponent did not change, but the color may have.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by 99of9 on Feb 5th, 2008, 3:20pm
game times seem wrong in the gameroom

the email said my game is at
Sat 11:00 am YLT

but in the gameroom it shows as
Sat 12:00 am

anyone else have this issue?
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by 99of9 on Feb 6th, 2008, 1:18am

on 02/05/08 at 15:20:03, 99of9 wrote:
game times seem wrong in the gameroom

The problem seems to have gone away.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by RonWeasley on Feb 10th, 2008, 2:25pm
Just to clarify, The tourament coverage page lists zackry as withdrawn.  I haven't received any notification that zackry has actually withdrawn.  Even though he has not shown up for any games, current rules indicate he got a bye in round five.  That counts as a win with no SoS points.

For round 6, zackry is tied at the bottom with only one win, but has the lowest SoS total, so he gets the bye again.

This has the same effect as withdrawing, but we should score it correctly.  In the final standings, he will have 2 wins, both byes.

If zackry, has told anybody that he withdrew, please bring it to my attention.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by The_Jeh on Feb 10th, 2008, 2:50pm
Here are the WC standings after round five. The first column lists the standings in official order. The second column lists the standings according to Bradley-Terry order, forfeits counted. The third column lists the standings according to Bradley-Terry, forfeits not counted. Neither of the Bradley-Terry models are ordered strictly as tiebreakers of the official order, but the one that counts forfeits happens not to put any players with fewer wins higher than players with more wins, anyway. The one that does not count forfeits is mixed-up in this manner.

Wins Rank Official ................... Bradley-Terry  BT w/o Forfeits
(5)  1. Fritzlein .........................Fritzlein  Fritzlein  
(4)  2. chessandgo .......................chessandgo  chessandgo
    3. arimaa_master ................ arimaa_master  arimaa_master
    4. 99of9 ............................... Adanac  Adanac
    5. Adanac ............................... 99of9  99of9
(3)  6. jdb .................................... jdb  jdb
    7. naveed ................................. woh  froody
    8. woh ................................. froody  naveed
    9. fritzlforpresident ...... fritzlforpresident  woh
   10. froody ........................... camelback  PMertens
   11. camelback ........................... naveed  omar
   12. omar .................................. omar  fritzlforpresident
(2) 13. mistre .......................... (PMertens)  camelback
   14. ArifSyed ............................ mistre  mistre
   15. Aamir ............................. ArifSyed  ArifSyed
   16. Emaad ................................ Emaad  Emaad
   17. ChrisB ............................... Aamir  subs2000
   18. (PMertens) .......................... ChrisB  ChrisB
   19. silump5 .............................. Amina  Amina
   20. Amina .............................. silump5  silump5
   21. subs2000 .......................... subs2000  Aamir
(1) 22. megamau .............................. Fisma  megamau
   23. Fisma .............................. megamau  Fisma
   24. soldier ............................ soldier  Sana
   25. Sana .................................. Sana  soldier
(0) 26. zackry .............................. zackry  [zackry]{played no games}
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Feb 10th, 2008, 2:52pm

on 02/10/08 at 14:25:22, RonWeasley wrote:
JIf zackry, has told anybody that he withdrew, please bring it to my attention.

Omar mentioned that he called his brother, zackry's father, before round five to ask whether zackry was going to play the final two rounds, and he confirmed that he wouldn't, making it a withdrawal rather than a bye.  If we thought zackry might show up, I agree with the bye rule, but since we knew he wouldn't (even though zackry had to be asked rather than informing us on his own), I think it amounts to a withdrawal.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Feb 10th, 2008, 2:59pm

on 02/10/08 at 14:50:40, The_Jeh wrote:
The second column lists the standings according to Bradley-Terry order, forfeits counted.

Again, hardly any difference with the official standings.  The clincher will come after the sixth round, when we look at places seven through ten, the folks who barely made it in and the folks who barely didn't make it in.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by omar on Feb 10th, 2008, 4:10pm

on 02/10/08 at 14:25:22, RonWeasley wrote:
If zackry, has told anybody that he withdrew, please bring it to my attention.


Ned I had tried to send this email to you. Seems you didn't get it.


