Arimaa Forum - Print Page


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

        Arimaa >> General Discussion >> The 3g rule
        
(Message started by: omar on Nov 10^th, 2011, 2:01pm)

Title: The 3g rule
Post by omar on Nov 10^th, 2011, 2:01pm

3g Rule: If one of the players times out before move 3g is played, the winning player has the option of declining the original result and playing a make-up game. The make-up game must be scheduled and played before the end of the current round. The make-up game becomes binding once move 3g has been played. If the make-up game is not played before the end of the current round, the original result stands.

In the past we have used this several times. I am contemplating if this should be made part of the WC tournament rules. There are pros and cons to mandating this in the rules as opposed to leaving it up to the tournament director to decide. Would like to know what others think.

Title: Re: The 3g rule
Post by chessandgo on Nov 11^th, 2011, 5:43am

I like.

Title: Re: The 3g rule
Post by Fritzlein on Nov 11^th, 2011, 6:11pm

I'm ambivalent. The more tournaments I go through, the more uncompromising I tend to be about rules. It would be possible to make a mistake setting up on 1g, realize the error after seeing 1s, and time out purposely for a second chance at setting up properly. I certainly wouldn't like the rule without a requirement that the game be resumed from the position at which it timed out.

With that caveat in place, I might be OK with the rule; sometimes Internet issues pop up in the very beginning of the game that can be resolved before restarting the game. But if the main objective is to be explicit to take the decision out of the hands of the tournament director and out of the hands of the players, I would have a slight preference for not allowing the game to be replayed, ever, and letting timeouts for any reason other than server error (which the TD can verify) being irrevocable losses.

In this year's World Championship, it looks like each win will be worth about $36, and each loss costs a third of the entry ($27) making it a $63 swing if someone decides to be sporting to an opponent who has just timed out, allows a replay, and then loses. Like it or not, this year it is more about money and less about playing for the love of playing. In that context it seems less appropriate to create a situation where someone feels social pressure to allow a replay that could have a noticeable financial ramification. If it were only about the glory of being crowned champ, I might not even want a cheap win due to timeout, but if it is about money, I might not want to give away $$$$ just for the love of playing Arimaa.

Title: Re: The 3g rule
Post by UruramTururam on Nov 12^th, 2011, 7:49am

It may be fine for more or less casual play. But I would certainly not use such a rule for serious tournaments like World Championships...

Title: Re: The 3g rule
Post by Nombril on Nov 14^th, 2011, 9:16pm

I dislike rules that leave a choice in the hands of a player.

As Fritz points out, the monetary stakes are a bit higher now. I don't think it would be a comfortable decision to make. (I had a tough enough time deciding how long to wait on the AWL game where my opponent didn't arrive on time - I wanted to be generous and wait... but the longer I waited the more risk I had of my "playing window" closing...)

Also, I don't see why there should be a difference between 3g, 3s, 4g, etc. With no concrete reason for a place to draw the line, I wonder if this makes the rule too arbitrary to be included.

If it is important to keep this grace period, I suggest making it a mandatory make-up game, and not at the discretion of the winner.

So my preference:
high: No 3g rule
middle: Mandatory 3g rule
low: Discretionary 3g rule

Title: Re: The 3g rule
Post by Hippo on Nov 15^th, 2011, 11:41am

Yes, I don't support the 3g rule unless conditioned by repetition of game till the timeout.
In the case the game does not follow the original, the original result should stand. (As the winner decides to allow the repetition, he has no incentive to deviate).

Title: Re: The 3g rule
Post by omar on Nov 23^rd, 2011, 2:09pm

Thanks for the feedback. For now I will leave this out and it will be up to the TD to decide if the situation calls for this.

Title: Re: The 3g rule
Post by Arimabuff on Nov 27^th, 2011, 4:59am

I am with Fritz on this one, someone could use that rule to get out of a bad initial set-up especially after they have seen what their opponent's response would be.