Arimaa Forum - Print Page


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

        Arimaa >> Events >> 2010 World Championship Rules
        
(Message started by: Fritzlein on Oct 16^th, 2009, 7:08pm)

Title: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by Fritzlein on Oct 16^th, 2009, 7:08pm

I would like to revive a minor rule change proposal that I made during the 2009 tournament. The ranking method that is used both to seed the finals and to pair the tournament is number of wins, with a tiebreaker of number of opponents' wins. In the past, top players have suffered a bit of added randomness based on their first-round pairing. If one player has the misfortune of being paired to an opponent who drops out of the tournament in the first round, he will get no tiebreaker points, whereas another player who is paired against a committed opponent might get two tiebreaker points by tournament end. The difference between zero and two tiebreaker points is not commensurate with the difference between having a 100% chance of winning and a 99% chance of winning.

The problem of dropouts and forfeits is not something we can cure with rules, but I believe that a fixable feature of the tiebreak points is exacerbating the problem. The root of the evil is that differences in strength in close matches are much more important than differences in strength in mismatches. If I have won four of five matches, then it matters a great deal whether my opponents won three, four, or five games, whereas it matters hardly at all whether they won zero, one, or two games.

To put it in terms of ratings, let's say my rating is 2000. The difference between playing an opponent rated 2200, 2000, or 1800, is a wining chance of 24%, 50%, or 76%. That's a huge span. But the difference between playing an opponent rated 1600, 1400, or 1200, is a winning percentage of 91%, 97%, or 99%. In the former case a swing of 52% winning chance results in a difference of two tiebreak points, and in the latter case a swing of 8% winning chance results in a difference of two tiebreak points. It isn't fair.

The solution is to have a tiebreak formula that overweights opponents near your own score, where the relative strength is critical, and underweights mismatches where the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Here is such a formula:

Let N = Number of rounds played
Let P = Number of wins by player
Let O = Number of wins by opponent
Then

T = 1/(1+10^(4*(P-O)/(N+1))

In the first two round this tiebreaker works identically to the method of sum of opponents' scores. There are no cases in which the ranking ends up different. After three rounds, however, the first differences appear. For example, let's take two players, A and B, who have both won all three games, and both have a sum of opponent scores equal to three. However, A's opponents have won 0, 1, and 2, whereas B's opponents have won 1, 1, and 1.

Intuitively, A has had slightly tougher opponents overall, by virtue of having played a 2-0 opponent in the third round, whereas B got lucky to be dropped to a lower group to play a 1-1 opponent in the third round. Admittedly, B played a slightly stronger opponent in the first round, but that seems less important. By the above formula, the tiebreak points are

A = 0.001 + 0.010 + 0.091 = 0.102
B = 0.010 + 0.010 + 0.010 = 0.030

So the formula rewards A for his tougher schedule. Mismatches have a negligible contribution compared to close matches.

By the end of five-round tournament, the formula is not only breaking ties that the sum-of-opponents' scores fails to break, it is even overturning some rankings between players with equal score. Let's compare two four-win players C and D, with the following opponent scores by round:

C: 2 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 16
D: 2 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 4 = 15

OK, from that it is totally obvious that C played the tougher schedule. But what if C had the misfortune that his first-round opponent forfeited and dropped out of the tournament? Then the sum of opponent's scores says that D should rank ahead of C.

C: 0 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 14
D: 2 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 4 = 15

This is terrible luck for C! He had to play the eventual (undefeated) champion in round 5, while player D didn't have to play the top dog, and somehow this weighs less than the difference between two first-round schloobs? Preposterous! Fortuantely, my proposed formula rides to the rescue, giving a tiebreak of

C: 0.002 + 0.044 + 0.177 + 0.500 + 0.823 = 1.546
D: 0.044 + 0.044 + 0.177 + 0.500 + 0.500 = 1.265

So C's tougher schedule is reflected in a better tiebreak score, and a better seed into the finals.

So what do people think? I admit that my formula is more complicated than a simple sum of scores, and I admit that it doesn't completely solve the issue of forfeits. On the other hand, it does go some distance to rectifying an issue that has popped up in each of the last two years.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by Adanac on Oct 17^th, 2009, 5:39am

on 10/16/09 at 19:08:44, Fritzlein wrote:

So what do people think? I admit that my formula is more complicated than a simple sum of scores, and I admit that it doesn't completely solve the issue of forfeits. On the other hand, it does go some distance to rectifying an issue that has popped up in each of the last two years.