Quote:
Ned, I talked with my brother (father of zackery)
and confirmed that zackery also will not be
playing the remainder of the tournament. So
I am assuming that you would declare him to also
be removed from the tournament. zackery was going
to get a bye this round anyways. So I will remove
both PMertens and zackery from the tournament
before doing the pairing and sending out an updated
email to the players.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by omar on Feb 10th, 2008, 4:16pm
After I did the pairing for round 6, Karl noticed that it was not correct. We noticed that the pairing alg was ordering the players by least player loses and opponent losses as opposed to highest wins and opponent wins. It did not matter before, but now that two players had withdrawn it was producing the wrong results. Since the tournament rules said the later, I decided to change the alg to match that. Karl checked the new pairing and it matched what he was expecting.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by RonWeasley on Feb 10th, 2008, 7:03pm
Thanx for the information on zackry.  I found the e-mail, sent in timely fashion, and don't know why I didn't see it earlier.  Some kind of invisibility jinx.  Anyway, things were handled just right and I'm in a happy place.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Feb 10th, 2008, 7:06pm
Round 5 commentary is up.  Thank you so much, Adanac, for automating the cross-table and taking on half the games for commenting.  One more round to go, and then the number of games finally drops to a manageable number.  :)
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by woh on Feb 11th, 2008, 6:20am
Thanks, Fritzlein and Adanac, for the great commentary on the games. I always enjoy reading them. And they give me a better understanding of what is going on in the games, even in me own games. (Now I know I could have captured one of arimaa_master's dogs for free, I suppose one isn't expecting such a chance and doesn't look for it.)

Thanks again for all the time and effort you both have put into it.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Janzert on Feb 11th, 2008, 4:50pm
Great commentary once again. At least after next week you start to get a break in the number of games that need to be reported. ;)

It appears that the text in the froody vs ChrisB analysis got a bit mangled


Quote:
With the f6 trap uncontested, silver was able to trap a gold rabbit for the first gold had quietly advanced his dog to a7 to h capture of the game. While silver had grabbed an early material advantage,elp free the horse from c6.


Janzert
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Adanac on Feb 14th, 2008, 11:25am
I had a quiet morning at work and I'm excited about the final round so…..I ran all 4096 possible permutations of the final round (assuming there’s no double-forfeits or anything like that) and here's a quick summary:

- Four players are guaranteed to make the top 8 and eight other players still have a shot.

- Fritzlein can do no worse than 2nd, and may finish first even with a loss.

- Chessandgo is the only player that can possibly pass Fritzlein and is guaranteed 3rd or better with a win.

- Arimaa_Master and 99of9 cannot pass Fritzlein but are each guaranteed either 2nd or 3rd place with a victory.  Arimaa_master has 128 scenarios where he can still finish 3rd with a final round loss and 99of9 has 416 scenarios where he can finish 3rd with a loss.

- Adanac will miss the Double-Elimination tournament in 40 out of 4096 scenarios, but is guaranteed 8th or better with a victory or a win by Omar, or a win by camelback or a win by woh, plus several other scenarios.  With a victory, Adanac finishes 3rd with a 99of9 of loss or 4th with a 99of9 win.

- JDB is the only player with 3 wins that is guaranteed to qualify for the Double Elimination tournament with a victory.  Other players with 3 victories can guarantee a top 8 finish with a victory themselves combined with a loss by JDB, plus many other scenarios.  Omar and Camelback have slightly lower odds than most of the pack, but each still have at least 128 scenarios to qualify even with a win by JDB.

To read the table:  W: x-y means the player will finish between xth and yth place with a win.  Similar for a loss in the next column.

