|
||||||
|
Title: One versus the Mob Post by Fritzlein on Mar 19th, 2007, 6:03pm on 03/16/07 at 23:31:56, The_Jeh wrote:
I think that this would be a fascinating experiment. I would love to participate in the discussion, or alternatively be the One player and read afterwards what the Mob thought about my play. In particular, I am curious how often the Mob would be surprised by a move from the One. I often overlook a strong move by my opponent, even in a postal game. Would it be true that, "to many eyes, all bugs are shallow", or would there still be instances of collective blindness? I don't particularly like the idea of having a vote between the suggestions of three or five leading players. That would preclude a lot of creativity that could result from finding variations and mutations of good moves that are potentially stronger than the original suggestion. Also it leads to a plurality problem where 60% of people want to pursue a particular strategy, but they split 25-20-15 between three variations on the idea, whereas the 40% minority of voters unite on an unpopular move, winning by plurality. I would suggest instead that, after a discussion phase, each member of the Mob would list their favorite move, and if there is no majority, each member of the Mob would make a preferential ballot. on 03/19/07 at 13:15:57, IdahoEv wrote:
I expect there would need to be a whole separate area of the forum for the discussion to prevent the thread-per-move discussion of the game from taking over the main forum space. I think Omar could easily create that space for us. And I very much support the notion of a Mob coordinator, to orchestrate the votes if nothing else. The One would have to promise not to read the discussion, and I don't think trust would be a problem in our friendly community. What sort of time control would you suggest? I don't think it could possibly go faster than one move per week. Would it be reasonable to play with no time limit, and just a suggestion for how fast the moves should generally occur? I would enjoy playing being the One, but I can barely keep up with my current Postal Tournament games. Maybe chessandgo is game-hungry at the moment, in addition to which he is having a dominating start to the postal tournament. Maybe 99of9 is the prime candidate, since he was the undefeated winner of last year's postal tournament. Or maybe all three of us would be reluctant to be the One at the moment. Here's an idea: If anyone goes undefeated in this year's postal tournament (or appears from the board positions to be likely to go undefeated), then we can draft that person as the One. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by chessandgo on Mar 20th, 2007, 4:32am Nice idea, The_Jeh ! I'd like both playing on the "One" side and participating to the discussion. Like you, Karl, I've some trouble to keep up with my postal games, but I guess that with a very slow time control (about a week per move ?), it would be no problem for the single player, rather for the rest to agree on something. Anyway, I hope we'll be able to play this game, would be a lot of fun :) |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by IdahoEv on Mar 20th, 2007, 1:31pm on 03/19/07 at 18:03:26, Fritzlein wrote:
Another possibility: it takes me about 20 minutes to set up a community website using the joomla content management system; I'd be happy to do it for the project. (It's a one-click install via my webhost's control panel.) The nice thing about it is in addition to a discussion forum for planning it has a built-in poll system that could handle voting on the moves. I'd rather somebody else be the coordinator / central point for the group discussion, but I'm happy to set up the tools to make that and the voting easy. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by Fritzlein on Mar 20th, 2007, 6:00pm I'm glad chessandgo is willing to be the One. On further reflection I'd rather be part of the Mob. However, my experience with team chess games is that the team should really have at least ten members or so to keep it interesting. Would we really get ten members of the Mob? Maybe once about half of the postal tournament is done, it would be easier to drum up participation. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by NIC1138 on Mar 20th, 2007, 11:46pm Have we already tought about using the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method? It might be quite interesting! :) |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by omar on Mar 21st, 2007, 12:15am Karl and I were commuting to work this morning when he told me about the 'One vs the Mob' idea that The_Jeh proposed. Lately I've been counting on Karl to keep me updated on the forum lately :-) I like this idea also; especially the community aspect of a group trying to decide on a move. This got me thinking about the possibility of having group vs group postal games. One year we had a EU vs US match, but it was a set of one on one games. It might be interesting to have a EU group vs US group postal match. This forum supports placing users into groups and limiting access to selections of the forum based on the groups. So I guess we might be able to use this feature for discussing the moves. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by chessandgo on Mar 21st, 2007, 3:00am on 03/20/07 at 18:00:04, Fritzlein wrote:
I'd be equally happy if you (or someone else) played ; I've not had many game-related discussions these last month, so debating inside the "rest of the world" team sounds great ;) |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by RonWeasley on Mar 21st, 2007, 12:01pm Another benefit from this contest would be a record of the decision process used to make a move. Contributors to the decision would be among the best players, both muggles and wizards. Players of all experience levels would be able to read what tactical and strategic factors the top players consider. This would be an invaluable learning tool. Also consider that bot programmers may be able to implement some of these considerations or learn more about how to resolve known but conflicting factors. I would enjoy participating in the mob. Just like in potions with Snape, I could suggest a strategy and then a better player can reject it and explain why it won't work. And no explosions! It would be like a master class. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by OLTI on Mar 21st, 2007, 4:27pm I like more Omar idea on 03/21/07 at 00:15:56, omar wrote:
|
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by jdb on Mar 21st, 2007, 5:50pm I also like Omar's idea of a group vs group match. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by Fritzlein on Mar 21st, 2007, 7:26pm A group vs. group match would be interesting, but the trouble with U.S. vs. E.U. is that it leaves out a lot of players, including Canadian JDB. How about instead North & South America versus the rest of the world? The rest of the world might have a few more players in this scheme than the Americas team, but Omar would be on the Americas team, so he could rig the server... |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by IdahoEv on Mar 21st, 2007, 7:36pm A hemispheric group grudge match! I really like this idea. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by 99of9 on Mar 21st, 2007, 9:03pm Since when did North and South America take up an entire hemisphere Idaho?? ;-) |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by Fritzlein on Mar 21st, 2007, 9:39pm on 03/21/07 at 21:03:41, 99of9 wrote:
Oooh, so now we're LITTLE are we? You'll regret that remark when the games begin, buster. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by NIC1138 on Mar 22nd, 2007, 12:04am on 03/21/07 at 19:26:21, Fritzlein wrote:
Well, we can't do South America versus rest of the world, since all the best players are located there, it's not fair... ;D |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by Fritzlein on Mar 22nd, 2007, 8:50am Should the teams be allowed to consult computers? I don't think it would change the playing strength of a team very much, but it would be interesting to hear what Bomb thinks as we go, so I would vote for allowing computer assistance. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by arimaa_master on Mar 22nd, 2007, 10:07am on 03/22/07 at 08:50:10, Fritzlein wrote:
I am for allowing computer assistence too. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by chessandgo on Mar 22nd, 2007, 10:08am on 03/21/07 at 16:27:08, OLTI wrote:
Why not have both, then ? :) |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by aaaa on Mar 22nd, 2007, 4:52pm You need to have the move determination well thought out to prevent the same restrictiveness that, for example, plagued "Kasparov versus The World". Bringing up Condorcet is a good thing, but there are two problems. One is that you need a 100% decisive method, which Condorcet isn't (not only because of symmetry). The second more important point, which was already pointed out, is that even if you rank moves by preference, there are still way too many possibilities to list them all in order and thus it often will be the case that because many moves aren't being ranked by more than a few voters, this would result in a de facto approval vote of moves based simply on how many voters have ranked them at all. This would allow a small minority of people to (possibly inadvertently) collude in determining the resulting collective vote. To prevent this from happening, but still not restrict people in their choice of moves, whenever it's the turn of a group of voters, they should continuously maintain a preferential ballot during the discussion. This should go on until a majority is satisfied or time has run out, after which the final choice of move is determined by the chosen voting method (Schulze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method) would be a good choice for this), with any possible ties broken by a random vote or by a (pre-game or per-turn) designated team captain. With the members being made aware of each other's current preferences and the intermediary collective choice that would result from it, a feedback loop should result in these becoming more elaborate over time and that a move that is a good reflection of the collective opinion is being settled on as soon as possible; if one were to be unsatisfied with the current hypothetical result, one could attempt to change it by introducing new compromise moves in one's ranking, which in effect would be proposals for consideration by others. Those could in turn consider ranking them as well and/or introduce counterproposals of their own in the same manner. This negotiation by repeated polling is all to make sure a collective choice is (relatively) well-supported and not an unsatisfactory surprise in the end. Obviously, moves here should be considered to be identical based on whether their resulting board positions are. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by NIC1138 on Mar 22nd, 2007, 10:42pm As you can read in that article, the Schulze method *is* a Condorcet method!!... :P I don't imagine we might run into terrible paradoxal election situations... I don't even think we will need this kind of thing badly... I imagine that (at least a few steps inside the game) there won't be a big number of moves to choose from... If it happens that the debate over a certain move heats up, we just follow the martial arts tradition: the guys with highest rank and age decide! ::) I can even envision a small web page where the users can enter the moves, give arguments pro and con, and organize their votes, to be seen by everyone... Has anybody started to think abou that already?? :D We can even use many plugins, to see the outome of the elections using multiple schemes, from dictatorship to anarchy! 8) |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by The_Jeh on Mar 23rd, 2007, 12:53am With such a large number of prospective candidates, this voting situation is very difficult indeed. My struggles to come up with a simple, foolproof solution have failed. Nevertheless, here are two ideas to ponder: 1. Should proposals receive a certain number of "signatures" from other mob members before being considered "candidates?" (similar to the political election process) 2. Should candidates receive votes, be ordered by preference, or receive satisfaction ratings? |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by aaaa on Mar 23rd, 2007, 4:20am on 03/22/07 at 22:42:10, NIC1138 wrote:
I never implied it wasn't. I just want to make clear that when one speaks of "Condorcet method", one shouldn't interpret this as an explicit method (like plurality) which would be a somewhat indecisive one, but rather as an instantiation of a generic class of methods. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by IdahoEv on Mar 23rd, 2007, 10:59am Try this system: 1) Have a coordinator for the group. 2) Initial discussion is completely free-form; anyone can suggest moves and/or indicate approval for suggested moves 3) On a certain day of the week-long process, the coordinator picks the top N suggested moves, based on his subjective impression of which N have the most support from the community. N is a pre-chosen integer; I think anything from 4 to 7 would work well. 3.5) (Optional) Coordinator may have the ability to increase N by 1 or 2 for any particular move if it seems necessary to include all well-supported candidates. 4) Coordinator publishes these N moves as the official candidates for the group. 5) The whole group votes on those N moves. Ballots must rank all N candidates to be a legitimate ballots. 6) Ballots are scored using Schultze, the coordinator publishes the results and submits the winning move in the gameroom. The additional criterion that voters must rank all N candidates prevents problems with moves winning just because they were ranked at all. Having a coordinator select the appropriate candidates from the discussion avoids the problem of having eighty candidates for each move. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by JacquesB on Mar 24th, 2007, 1:10pm 1. I like that all players may propose moves, but at the end some difference should be made. Strategical evaluation is based on suppositions because it cannot be solved by search. These suppositions are grounded on experience. The only way to prove one has that successful experience is: rating. I think something like: rating >= 2200 -> vote weight x 4 2000..2199 -> vote weight x 3 1800..1999 -> vote weight x 2 below -> vote weight x 1 would be nice. Of course, strong players don't have 4 votes. They vote only one move but that counts four times. I am a weak player and will learn a lot from the discussions, but my vote should be considered with care. It is also a good reason for improving our own rating if we want to become "heavier". 