I'd be happy with minimizing the forfeit-opponent problem and it's not really that complicated of a change to the Strength of Schedule formula. I like the way it distinguishes opponents that are close to you in the standings more than opponents at either extreme. Most players on this website are good natured so I don't expect we'd get any complaining if one player missed the Top 8 because of a .001 difference in a formula they don't understand.

Would it make a big difference for players in the middle of the pack? I remember that last year we had 9 players finish with records of 3-2 or better but the players ranked between #9 and #11 had very different SoS paths to their 3 victories, creating a bit of unfairness. With more players competing in 2010 (no doubt about it :D ) and more rounds in the Open Classic these things will hopefully iron out. We also had an incredibly low number of upsets last year, causing the same players to move up or move down whenever there were an odd number of players in their win cateogry.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by Fritzlein on Oct 17^th, 2009, 3:50pm

on 10/17/09 at 05:39:39, Adanac wrote:

Would it make a big difference for players in the middle of the pack? I remember that last year we had 9 players finish with records of 3-2 or better but the players ranked between #9 and #11 had very different SoS paths to their 3 victories, creating a bit of unfairness.

Yes, it would have made a difference last year. The three players who were automatically in on score were chessandgo with five wins, and myself and arimaa_master with four wins. That left six players with three wins competing for the last five places. The actual tiebreaker was:

4. 99of9: 15 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5
5. Adanac: 13 = 0 + 2 + 2 + 4 + 5
6. The_Jeh: 13 = 0 + 2 + 2 + 4 + 5
7. Tuks: 13 = 1 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 5
8. camelback: 12 = 0 + 2 + 3 + 3 + 4
9. woh: 11 = 1 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 4

The unfairness is that Tuks got a boost from having a first-round opponent that got him a point, while Adanac, The_Jeh, and camelback all suffered from getting paired with a first-round opponent who dropped out. Comparing Adanac and The_Jeh to Tuks, canceling out equal scores, the former two had 0-win and 4-win opponents, whereas Tuks had 1-win and 3-win opponents. For a 3-win player, the difference between a 0-win and a 1-win opponent is very small compared to the difference between a 3-win opponent and a 4-win opponent. So intuitively Adanac and The_Jeh each had a clearly tougher schedule.

Between camelback and Tuks there is more of a question. Stripping out equal score, camelbacks opponents were 0-win, 3-win, and 4-win, whereas Tuks opponents were 1-win, 2-win, and 5-win. One way to look at it is that camelback had to play one worse, one equal, and one better opponent, whereas Tuks had to play two worse and one better opponent. True, Tuks's worse opponent wasn't as worse and his better opponent was more better. But in keeping with the principle that differences far away are less important than differences nearby, camelback has a good claim to a stronger schedule.

Plugging into the formula T = 1/(1+10^(4*(P-O)/(N+1))) gives the following points for the various opponents

5 -> 0.956
4 -> 0.823
3 -> 0.5
2 -> 0.177
1 -> 0.044
0 -> 0.010

So the SoS converts to

4. 99of9: 2.500
5. Adanac: 2.143
6. The_Jeh: 2.143
7. camelback: 2.010
8. Tuks: 1.854
9. woh: 1.364

In both systems, the most important thing didn't change, namely that woh didn't qualify for the finals. This makes sense any way you slice it, because woh had four weaker opponents, and nobody else had more than three weaker opponents. Next year, though, having a better tiebreaker could make the difference between the right/wrong person making the finals.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by aaaa on Oct 17^th, 2009, 6:13pm

It wouldn't surprise me if this tie-breaker system would give results similar to that of an intra-tournament rating system (where everybody starts with the same rating). I think the rating system I have been using could suit well for this purpose. It's Glicko with the rating uncertainty fixed and optimized for human-human games.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by omar on Oct 18^th, 2009, 8:04am

Thanks for putting so much thought into this Karl. I am aboard on going with your proposal. It shouldn't be much effort to modify the pairing program and so it could be done this year.

A thought that crossed my mind was that since we are using better ratings now, we might want to also consider using the WHR ratings as the second tie breaker. Some of the advantages are that it is not effected by drop outs, forfeits or SoS, it encourages more HH games before the tournament to improve ratings and very easy to understand. The biggest disadvantage might be that someone could inflate their rating by repeatedly winning against fake human accounts. But it would be pretty easy to see this in the gameroom and disqualify someone who does this from registering.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by Fritzlein on Oct 18^th, 2009, 4:05pm

on 10/18/09 at 08:04:25, omar wrote:

Thanks for putting so much thought into this Karl. I am aboard on going with your proposal. It shouldn't be much effort to modify the pairing program and so it could be done this year.