chessandgo       W:1-3  L:3-5
Fritzlein       W:1-1  L:1-2
99of9       W:2-3  L:3-6
Adanac       W:3-4  L:5-9
arimaa master       W:2-3  L:3-7
jdb       W:4-8  L:9-13
naveed       W:4-9  L:9-13
mistre       W:9-15  L:17-19
Arif_Syed       W:10-15  L:17-20
omar       W:6-9  L:11-15
camelback       W:6-9  L:9-14
woh       W:5-9  L:9-13
megamau       W:17-22  L:24-24
fritzlforpresident       W:4-9  L:9-15
froody       W:5-9  L:9-15
ChrisB       W:12-16  L:17-21
Aamir       W:12-16  L:17-21
Fisma       W:18-23  L:24-25
silump5       W:12-16  L:17-21
Amina       W:15-16  L:19-23
soldier       W:21-23  L:24-25
subs2000       W:14-16  L:18-23
Sana       W:21-23  L:24-25
Emaad       W:11-16  L:17-21
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Adanac on Feb 16th, 2008, 3:16pm
Aamir's victory guaranteed 7th place for Woh.  The final standings are now becoming more apparent, with only 2 games left to influence the final standings.

Fritzlein: 1st Place
Chessandgo-Arimaa_Master winner: 2nd place; loser:  4th place
Adanc: 3rd Place
99of9:  5th Place
Naveed: 6th Place
Woh: 7th Place
Omar-Fritzlforpresident winner: 8th place
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by The_Jeh on Feb 17th, 2008, 3:38pm
Here are the final official standings, BT standings, and BT using played games only (including games won on time for any reason). All three systems agree on the same eight players.



(Wins) Rank Official...................Bradley-Terry  BT-Played Games
  (6)   1. Fritzlein......................Fritzlein  Fritzlein
  (5)   2. chessandgo....................chessandgo  chessandgo
   .    3. Adanac............................Adanac  Adanac
  (4)   4. arimaa_master..............arimaa_master  99of9
   .    5. 99of9..............................99of9  arimaa_master
   .    6. naveed...............................woh  woh
   .    7. woh...............................naveed  naveed
   .    8. omar................................omar  omar
  (3)   9. jdb..................................jdb  (PMertens)
   .   10. Arif_Syed.........................froody  jdb
   .   11. fritzlforpresident..............ArifSyed  froody
   .   12. froody.........................camelback  ArifSyed
   .   13. mistre........................(PMertens)  mistre
   .   14. camelback.........................mistre  camelback
   .   15. Aamir.................fritzlforpresident  fritzlforpresident
   .   16. subs2000...........................Aamir  subs2000
  (2)  17. ChrisB..........................subs2000  Aamir
   .   18. Emaad.............................ChrisB  Emaad
   .   19. silump5............................Emaad  ChrisB
   .   20. Amina............................silump5  megamau
   .   21. (PMertens).........................Amina  silump5
   .   22. Soldier..........................megamau  Amina
  (1)  23. megamau..........................soldier  Fisma
   .   24. Fisma..............................Fisma  Sana
   .   25. Sana................................Sana  soldier
  (0)  26. (zackry)........................(zackry)  (zackry)*
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Feb 17th, 2008, 4:25pm
Interesting that B-T agrees about the top eight.

I notice that the among the top eight everyone lost only to people who finished higher except omar losing to PMertens (which doesn't really count) and naveed losing to froody.  Otherwise there are no rank-violations, as they say in the ratings biz.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by PMertens on Feb 18th, 2008, 1:57pm
"The matchup of young cousins subs2000 vs. Emaad will insure that some entrant below the rating of 1300 (and below the age of eight) will finish with an even record of 3-3." ... well, that one went a bit wrong ;-)

I really love to read your event coverage Karl, since unfortunately I do not have the time for watching the games.
Good luck and lots of fun for the participants in the "real" tournament now :-)
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by mistre on Feb 18th, 2008, 2:45pm
Congrats to all in the Top 8 and good luck in the finals.

I really enjoyed the experience, but of my 6 games - I played 3 people that are clearly better than me (all made Top 8 ) and 3 people that I was clearly better than.  I wish I could have played some of the others that finished with 3 wins.