2. It is more complicated, I know, but how about a double round system. It could be done with fixed dates: First round until Friday, second round Saturdays 24 hours so all timezones can do it. The second round with only two moves to choose, the first open. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by The_Jeh on Mar 24th, 2007, 2:15pm Of course better players will be able to make better choices, but they will also be able to persuade more inexperienced players that their reasoning is good. A bad move proposed by a younger player will quickly but courteously be eliminated by a better player. The end result should be that the move chosen is better. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by Fritzlein on Mar 24th, 2007, 2:38pm Jacques, I agree that higher rating roughly corresponds to better strategic judgment, but I would prefer a system where each player's vote counts equally, as a democratic experiment. I am curious whether a team might actually play worse than its strongest player. We would have a chance to test this, particularly in the One vs. the Mob scenario rather than the team vs. team scenario. Folks who scoff at democracy will expect a team to do worse and worse as it has more members, and would expect the One to win against the Mob every time. Yet my experience from team chess is that the team can easily play better than its strongest player, even with one vote per person. Furthermore, every additional member can make a contribution of analysis. The key is not is the voting (although incidentally the Schulze method sounds great) but rather the key is a productive discussion. Weaker players can often refute the moves proposed by stronger players, but this isn't any benefit unless they can propose the refutation in the discussion, and everyone can have a chance to hash it out. The point of one vote per player is that it forces people to lobby for their votes. If my vote counted 4x, and I knew that a few other strong players were on my side, I would not have to bother explaining why it was a good move, because I would know that it would win the vote anyway. But if each vote counts 1x, and lots of players seem to be attracted to a weaker move, then I must not only propose a better move and vote for a better move, but also campaign for the better move. The more democratic the system is, the more it forces public discussion. The free exchange of ideas helps everyone because, of course, the experts are often wrong. I make fewer mistakes than the average Arimaa player, but I still make a ton of mistakes. When I'm on a team, I want my ideas to have to compete on a level playing field, without any undue respect for my supposed insight. Let the power of my ideas win the day, not the power of my reputation. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by The_Jeh on Mar 25th, 2007, 12:39am I think IdahoEv's suggestion is the most sensible. The coordinator would function sort of like the Speaker of the House. If the game is played on the server, he could also be logged in against the One and input moves on behalf of the Mob, if necessary (although I would like to see "The_Mob" on the screen). If the Mob don't like the job he is doing, they can vent their feelings, but I don't think that will be a problem in this amiable community. If the One and the Mob both take a week to move, the game could last two years. I guess this would be all right, but I'd like to see a more efficient way of doing things. Here is a suggestion: 1. From the time the Mob officially makes a move, the One has until 11:59 P.M. CDT/CST seven days later to make a move. He may make a move ahead of time if he so wishes. 2. From the time the One makes a move, the Mob has until 11:59 P.M. six days later to produce candidates. The Mob then has until 11:59 P.M. the following day to vote and move. The Mob schedule is slightly flexible, but as much of the time should be used as possible. 3. Neither the One nor the Mob shall have a time reserve. I think the One will move ahead of time quite often, so this will speed things up. The Mob members will have to keep their heads up as to when it's their turn, but that's okay. It's a continuous process, and they'll be speculating even before the One moves. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by JacquesB on Mar 25th, 2007, 3:10pm 1. One person one vote: Its Ok for me. Your reasons sound good. Let's see what it gives. I am eager to start. ;-) 2. Reading the previous post I see that you mean one week per move. I had misunderstood as one week per round (=two moves). If the player agrees, I think it makes sense. I think routine helps. Having always the same days for the discussion and the election can make people more committed. The player would have 3.5 days, e.g. full-Sunday to mid-Wednesday. Of course the admin could add some extra time if he cannot play one week. I think it is enough time. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by NIC1138 on Mar 28th, 2007, 12:13am on 03/23/07 at 04:20:37, aaaa wrote:
You are right, sorry if I was rude. ::) I only wanted to give some credit to Condorcet because I read a book about old french mathematicians just the other day! ;D I actually came to this through the Schulze method, reading about the ongoing Debian elections... |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by NIC1138 on Mar 28th, 2007, 12:32am on 03/23/07 at 10:59:48, IdahoEv wrote:
I also think that's pretty much it... Plus I also agree with Fritz on the need for debate. Or else it would be more fun to have the 3 top players on the Mob plus the One playing 6 games against each other!... There must be politics and rhetoric in a game like this! :) And I still envision this site where players will enter their suggestions, that will pile up in a box, where you can click on the links, and see the board... Then you say wether you like that move or not, and the moderator will select the moves for the final voting... ::) Then we can keep the final votes open for a day in the site, for everyone to see each other's votes, and let people modify theirs!... I'm pro a week-long complete cycle... I prefer to play during the week, since my girlfriend doesn't let me use my computer during the weekend (that's because *she* uses it :P ) . The eligible Ones should tell how many days they would find good enough for them to play. I ask again: will we try something like this?... Who wants to work on the program?... (of course IRC / MSN and the coordinator taking care of all with pencil and paper is just fine too.) |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by omar on Mar 28th, 2007, 1:04am I just checked to see how to setup group based access to sections of the forum and found out that this forum doesn't support it. Bummer. But the good news is that the newer version says it supports this feature. So I will have to upgrade before we start this game. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by JacquesB on Apr 5th, 2007, 6:40am Please, don't let this thread die. I have nothing new on this, just that there were no posts in the last week. I think we will all improve our Arimaa knowledge participating in strategical discussions based on a game. What exactly are we waiting to start? a. A voting system for the chatroom? b. Who will be the One? c. Who will be the moderator/admin? This first depends on Omar, I guess. The rest needs volunteers. Since the admin should have the power to break ties, a strong player is required. Candidates, please show up. ;-) Of course, I will collaborate if there is something I can do, but I am not strong enough as a player. Jacques. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by Fritzlein on Apr 5th, 2007, 8:50am As for the player, I think we just need a confirmation from chessandgo that he is sure he is willing to be the One. If the pace of the game is a week per move, the game could easily take two years. The Mob can survive some players dropping out as other players join, but the One will be under pressure constantly. For the discussion, we only need Omar to set up a dedicated forum under the Players section. I'm sure we can take chessandgo on his honor not to read the discussions of the Mob. For the voting someone needs to write the Shulze counting code. Or does it exist already as open source? The greatest sticking point may be finding a team coordinator to run the voting software, to decide when to call for a vote as opposed to seeing the consensus, to decide which candidate moves people should vote among, to decide when to close the vote and count the results, etc. I expect this to role to also be rather time consuming, and I don't want to do it. By the way, I don't think the coordinator should have the power to break ties. There already is some power implied in deciding when to close the vote. I think rather that there should be an explicit method to break as many ties as possible, and that further ties should be broken randomly. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by chessandgo on Apr 5th, 2007, 12:02pm on 04/05/07 at 08:50:39, Fritzlein wrote:
Agreed ; above all, we have to determine who will coordinate, and precisely how. As for the lone player, it'd be ok for me, but many players might want to take the job, you on top of all, Karl. Not that I'm advocating for you, but if you're part of the rest-of-the-world side, I fear that your combined skills for arimaa playing and eloquence will make us chose your move every time ;) Maybe the best way to fasten things is to write a draft rules-set for this game, and ask everyone what they think about it until everyone is satisfied ... If you want to do it, Jacques, don't hesitate :) |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by The_Jeh on Apr 6th, 2007, 12:21am Here's a rough rules set, in no particular order, just to get something underway: 1. The game will be played as a regular game with the One logged in against the Mob. The Mob will use its own special registered player, having a password known only to the Mob Coordinator, who will log into the gameroom as this special player and input moves. 2. The time constraints for each player shall be 168h/0/0/0/104moves/168h 3. The One shall be allowed to move at any time after his clock starts. 4. The Mob Coordinator shall put up candidates for voting with 36-24h of the Mob's time remaining. 5. The Mob Coordinator shall end voting and move before the Mob's time runs out, but not before at least 20h of voting have passed. 6. The number of candidates the Mob Coordinator chooses must be at least three, preferably five, and never more than seven. 7. The Mob Coordinator is obliged to move according to the legitimate vote of the Mob, using the Schulze method. 8. Mob members may enter and alter their voting preference during voting hours, but votes are final when the Coordinator takes roll call. Votes are not saved unless all candidates have been ranked. 9. Mob discussion is allowed continuously, regardless of the state of the clock. The One may not enter the Mob's forum. 10. Should any rules be broken, the opposing player has the option of claiming victory if he so chooses. Omar has authority to settle violation disputes. 11. Mob members must register to vote and discuss in the designated forum. Registration may occur at any time during the progression of the game. However, a minimum of five registered Mob members, including the Coordinator, is required before the game commences. 12. The Mob Coordinator may transfer his responsibilities to another Mob member with the consent of said Mob member and Omar. The Mob's player password shall be transferred privately and must be changed by the new Coordinator. 13. Omar has the final say regarding all game disputes after the game begins and can cancel or postpone it at his disgression. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by JacquesB on Apr 6th, 2007, 9:29am I like The_Jeh's proposal, but I would set a procedure based in fixed time periods: E.g.: 4 days for move proposal, 5th day move number adjustment, 6th day voting. (day = 24 hour period starting when The One moves) An email sent to all members when The One moves as in a postal game triggers the periods. 1. In the first four days, anybody can propose moves, but only one per player. The proposed move can also be changed. 2. The maximum number of moves for the election day is 5 (it sounds more reasonable than 7 to me, just a proposal). 3. I don't see the point of a minimum number of moves. If everybody is unanimous, there is no election process. (We win one day to put pressure on The One ;-) ) If after the first 4 days: a. If there are 1 to 4 moves: Extra moves may be given during the 5th day. (Note, it is the duty of the admin to provide a move after a too long silence period, so the no move case is impossible.) It may seem unfair to accept a weaker move just because it arrived first with no quality debate, but it happens only because the move was proposed too late. The period for proposing moves are the first 4 days, proposing moves on the 5th should be exceptional, but we don't want to lose the possible improvement either. b. If there are more than 5 moves: The players should suggest during the 5th day what moves should be taken out. The ideal situation it that the proposer(s) of the worse move(s) take them out convinced of their weakness. If that does not happen, the admin will have to leave only 5 moves for the election day. c. When there are exactly 5 moves: This day is for campaigning. (All other days are also valid for that, including the election day.) Only exceptionally and with the authorization of the admin can a proposer change his move in the 5th day. During the election day moves may not be changed. I think having a fixed procedure like that makes things simpler for both the admin and the members who can adjust their schedules as soon as they get the email. Everything not mentioned = I agree with The_Jeh |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by The_Jeh on Apr 6th, 2007, 10:08am The reason I made the hours flexible is so that the Coordinator doesn't have to get up at 3 A.M. to act. I do like your idea of a campaign period, though. How about the Coordinator identifies candidates with 60-48h remaining, initiates voting with 36-24h remaining, and moves after at least 20h of voting? Remember that because the discussion is continuous, lobbying may be done during the election period, too. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by Fritzlein on Apr 6th, 2007, 11:20am I like one week per move as the time control, but I would like to see some flexibility, such as the being able to move within four days if there is no dissent (e.g. there's one and only one way to capture the other guy's camel) but also to use the banked reserve time to extend voting if the voters seem to be unsure. I would trust the coordinator to make a good decision about when to use the extra time, rather than tying the hands of the coordinator with rigid rules. From my experience with team chess, the extra time isn't necessary every time there is a disagreement. Often the disagreement is stylistic, and before long everyone is ready to vote and accept the result. The need for extra time comes when the campaigning is starting to make people waver. Folks will start to say, "I like move A, but the objections raised recently need to be examined more thoroughly, and if we can't resolve the issues with move A, I will switch to move B." If lots of people are wavering, the coordinator should delay counting the vote. Therefore I propose the time control of 1w/3w/100/3w/3y. The three week maximum reserve is also nice for the One in case he has to go on vacation. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by chessandgo on Apr 6th, 2007, 11:39am I like flexibility of time management too ; another issue is the number of candidates moves. I'd be for allowing a bigger number of candidates than 5 or 7 moves. How about leaving it to the discretion of the coordinator ? I'm sure that in most positions the number of legitimates moves people will propose will be much larger than this ... |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by NIC1138 on Apr 6th, 2007, 2:01pm My only concern is that it would be good for the mob players to be able to see the game in the that "plan" feature of the flash client... Is it possible to offer this to anyone? It would be even nicer if we could already have links to a plan board with the proposed mob moves already done, but this may be asking too much! ;D Without that the players will all have to store the game in their machines, running local clients to "test" the candidate-moves... It´s not the end of the world, of course... But where is the XXIst century spirit?! 8) |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by The_Jeh on Apr 6th, 2007, 2:41pm Okay. Scrap all the rules for when to announce candidates and vote. Leave that to the discretion of the Coordinator. As for moving in a reasonable time, we'll let the clock speak for itself. In that case, I propose three rules: 1. After the coordinator announces candidates, he may change them due to public discussion. 2. After the coordinator begins the voting, he may not change the candidates unless there is a technical issue. 3. The coordinator should make an effort to notify the Mob in advance what time he plans to open voting. Also, perhaps a synopsis of a move candidate's reasoning should accompany it on the ballot. For example, beside a move choice it might say: "Advance elephant to pressure camel on c6; move camel to freeze horse on e3." Maybe the game will be long, but time flies when you're having fun. In any case, I'm sure it's a worthwhile investment in Arimaa. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by Fritzlein on Apr 6th, 2007, 3:40pm Another thought about the number of candidate moves: What if each member of the Mob could select one candidate move? That way each player can rest assured that their proposal will get a fair vote, but the number of moves to choose between is limited by the number of players. Of course, and unlimited number of moves may be under discussion during the week, but when it comes time for each player to name a favorite, I don't anticipate our small community will produce more than seven moves to vote between, and usually around three. An additional benefit of candidate moves bubbling up in this way is that occasionally a majority will suggest the same move, which eliminates the need for a preferential vote. on 04/06/07 at 14:01:08, NIC1138 wrote:
If the game exists in the gameroom, anyone can open it up and hit the plan button. Try it with a current postal game! on 04/05/07 at 12:02:59, chessandgo wrote:
I sincerely hope that the Mob with me as a member will play differently than I would play alone. I expect the Mob will play better. Also, Jean, since you are the only person who is expressing a desire (or even willingness) to be the One, let's consider that settled. We are still lacking a Mob Coordinator, even though people have had ample time to volunteer by now. If nobody volunteers soon, I think we will be forced to draft Ron Weasley, since everyone trusts him based on his stellar performance as Tournament Director for the World Championhip, Computer Championship, and Arimaa Challenge matches. Everybody sing along with me: "Weasley is our King" |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by NIC1138 on Apr 6th, 2007, 4:08pm on 04/06/07 at 15:40:46, Fritzlein wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now, about implementations of the Schulze method, looks like this won´t be a problem. Take a look at this page, for example... We might use exactly the same program the Debian project uses!! There are some on-line calculators too. (So each Member of the Parliment can check the result for himself ;) ) http://seehuhn.de/comp/vote.html |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by The_Jeh on Apr 6th, 2007, 5:35pm We needn't worry about everyone always voting with Fritzlein because he himself will probably, in making a decision, have to discard other moves that he feels are equally good. There are so many move choices in Arimaa that we will likely be voting between related moves that differ only by one or two steps sometimes. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by 99of9 on Apr 6th, 2007, 7:31pm on 04/06/07 at 16:08:48, NIC1138 wrote:
I agree with Fritz on this one. I'm fine with a vote between 20 different possibilities, and I like the fact that everyone's contribution would be under consideration. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by The_Jeh on Apr 6th, 2007, 11:49pm I wouldn't have the time to properly rank 20 different candidates. Most people, I think, would rank the top choices they were considering and then randomly rank the others. And if everyone was promoting their own candidate, you can be sure which candidate would get their #1 vote. The overall winner would be determined by who gets the most #2 votes. Regardless of this, the major battle is not in the voting. The battle is in the discussion. It is there that moves are promoted or defeated. The voting is only a reflection of this. It is wrong to say that having only five candidates does not allow all moves to be considered. They were all considered, and the ones not exhibiting enough interest were rightfully dropped. If you propose a move in discussion, it is necessarily under consideration. If a move you like fails to become a candidate, don't complain unless you showed your support during the discussion. For these reasons, just have N<8 candidates. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by NIC1138 on Apr 7th, 2007, 1:55am on 04/06/07 at 23:49:00, The_Jeh wrote:
AFAIK, you don´t have to rank allllll candidates with the Schulze method (or many others)!!!... You can give the same preference to some candidates, and can leave some unranked (they will be considered less favoured then the ranked ones, and indiferent by the voter) Read the beginning of the wikipedia article!... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method Everyone will be able to vote "1" for their own moves, "2" for Fritzlein´s , "3" to the rest, and "99" to mine!! ;D |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by RonWeasley on Apr 7th, 2007, 2:06pm I think everyone is shy about being the Mob coordinator because of the time that might be involved. The coordinator has to follow the discussion of the Mob. The coordinator has to select move candidates and notify the Mob that it's time to vote then make the move. Actually if the Mob shows a little compassion, being the coordinator is not so bad as long as there's an allowance for being occasionally late, occasionally clueless, and technology support. I might caution against too rigid a move selection process so that a late realization about the position can be accommodated. Given this, I could volunteer to be the coordinator. I would like somebody else to develop the technology and I would be inclined to bend the rules if it meant considering a better move. I would want to participate as a Mob member but try to be objective about my opinions when being the coordinator. Thoughts? |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by Fritzlein on Apr 7th, 2007, 2:42pm Ron, I'm so happy you are (at least tentatively) willing to coordinate for the Mob. The technology is already available. I followed NIC's links to find http://www.cs.cornell.edu/w8/~andru/civs/ where you can create your own Shulze elections for free. I made an election regarding my postal game with Blue22. (Don't worry, the voting is about a move for which I already made the blunder.) Supposedly anyone can go vote there at the URL http://www.cs.cornell.edu/w8/~andru/cgi-perl/civs/vote.pl?id=E_ac35e58a579e2a31&akey=9f8799418b6aa1ab although I guess I shouldn't say it works until at least one other person has voted. The voting can be secured by a list of e-mail addresses when the actual game starts. I assume that for secured elections everyone is mailed a key that enables them to vote. Not that I am terribly worried about ballot stuffing or random strangers voting, but why not take advantage of built-in security features in the actual game? The only downside would be that folks couldn't vote without giving their e-mail address to the coordinator. I encourage everyone to go there and vote, and see whether this seems like a good tool for the Mob Coordinator to use. (I made a mistake of numbering the candidate moves from one to four. I think the order that the elections software presents candidates to the voters is random, so to be fair we should not to number the candidate moves in the real game.) |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by Fritzlein on Apr 7th, 2007, 3:16pm Since we have the advantage of numbers in the Mob, we should let chessandgo choose whether to play Gold or Silver, right? (I would say automatically give him Gold, except that statistics show Silver may have the advantage.) |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by NIC1138 on Apr 7th, 2007, 5:08pm on 04/07/07 at 14:42:24, Fritzlein wrote:
Looks like it works great!! Quote:
I am pro- using emails and keys and security stuff... If there is anybody afraid of using his personal e-mail, I would be glad to give away a gmail invitation!... |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by Fritzlein on Apr 8th, 2007, 9:26am I see we have eight votes now in my fake election. None of the four choices has more the three first-place votes, so there is no majority, but there is a Condorcet winner. It looks like the software is serving its purpose well. In order for Omar to set up the game, he just needs to know whether chessandgo will play Gold or Silver, and he needs to know the time control. Is there general support for my suggestion of one week per move with a three week max reserve? If we have three competing suggestions for time control, voting among them could be our first real use of Condorcet. :) |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by chessandgo on Apr 8th, 2007, 12:59pm I count about 10 or 12 players who have shown willingness to participate to this fun event : Karl, Nic, The_Jeh, Ron, Evan, Jacques, myself ; Omar (?), jdb (?), 99of9 (?), Olti (?), aaaa (?). I suppose more players have not voiced their opinion so far but will participate nonetheless ; maybe we should ask interested people to name themselves, to see who'll be in for a start, and check who wants to be the single player ... several players, including yourself Karl, might be more legitimate than me to take the job. As for the color, chose how you prefer ... |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by camelback on Apr 8th, 2007, 5:18pm I'm in, I can be one among the mob. I like this experiment and also want to learn from this. But I will be in vacation for 3 weeks in May. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by Janzert on Apr 8th, 2007, 8:00pm I'm interested. One thought; was there a reason more consideration wasn't given to a Mob v. Mob game first? This would relieve the necessity of anyone taking on the full burden of being "the one". Players could be assigned randomly or semi-randomly with an attempt to balance the ratings between the teams. It does require a larger number of people to want to participate though, probably closer to 20. Janzert |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by Fritzlein on Apr 8th, 2007, 8:10pm on 04/08/07 at 12:59:04, chessandgo wrote:
Ten is just about the minimum number. There have been 9 votes in my fake Condorcet election, two of which were me testing ballot stuffing. I advise against trying to split everyone into two teams for our first game, until we see what the interest level is. On the other hand, I am hopeful that even more people will participate in the discussion of the game and voting on moves than have participated in this thread so far. Maybe when folks see how much fun we are having, they will jump right in. Quote:
I would much rather you be the One than I. Even if you refuse to be the One, I might also refuse, depending on how much of a hassle Elmo and I have buying and moving into our new house. I understand how you want to give everyone a fair shot at being the One, but I don't recall anyone else volunteering so far. For you to agree to be the One would not be an act of presumption on your part (especially since you are the World Champion) but rather a favor to the rest of us so that we can see what a team game is like and learn from the discussion. Quote:
OK, I will propose that the One plays Gold, unless anyone has any objections. Speak now or forever hold your peace. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by NIC1138 on Apr 8th, 2007, 9:39pm on 04/08/07 at 20:10:08, Fritzlein wrote:
I would even propose that the World Champion should be forced on a game like this every year, so The Mob can beat the crap out out him! ;D |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by The_Jeh on Apr 8th, 2007, 10:17pm We should offer an incentive to the One to play his best. (Yes, I know he'll play his best anyway, but still...) I recommend bestowing a permanent, honorary title to any One who defeats the Mob in an official One vs. the Mob match. How about "Arimaa Paladin?" What's a match like this unless we raise the stakes a little? I would have suggested "Arimaa Grandmaster," but in the future perhaps this title will be given to several players with certain other credentials. Of course, I am assuming it will be difficult for the One to win. Maybe he'll make us look like a bunch of woodpushers. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by Fritzlein on Apr 8th, 2007, 11:14pm We'll let him choose: He can be The Archmage, The Irresistible Force, or The Grand High Poobah. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by The_Jeh on Apr 8th, 2007, 11:22pm Or His Royal Oneness can have his name in gold lettering everywhere on the site. But we're not going to let that happen, are we? The creation of this One vs. the Mob match will provide Arimaa World Champions with something greater (maybe) to strive for. I know how much I hate the feeling that there's nothing greater to accomplish, like when you beat a video game.... or become the Pope. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by chessandgo on Apr 9th, 2007, 4:07am Playing for the title of Grand Poobah is a high enough stake :) Almost as high as playing for the promise of The_Jeh to help becoming Pope :p |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by RonWeasley on Apr 9th, 2007, 7:53am I'm testing the election technology. So far it's pretty easy. Please participate in the following election: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/w8/~andru/cgi-perl/civs/vote.pl?id=E_4c643b90bbb4beac&akey=6149e1766ce3b3d5 Voting ends Wednesday. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by NIC1138 on Apr 9th, 2007, 11:53am on 04/08/07 at 23:22:46, The_Jeh wrote:
A rabbi sat by the side of a priest in a plane. He asked: "how do you become a priest?" "Well, you have to study, and be ordered." "And how do you become a bishop?" "Oh you have to study very much, and know many people, and be very blessed..." "And how do you become an archbishop?" "Oh, it's even harder, you have to be a great man, study very much, know many people in the church..." "And a pope?" "Now, that is very difficult... To be a candidate is already very hard, to actually get there is unimaginable, you really have to be a very blessed man to reach this position." "And how about Jesus Christ?" "What?? That's impossible, of course!..." "Is it?... Well, one of our boys did it!..." ;D |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by arimaa_master on Apr 10th, 2007, 7:28am on 04/08/07 at 12:59:04, chessandgo wrote:
Hi, I was pretty busy (so I wasn´t able to follow this discussion) but I am now back with enough time to participate in this experiment. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by Fritzlein on Apr 10th, 2007, 10:51am on 04/09/07 at 07:53:04, RonWeasley wrote:
Apparently the Death Eaters make a powerful voting block. Voldemort has surged into the lead. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by The_Jeh on Apr 10th, 2007, 12:01pm You're going to e-mail ballots to people, right? As it is, I can vote multiple times by using different computers. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by Fritzlein on Apr 10th, 2007, 1:37pm The more I think about it, the more it seems prudent to distribute voting keys by e-mail. Furthermore, there are other things to be aware of in the voting. It appears that: * No new candidates can be added after the election is created, and existing candidates can't be changed or deleted * Voters can't change their votes after voting. If this is correct, then the coordinator has to be very careful about when the election is created. If there appears to be a need for extra discussion, then it won't do much good to delay the end of the voting. We would need to delay the start of the voting instead. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by The_Jeh on Apr 10th, 2007, 3:25pm Using this pre-made system is fine, but would it really be that hard to build our own homemade system? The Prediction Contest worked just fine, although I know it is simpler. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by RonWeasley on Apr 10th, 2007, 8:20pm I can get a list of e-mails from which one vote may be cast. That would take care of double counting, but would require the voter to vote from that address. It seems that if we are changing our minds due to discussion, I could discard a current election and start a new one. The risk is that Mob members would have to keep checking in to catch changes. If an election lasts only two days, worthy Mob members may not be able check that frequently and may miss it. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by NIC1138 on Apr 10th, 2007, 9:32pm Sure it´s good to keep in mind the possibility of an election having to be rerun. For example, it might happen that everybody misses a stone in danger to be killed on the "other" side of the board!! :o Then we would have to rerun the elections considering that... But I believe the best way to solve this is counting on a 3-6 days time with a 2 week reserve time. Now, about the home-made elections system, I might be lured into preparing something, but I´m not sure how it could be more practical than this website already is... What are exactly the features it lacks?... |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by The_Jeh on Apr 10th, 2007, 9:50pm It's a very nice site, don't get me wrong. I'm just reminiscing on how during the Prediction Contest, all you had to do was log into the gameroom to enter your predictions, and if you wanted, you could make changes later and save them. Our own site would be more aesthetic, and we would generally have more control over it so that we could customize it to fit our specific needs. For example, you could put a picture of the current board position at the top of the page, and then beside each choice show what the new position would look like. All of these things are luxuries, not necessities. Don't go out of your way if you feel CIVS is just fine. I'm no webmaster and am thus not aware of how big a project it would be. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by chessandgo on Apr 11th, 2007, 3:28am Ok, as nobody seems to want to be the lone player, I take the job ... that is to say, unless someone else changes his/her mind before the start of the game. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by Fritzlein on Apr 11th, 2007, 10:51am Ron, are you ready to go? I think Omar can could create the game tonight if you give the green light. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by RonWeasley on Apr 11th, 2007, 12:13pm Let me make sure I know what I'm doing. The voting site works, although I think the Slytherins voted twice. I would favor Mob members sending me their e-mail addresses. I know it's bad security, but it does protect against a Mob member voting twice by mistake from different locations. (I know nobody would do that on purpose ... ?) Send to my muggle friend nbent@groupw.com. I'm assuming I'll lock out chessandgo from this forum. I'm lazy, can anybody tell me how I do that? I have administrative permissions already. I'm thinking a nominal one week cycle. Maybe a little faster for the first few moves or obvious captures (or when we goal). For example, if most of the Mob settles on a move quickly, we can vote early and if the votes are quick I can move early. Nominally, however, five days discussion and two days to vote with the move made at the end of the voting period. The days of the week this falls on will float depending on when chessandgo moves. Anything I'm forgetting? Sometimes I leave memories in the pensive. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by Fritzlein on Apr 11th, 2007, 2:43pm I think that is everything, although I don't know how you lock out chessandgo. In fact, Omar implied that that feature is only available in the more upgraded version of the forum software, so we may just have to trust chessandgo not to peek. I sent you my e-mail address so I can vote. Guess what piece setup I will be voting for? ::) |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by Fritzlein on Apr 11th, 2007, 7:48pm Ron, it looks like Omar has added a new postal time control of "1 week with 3 week reserve" in the gameroom. That means you can kick off the game by logging in as TheMob and inviting chessandgo to a game at that speed. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by omar on Apr 11th, 2007, 9:12pm Yes, I've added a new time control under the postal section when you click on the 'Invite' button. The time control is: 7d/21d/100/21d/0. So either TheMob or chessandgo should invite the other using this new time control. It will be a rated game I assume. Im really glad to see this game taking shape. I intend to be a part of the mob :-) |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by omar on Apr 11th, 2007, 9:19pm Ron, there is no way in this forum to ban a player from one section. So we just have to trust chessandgo to not peek in the move threads. But he can definitely continue to read and discuss in this thread. Your moderator power allows you to delete posts which you feel are inappropriate. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by 99of9 on Apr 11th, 2007, 10:44pm on 04/11/07 at 21:12:22, omar wrote:
I think it might be better unrated. I suppose it depends if we expect to have many Mob games with similar standard of play. If not, then rating this will just punish Jean's rating (when we win :-)). |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by The_Jeh on Apr 11th, 2007, 11:24pm The Mob RU would never lower, would it, if one game takes 2-3 years? We won't learn anything from rating the game, so let's not. We can estimate our strength in hindsight after the game is over. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by RonWeasley on Apr 12th, 2007, 7:03am I also expected this to be unrated. I agree that the Mob's rating means nothing and therefore should not interfere with chessandgo's rating. I currently have 8 mobsters who have sent me their e-mails. I sent back confirmation messages. Anybody else may join the voting by sending my muggle friend their e-mail address. (See previous post for instructions.) Of course, you don't have to vote for your comments to be welcome. Before I start the game, who plays gold? I'd be willing to let chessandgo decide. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by The_Jeh on Apr 12th, 2007, 7:50am Earlier Fritzlein suggested TheMob play silver, and "speak up or forever hold your peace." No one has spoken up otherwise, and Chessandgo has said that he doesn't care, so I guess we TheMob are playing silver. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by RonWeasley on Apr 12th, 2007, 11:43am chessandgo chose gold. Game on! |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by Fritzlein on Apr 12th, 2007, 1:20pm Woohoo! I didn't want this game to take up all my time, but I can already tell it will. I'm going to lose all my postal tournament games due to neglect while discussing the merits of "cats back" vs. "dogs back". Here I am posting from work. Bad Fritz! |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by NIC1138 on Apr 12th, 2007, 3:19pm on 04/12/07 at 13:20:59, Fritzlein wrote:
Just wait until the first cat gets killed, and the flame war ensues!!! :D |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by omar on Apr 13th, 2007, 12:42am Hey Im glad to see this game is underway now. You guys are awsome. Im wondering if maybe we should add a new one post thread called "About this game" which summerizes what is going on and gives instructions on how to participate; and mentions that anyone can join in at anytime. This will help new comers in getting started without have to read through this thread which has become pretty long now. I would nominate The_Jeh to start this thread since he's the one who initiated the idea for this game. Ron, please add me to the list of mobsters if you haven't already. Thanks. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by Fritzlein on Apr 13th, 2007, 8:04am Thanks for starting the "About this game" thread, the_JEH. Ron, can you make that thread sticky so it stays on top? |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by The_Jeh on Apr 13th, 2007, 3:56pm Also, as new move threads are created, make them sticky so they stay in numerical order. We should also probably keep new topics restricted to Moves, or else keep all other topics at the bottom of the list. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by Fritzlein on Apr 13th, 2007, 5:39pm on 04/13/07 at 15:56:14, The_Jeh wrote:
I don't know about that. By the time move twenty rolls around, I might not want to scroll past nineteen sticky threads to get to it. I expect I'd rather have the top thread be the thread most recently posted to, except for the "about" thread. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by The_Jeh on Apr 13th, 2007, 10:04pm I see your point Fritzlein. I thought it might be convenient to have all Move threads together in reverse order, but I suppose the current Move thread will be about the only one I care about. |
||||||
|
Title: Re: One versus the Mob Post by camelback on Apr 19th, 2007, 11:43pm Hi all, I have started move list since I'm notation challenged :( Now, after seeing moves in the plan window, discussions make lot of sense. I'll try to update after each move. If not, I think moderator can modify it. Please use correct notation while discussing (caps for gold). Otherwise you will see stones flying across the board as the move list below, (but its funny to watch) :D 2b ed7s hg7s df7e me7e 3w Ee5e Ef5e hg6w Eg5s 3b ed6s ed5s ed4s hf6w 4w Eg6e dg7s Cc2w Md2w 4b ed3s he6e dg6n hf6w 5w Eh6s rh7s Eh5s rh6s 5b ed2n Rd1n ed3n Rd2n |
||||||
|
Arimaa Forum » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1! YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. |