I'm glad it doesn't sound to hard to implement.

Quote:

A thought that crossed my mind was that since we are using better ratings now, we might want to also consider using the WHR ratings as the second tie breaker.

This is equivalent to using the initial seeding as second tiebreaker, right? I have no problems with that. It won't come into play very often in a five-round tournament, and as the tournament grows, each additional round makes it less likely the second tiebreak will ever be reached. If the second tiebreaker is reached, between two players with identical records against identical SoS, then it is reasonably likely that the sliding pairing gave slightly harder opponents to the higher seed throughout, so using the seed as a tiebreaker is justifiable.

I'm not very worried about people inflating their WHR to get a better finish in the World Championship. Partly this is because it is harder to manipulate ratings undetected once bots are out the way. Mostly though, I don't worry because inaccurate seeding will be largely corrected for in the preliminaries, and moreso in the finals, to the point that pre-tournament cheating will be damped out by in-tournament results.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by Fritzlein on Oct 18^th, 2009, 4:15pm

on 10/17/09 at 18:13:49, aaaa wrote:

I am amenable to using a rating system to rank the performance of individuals within a tounament, but one strike against Glicko is that later results count for more than earlier ones. Against identical opposition, three wins and three losses is worse than three losses and three wins, according to Glicko ratings. The assumption that playing strength varies over time is essential for continually-updated ratings but is a liability for event scoring.

I would be more sympathetic to rating system which viewed all games as occurring simultaneously and found the maximum likelihood ratings for the tournament results plus a prior assumption that all players are equal.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by woh on Oct 19^th, 2009, 3:30am

on 10/18/09 at 16:15:36, Fritzlein wrote:

I would be more sympathetic to rating system which viewed all games as occurring simultaneously and found the maximum likelihood ratings for the tournament results plus a prior assumption that all players are equal.

The WHR is capable of that. But I think it would be hard to integrate with the pairing program.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by woh on Oct 19^th, 2009, 9:33am

WHR ranks the 6 players like this:

4.	Adanac	1622.3
5.	99of9	1613.9
6.	The_Jeh	1594.0
7.	camelback	1592.3
8.	Tuks	1547.3
9.	woh	1501.7

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by Fritzlein on Oct 19^th, 2009, 10:10am

That ranking is based on all the games in the tournament? Very cool, thanks for generating it.

The difference between yours and mine is that Adanac has passed 99of9 in yours. Looking back at their opponents, and removing the common opponents omar and chessandgo, their schedules were

Adanac: thefrankinator(0), naveed(2), Fritzlein(4)
99of9: Bildstein(1), camelback(3), arimaa_master(4)

From the in-tournament number of wins, it sure looks like 99of9 had the tougher schedule, but if you had asked the players pre-tournament which schedule would be softer, I'll bet both would have said 99of9's schedule would be slightly easier. So this seems to be some anecdotal justification for using tournament-based ratings rather than sum-of-opponents score.

What did you do about forfeits, byes, and withdrawn players? We would have to be careful not to penalize players for getting a bye. Also it occurs to me that ratings aren't just a tiebreaker after number of wins, but would occasionally have, for example, a 2-3 player finish ahead of a 3-2 player. I might be comfortable with that, but I expect it would be unacceptable to a lot of chess players. (A good test case for this would be the 2008 World Championship preliminaries, which had woh (4-2) in eighth place and jdb (3-3) in ninth place. Would WHR swap them based on jdb's monstrously difficult schedule? It seems to be your fate to be on the bubble, woh. :P)

Would you be so good as to post the whole result list from 2009 for comparison with the actual tournament standings?

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by aaaa on Oct 20^th, 2009, 4:58pm

on 10/18/09 at 16:15:36, Fritzlein wrote:

Do you mean finding optimized performance ratings of the players, Chessmetrics style? That would be very appealing, as the sole assumption concerning playing strength would be that winning odds follow a multiplicative chain rule. One would of course first have to repeatedly remove from the considered set of players, those with only wins or loses against other members. Special care should also be taken for the unlikely case that there are players with symmetrical results.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by Fritzlein on Oct 20^th, 2009, 5:49pm

on 10/20/09 at 16:58:55, aaaa wrote:

One would of course first have to repeatedly remove from the considered set of players, those with only wins or loses against other members.