What about a consolation bracket for all the participants with 3 wins (9-16)?  Could something like that be arranged? That would be fun.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by froody on Feb 18th, 2008, 3:23pm
Good idea : )
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Feb 19th, 2008, 11:29pm

on 02/18/08 at 13:57:54, PMertens wrote:
I really love to read your event coverage Karl, since unfortunately I do not have the time for watching the games.
Good luck and lots of fun for the participants in the "real" tournament now :-)

Thanks, Paul, although Adanac did more than half the commentary for me in the later rounds.  I finally completed my share of the Round 6 commentary, then shunted it off the front page.  To read about the last few games of the preliminary you will have to click on the sidebar.  The front commentary page is now dedicated to the finals.  Hopefully I can keep up with commenting on four games per week.    
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Feb 19th, 2008, 11:40pm

on 02/18/08 at 14:45:27, mistre wrote:
I really enjoyed the experience, but of my 6 games - I played 3 people that are clearly better than me (all made Top 8 ) and 3 people that I was clearly better than.  I wish I could have played some of the others that finished with 3 wins.

Hmm, that sounds a lot like the idea of a "level" tournament we discussed in another thread.  The World Championship is very constrained by trying to determine the best player(s) in a short number of games, so mismatches are inevitable, but a friendly tournament could be designed completely differently.  If the ladder idea doesn't fly, I would definitely like to see a six-round tournament in the fall where there are no mismatches, i.e. where everyone is paired only against players close to their own seed.


Quote:
What about a consolation bracket for all the participants with 3 wins (9-16)?  Could something like that be arranged? That would be fun.

I see you already got in a few consolation games.  One of the fantastic things about the past two weeks has been the surge in HvH games outside of the tournament.  I certainly hope the trend continues beyond tournament season.

As for an extra tournament, Omar might be overloaded at the moment, but I hope to persuade him some day to write an interface for his tournament tool so that anyone else can run a tournament with weekly rounds, scheduled games, e-mail notifications, automatic (or manual) pairing, etc.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Feb 24th, 2008, 5:53pm
I saw 21 people logged in to the game room at one point in my game versus Omar in the first round of the finals.  That's a record for simultaneous logins, right?  But there probably were more at some point.  I wasn't monitoring it closely, for obvious reasons.  Did anyone get a higher count?
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Janzert on Feb 24th, 2008, 7:44pm
Woot, yes that should be a record. I'm pretty sure the previous record was 18. Unfortunately I didn't think to look at that today so no idea if it got higher.

Janzert
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Feb 28th, 2008, 6:18pm
I finally put up commentary on Round 1 of the finals, just in time for the games of Round 2 to start.  Thank you, Adanac, for writing up the marathon game between 99of9 and arimaa_master.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Mar 2nd, 2008, 2:27pm
Commentary for round two of the finals is up.  Thanks, Adanac, for splitting it with me again.

The field has been reduced to six, with next round featuring two more do-or-die games as well as a showdown of the undefeateds.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Mar 13th, 2008, 11:13pm
Yes, I know round 4 is halfway over, but round 3 commentary is now up.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by RonWeasley on Mar 23rd, 2008, 7:23pm
Congratulations to Fritzlein, our new World Champion!
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Janzert on Mar 23rd, 2008, 8:29pm
Congratulations Fritzlein. Not only winning the championship for a second time, but also going undefeated for the whole tournament.

Janzert
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by 99of9 on Mar 24th, 2008, 2:42am
Congratulations!
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by woh on Mar 24th, 2008, 4:54am
Congratulations Fritzlein!

Quite a performance going undefeated both in the preliminaries and the finals including 3 wins over chessandgo.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by chessandgo on Mar 24th, 2008, 5:08am
Cheers ! Hurrah for Karl :)
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by aaaa on Mar 24th, 2008, 8:30am
I noticed that Fritzlein had Gold in both matches against chessandgo. I believe that for the purpose of determining colors, past pairings between two specific opponents should have priority over their overall color past.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by leo on Mar 24th, 2008, 8:35am
I couldn't watch the Big Game live yesterday, but have just replayed it now.
Congratulations to Fritzlein, whose exploring new game plays seems to work well.
Chessandgo and everybody now have to keep exploring as well. :)
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Mar 24th, 2008, 10:34am
Thanks, everyone, for all the congratulations.  I enjoy Arimaa because it is a great game, but I enjoy it much more than any other great game because of the wonderful community on arimaa.com.  We are all part of something really special.  When Arimaa finally hits the big time, and there are hundreds of people on line any time of the day or night, and the playing pool is too big for us to get to know each other any more, I will look back on these early days with great nostalgia.  Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Mar 24th, 2008, 11:33am

on 03/24/08 at 08:30:16, aaaa wrote:
I noticed that Fritzlein had Gold in both matches against chessandgo. I believe that for the purpose of determining colors, past pairings between two specific opponents should have priority over their overall color past.

We are lucky in Arimaa that the first move advantage is miniscule, at least so far.  I can't remember what color I was playing in key games of the tournament, which would sould ridiculous to a chess player.  In chess, if you remember what you did, you necessarily remember what color you had, because (for example) you don't play the French Defense with white.  In arimaa I might have swarmed with either color or taken a hostage with either color or pulled rabbits with either color, so it seems much less essential.  Maybe when we know what we are doing a little better it will matter more, though, so it makes sense to pay attention to the color issue now.

In this case, I definitely agree that the colors should have been reversed for the final game.  Chessandgo and I had each had two gold and two silver in the first four rounds, so the colors for the final game were chosen at random.  It makes sense to me to use the past head-to-head colors as a tiebreak in what otherwise is a coin flip.  If color were really important, chessandgo would have a legitimate complaint that he got knocked out prematurely by having to play Silver in the first two games of our best-of-three mini-match.

However, when there is an overall color imbalance, I don't agree with you.  The scenario could have been slightly different.  Suppose we had been entering the sixth round, instead of the fifth, and I had had two gold and three silver while chessandgo had had two silver and three gold.  Suppose also that I was on the brink of elimination by having lost with silver to someone else.  Then I think it would be more unfair to give an overall color imbalance than to give a head-to-head color imbalance.  If I were given my fourth silver while chessandgo got his fourth gold, just to even the colors head-to-head, and I got knocked out in that game, then I would have a legitimate complaint that I got knocked out prematurely by having to play Silver too many times overall.

In 2008 the World Championship came down to a best-of-three between myself and chessandgo with neither of us losing to anyone else, but that is by no mean guaranteed in future years.  The World Championship is a open tournament where we all play against each other, and overall fairness is of primary importance.  In a repeat pairing we can't assume that all the other games each player has played are inconsequential (a compliment to chessandgo and myself that we don't deserve even this year).

To return to my first point, we are lucky to be discussing something that matters only in theory.  Until we have any kind of opening theory, color is much less relevant than how the tournament is seeded/paired.  It would have more practical impact to discuss whether we will use the same format next year of Swiss preliminary and floating-double-elimination final, or instead use a unified floating-triple-elimination.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by aaaa on Mar 24th, 2008, 1:15pm
I would like to point out that it was more than a year ago that you last defeated chessandgo in a rated game where you played Silver.

Regardless of whether we prioritize local or global color balancing, they both should be in the rules, which curiously fails to mention colors with regard to the finals except when it comes to tie-breaking games.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Mar 24th, 2008, 1:55pm

on 03/24/08 at 13:15:17, aaaa wrote:
I would like to point out that it was more than a year ago that you last defeated chessandgo in a rated game where you played Silver.

I had no idea.  Thanks for bringing this to our attention.  In the past year, counting only rated games, I am 8-6 against chessandgo when playing Gold, but 0-4 when playing Silver.  That really does cast a shadow on the tournament result.  If I had known, I would have lobbied hard for reversed colors in the final game just in case.

Let me toss another statistic into the mix:  In my last 26 rated games with PMertens, I am 11-2 when I play Silver but only 3-10 when I play Gold.

Do you think that both of these statistics are meaningful?  That is to say, in a PMertens/Fritzlein match, whoever plays Silver has a distinct advantage, whereas in a chessandgo/Fritzlein match whoever plays Gold has a distinct advantage?

I have been assuming until now that any color advantage is negligible, but that's just because I have been looking at the game room statistics in aggregate.  Perhaps on average there is hardly any color advantage, but for each pair of players there is a color advantage, sometimes for Gold and sometimes for Silver.  If so, this is an especially strong argument for ignoring the global color balancing in a tournament (since overall we can't say which is better), while diligently making sure to balance color head-to-head (since for a given pair of players some color can be a huge advantage).