When combined with a prior assumption about playing strength, the maximum likelihood ratings are finite. This is ugly because the strength of the prior is arbitrary, and we have to argue about how what strength would be enough without being too much. On the positive side, though, bringing in this extra assumption (in addition to the transitive ratio of odds assumption) means we don't have to remove any players.

Without a prior distribution one can only get reasonable ratings out of results that contain loops, but there is no guarantee loops will be present. Adanac pointed out that there were few upsets in last year's preliminaries; that lack of upsets resulted in a graph with no loops at all!

1. chessandgo lost to nobody
2. Fritzlein lost only to chessandgo
3. arimaa_master and Adanac lost only to levels 1-2
4. 99of9 and The_Jeh lost only to levels 1-3
5. omar and camelback lost only to levels 1-4
6. Tuks and woh lost only to levels 1-5
7. naveed and LevB lost only to levels 1-6
8. soldier and Sana lost only to levels 1-7
9. Bildstein didn't win

So we're not going to get far by iteratively peeling off players until all remaining players are involved in loops.

By the way, this leveling provides an additional justification to put Adanac ahead of 99of9, but then it also puts omar (2-3) ahead of Tuks (3-2) and woh (3-2), which is harder to justify. Also these levels are top-down, and would be different if built bottom-up, or from both ends simultaneously, which makes them look somewhat arbitrary.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by aaaa on Oct 28^th, 2009, 8:58am

Obviously, the number of losses should be the first consideration with respect to ranking. However, it seems hard to argue against the fact that, given two players A and B, A should always be ranked above B, if A has no more losses than B, has a path of victories to it and there is no path back.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by woh on Nov 1^st, 2009, 9:33am

on 10/19/09 at 10:10:51, Fritzlein wrote:

That ranking is based on all the games in the tournament?

Yes all games of the 2009 Open Classic (but not the games of the final)

on 10/19/09 at 10:10:51, Fritzlein wrote:

What did you do about forfeits, byes, and withdrawn players?

Forfeits were treated like regular losses and wins for their opponents. Byes were ignored. This places players with 3 wins/1 loss/1 bye behind players with a 4 wins/1 loss record and ahead of players with 3 wins and 2 losses assuming their opponent are of about the same strength. Withdrawn players are also ignored following rounds. So their rating stays about the same. If their opponents they did play in the previous rounds do well the ratings of the withdrawn players may go up a bit otherwise drop a little. In the 2009 Open Classic three players didn't show up for their first round game and were redrawn from the tournament. As you can see in the full standings (http://home.scarlet.be/~woh/whr/whrq2009.htm) this puts them amongst the players with 2-3 record. This explains why Adanac is ahead of 99of9. His opponent of the first round is no longer valuated as a player of strength 0 but as a player of about strength 2.

on 10/19/09 at 10:10:51, Fritzlein wrote:

Also it occurs to me that ratings aren't just a tiebreaker after number of wins, but would occasionally have, for example, a 2-3 player finish ahead of a 3-2 player.

Using ratings would only be acceptable IMO when all players have played the same number of games. Some players receiving one bye should also be acceptable. But unless there is some way to handle players not playing multiple rounds (like withdrawn players) ratings should only be used as a tiebreaker after the number of wins.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by Fritzlein on Nov 1^st, 2009, 4:06pm

Thanks for explaining and posting the full list, woh. I see that 2-3 Omar with a tough schedule didn't leap 3-2 woh with an easy schedule. I think that would make the ratings more acceptable as the actual ranking as opposed to just a tiebreaker. My instinct would be to not include forfeits in the ratings, but then a player could get hurt for having an opponent that forfeits, which is undesirable. Withdrawn players are a difficulty for ratings in any case, as you point out.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by aaaa on Nov 9^th, 2009, 12:22pm

Why have a fixed number of finalists at all? If simply all those with, say, a positive win-loss score would advance to the finals, then at all times, if a player has any chance of making it past the Swiss stage, then that player would always be in control of his or her own fate and not be subject to the results of others and the intricacies of the tiebreaker system in use. The only real disadvantage of this I can think of are the byes there would be in case of an odd number of finalists.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by Fritzlein on Nov 9^th, 2009, 9:03pm

I would actually prefer not to have the division between the preliminaries and finals at all, but rather a unified floating triple (or quadruple?) elimination. Admittedly, we would either have to fix the seeding or make sure the top seed was not overly favored, but assuming that difficulty could be overcome, it would provide the most discrimination per length of tournament if all losses carried forward.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by The_Jeh on Nov 10^th, 2009, 1:53pm

on 11/09/09 at 21:03:50, Fritzlein wrote:

Far in the future, if Arimaa becomes very popular and physical games replace online games for the world championship, we will have to admit regional qualification tournaments, which will inevitably create partitions between different stages. Having a final tournament of a limited number of players now will preserve analogy between the championships we hold now and the ones that we hope to hold in years to come. I personally think an 8-player final could become a long-lasting tradition.

If you win out, you will be world champion, so no player can say that he didn't control his own destiny. The "controversy" created by having a limited number of players in a final tournament might not necessarily be a bad thing. It does, after all, give people something to talk about.

So while I understand the mathematical desire to make the tournament as discriminatory as possible, I wonder whether years from now we will be glad that we started having a final partition now.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by aaaa on Nov 11^th, 2009, 7:49am

I thought the current division was considered to be a good thing in principle because it would ensure a reasonable minimal number of tournament games for any participant regardless of results. Also, unless and until there is some algorithm in place that runs in polynomial time with respect to the number of participants, a unified tournament would in these times already spell trouble. The 2008 Open Classic had 26 players. From the looks of it, scheduling such a number of players in one floating elimination tournament would already be murder on any non-sophisticated algorithm.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by Fritzlein on Nov 11^th, 2009, 4:12pm

on 11/11/09 at 07:49:42, aaaa wrote:

I thought the current division was considered to be a good thing in principle because it would ensure a reasonable minimal number of tournament games for any participant regardless of results.

It is a worthy goal to have a tournament that lets everyone play to the end, and furthermore have opponents of roughly equal strength. Such a tournament is more fun for more people. However, that goal is somewhat in conflict with the goal of determining a World Champion.

Breaking the World Championship into two parts meets both needs reasonably well. However, if in the future we have friendly Swiss tournaments all year long, plus the World League play, we will no longer have to overburden the World Championship with a secondary purpose. At that point we can discuss the best way to select a champion apart from providing a friendly tournament for all entrants.

Quote:

Also, unless and until there is some algorithm in place that runs in polynomial time with respect to the number of participants, a unified tournament would in these times already spell trouble.

Yes, we would definitely need a polynomial-time algorithm. Fortunately an N^4 pairing algorithm exists. We wouldn't have to stop using global pairing criteria, just implement the more efficient algorithm.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by omar on Nov 12^th, 2009, 7:18pm

See the thread titled '2008 World Championship Format' for how we decided on the current WC format.

http://arimaa.com/arimaa/forum/cgi/YaBB.cgi?board=events;action=display;num=1249655379

I was in favor of using some sort of rating to limit the number of entries in the WC tournament to just 8, but others felt strongly that ratings should not be used at all, so we decided on having a swiss preliminary to determine the top 8. Perhaps in the future if we have more events going on throughout the year we might want to reconsider using just ratings to limit the entries in the WC. Ratings based on only event games would be more accurate since the players do not get to select their opponents and are trying their hardest to win in such games. Not having a preliminary would reduce the burden on the players in the WC and we might instead be able to use that time to make the WC a floating triple elimination format instead of floating double elimination. Also it would encourage players to participate in the events throughout the year to build their ratings.

Woh, if you get a chance could you run WHR using just the event games. It would be interesting to see what these ratings look like; also bots could be included in this since bots have played in some events like the postal mixer. If the 'event' field in the games archive is not set to 'casual game' then it is an event game, but exclude ones that begin with 'bad ', 'test ' or 'trial '.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by Fritzlein on Nov 12^th, 2009, 8:26pm

on 11/12/09 at 19:18:56, omar wrote:

Perhaps in the future if we have more events going on throughout the year we might want to reconsider using just ratings to limit the entries in the WC.

Why do we have to limit the number of entrants in the World Championship? Just because we don't have a polynomial time pairing algorithm coded?

One problem with having a World Championship be invitational based on ratings is that it gives people near the top of the rating list an incentive not to play games that will count in the rating system. Someone with a high rating that puts them in the elite (at least tempoarily) can only lose and not gain by playing more rated games.

I would prefer a unified open World Championship to the present division of qualifying and finals, but having an open feeder tournament for a limited finals is still much better than having a closed invitational finals based on ratings.

The World Championship of chess somehow managed to be open in many of its incarnations despite the millions of chess players all over the world. There were feeder tournaments (interzonals) with sub-feeder tournaments (zonals) in a giant pyramid filtering down to the climatic championship match. If we decide that the participation in the Arimaa World Championship must be limited (why? not enough space in the convention hall?), and we intend to limit it on the basis of year-round tournaments, then instead of computing ratings from those tournaments, we should have the qualifying tournaments directly qualify people, e.g. the top two finishers in each event qualify.

Tournaments in general are more robust to vigorous competition than ratings are. We shouldn't stress out the rating system by making it the qualifying benchmark if there is any tournament-based alternative.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by omar on Nov 13^th, 2009, 11:35am

I modified the Swiss pairing program to use the tie break suggested by Karl. I am running into problems with some players not getting paired.

Here is the modified pairing program:
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/tourn/compare/sim/formats/swissJuhnke

Search for '2009.11.13' to find the line I changed.

Here is what's happening when I run it:

http://arimaa.com/arimaa/tourn/compare/sim/x1.txt

Search for 'no op' to find the line where no opponents were found.

Karl did I get your formula right?

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by Fritzlein on Nov 13^th, 2009, 4:11pm

In the line
Code:

pa[i]['score'] = sprintf("%03d%06d%08d%06d", val(pa[i]['wins']), tb1, pa[i]['r'], rand(999999))

Shouldn't there be a loop to calculate the value of tb1? The number of tiebreaker points is a sum across all of the player's opponents so far. Maybe that value could be calculated after the loop

# Determine the number of losses our opponents have had

which formerly calculated the first tiebreak. Furthermore in the line
Code:

tb1 = 100000.0/(1+10**(4*(val(pa[i]['wins'])-val(pa[i]['opwin']))/($rn+1)))

isn't pa[i]['opwin'] the total wins of all opponents? My formula needs to be applied to each opponent individually. It expressed the number of tiebreak points for a particular opponent, not for all opponents together.

Am I being clear at all?

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by omar on Nov 13^th, 2009, 10:35pm

Oh OK. Something like this then:

P = wins[this_player]
foreach op in list_of_opponents[this_player]
O = wins[op]
T = 1/(1+10^(4*(P-O)/(N+1))
TieBreaker += T

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by Fritzlein on Nov 14^th, 2009, 5:51am

Yeah.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by woh on Nov 26^th, 2009, 10:52am

on 11/12/09 at 19:18:56, omar wrote:

Woh, if you get a chance could you run WHR using just the event games. It would be interesting to see what these ratings look like; also bots could be included in this since bots have played in some events like the postal mixer. If the 'event' field in the games archive is not set to 'casual game' then it is an event game, but exclude ones that begin with 'bad ', 'test ' or 'trial '.

The WHR for events games (http://home.scarlet.be/~woh/whr/whre.htm) is now available.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by Nombril on Nov 28^th, 2009, 2:46pm

(A bit off topic from the world championship rules...)

on 11/26/09 at 10:52:21, woh wrote:

The WHR for events games (http://home.scarlet.be/~woh/whr/whre.htm) is now available.

I'm showing up on this list with 7 games, but I've only played in the 4 game swiss tourney in Nov. Did I miss changing a setting to "casual" games, or are the autopostal games considered tournament games? I'm not even sure where to look in my history to see the game classification.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by woh on Nov 30^th, 2009, 3:52am

on 11/28/09 at 14:46:48, Nombril wrote:

(A bit off topic from the world championship rules...)

I'm showing up on this list with 7 games, but I've only played in the 4 game swiss tourney in Nov. Did I miss changing a setting to "casual" games, or are the autopostal games considered tournament games? I'm not even sure where to look in my history to see the game classification.

Yes, the auto postal games are included.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by Adanac on Dec 31^st, 2009, 8:06am

We're up to 13 players in the World Championship. I know we can do better than that! Are there any last minute entrants out there? The WC is lots of fun and a great way to gain HvH experience. I'd highly recommend signing up, even if you're fairly new to Arimaa. You might even surprise yourself and qualify for the Top 8 Finals.

Title: RE: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by woh on Dec 31^st, 2009, 8:34am

An updated ranking (http://home.scarlet.be/~woh/whr/whre.htm) with WHRs for events games is now available.

Title: Re: 2010 World Championship Rules
Post by Tuks on Jan 1^st, 2010, 1:22pm

We have 16 players so its going to be another 5 rounder this year.

and by the looks of things, this year has stronger competition so its going to be that much harder to make the final 8, Good Luck Everyone!