The appearance of unfairness is very damaging to the credibility of the World Championship.  For the 2009 World Championship let me propose the following rule: A player may unilaterally give his opponent choice of color.  I hereby pledge to give my opponent choice of color in every game in order to compensate for any unfair advantage I might have gotten this year.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Janzert on Mar 24th, 2008, 2:03pm
Hmm, yeah looks like the color assignment rule for the regular games got lost when rewriting the rules for 2007. It is correctly mentioned in the 2006 rules.

I personally think the current practice of global history being used first to assign color is better than just the current pairs history. But adding the current pairing history as tie breaker before going to random assignment is probably a good idea.

Janzert
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Mar 24th, 2008, 3:03pm

on 03/24/08 at 13:55:32, Fritzlein wrote:
For the 2009 World Championship let me propose the following rule: A player may unilaterally give his opponent choice of color.  I hereby pledge to give my opponent choice of color in every game in order to compensate for any unfair advantage I might have gotten this year.

On second thought, it is a poor proposal for a rule change to introduce choice of color.  It would make a big headache for the tournament coordinator.  Furthermore, it is in any case a bad idea to try to make up for this year with next year's behavior.  We should of course make the rules for next year as good as possible, but in the mean time fix this year's problems this year.  So here's an alternate proposal:

If the finals were triple-elimination instead of double-elimination, we would have time to fix the head-to-head color imbalance.  Let's pretend it actually is triple-elimination and play more games where chessandgo gets to be Gold every game while I am Silver.  If chessandgo can win three straight against me when he has Gold, then I'll have three losses to his two, and he will have demonstrated that he is the legitimate champion.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by RonWeasley on Mar 24th, 2008, 4:16pm
I agree that we want to make the rules more specific about color assignments for future WC tournaments.

As for this year's tournament, the final games were played according to the posted rules.  I have reviewed the games and determined that the color assignments gave no obvious advantage to either player.  In fact, the games between Fritzlein and chessandgo were very close, with the perceived advantage shifting during each game.  I really believe these games were decided in the middle games, by the impressive skills of both players, accounting for the tournament situations, and not by the opening colors.  Further, the community has discussed the issue of whether a color advantage exists.  At present, we believe gold should have an advantage in theory, but game statistics do not yet support this belief.

I understand that there are logically consistent arguments to be made for re-examining the tournament's result and I thank aaaa especially for calling them to our attention.  If we had noticed at the time, we would have reversed the colors of the final game.  But the game has been played in good faith and I think this issue is not sufficient to call back the result.  Therefore, in this particular case, as Tournament Director, I rule that these games were played fairly (and well) according to the tournament rules and the result stands with Fritzlein as the new World Champion.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by chessandgo on Mar 24th, 2008, 5:21pm
Yes, the color issue is not important at all. There can be no doubt as for the validity of our last game with Karl. I'm sorry that you had to make an extra official ruling here, Ron.

As we play nowadays, gold has a very slight advantage I think, but of no importance compared to the swings occuring in the games.

For next events, I don't feel a particular need for a rule change ... playing gold twice and silver 3 times is no big deal compared with 3 gold and twice silver.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by omar on Mar 24th, 2008, 10:25pm
Congratulations Karl on winning the WC and congratulations Jean for placing second. This was an incredible tournament with many close and well fought games. I really enjoyed watching the games.

Thanks also to everyone who participated, both players and spectators.

Thanks for the ruling Ned. I really like the reasoning behind your decision. I am sure glad we have you to provide sound judgment in such situations. Next year I will have to be more explicit about the color assignment; so we don't run into this again.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by PMertens on Mar 30th, 2008, 3:28am
Grats to all players for nice tournament and of course especially to Karl and Jean for breathtaking performance.
You two are a leauge of your own  ... ( atm ;-) )
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by aaaa on Mar 30th, 2008, 10:17am
I can vouch for that. My rating system has them both well in the 2700s, more than 300 points clear of the number 3, Adanac.
Title: Re: 2008 World Championship Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Mar 30th, 2008, 9:09pm
Thanks for the compliments, PMertens and aaaa.

The final game commentary is up.  Thanks to everyone who participated for creating great games to watch live and replay when I was trying to write them up.


Arimaa Forum » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1!
YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved.