Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Mar 28th, 2024, 7:46am

Home Home Help Help Search Search Members Members Login Login Register Register
Arimaa Forum « AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning Stage) »


   Arimaa Forum
   Team Games
   2011 Arimaa World League
(Moderators: megajester, supersamu)
   AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning Stage)
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7  ...  12 Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning Stage)  (Read 19979 times)
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****




Istanbul, Turkey

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 710
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #60 on: Jun 29th, 2011, 5:33pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Thank you Fritz for explaining what I had trouble expressing. I too can see the purist position, but in practice I doubt we would actually see a player artificially prolong a game just to deny his opponent 1 point instead of mixing up the position to try to create chances to gain 3 or more points himself.
 
As you demonstrated in your calculation, an aggressive strategy has a greater chance of paying off. How about if we increase that chance by multiplying everything by 2 again and just have a variation of 1 point for wins for each game length bracket? That way the incentive for losing players to artificially prolong games gets even smaller, and we still have a system that's varied enough to avoid ties.
 
So for example:
 
Forfeit (through being absent)
0 points
 
Loss on time or resignation
2 points
 
Loss through play
4 points
 
Win by forfeit
11 points
 
Win on or after move 50??
10 points
 
Win on move 30-50??
11 points
   
Win before move 30??
12 points
IP Logged

ocmiente
Forum Guru
*****




Arimaa player #3996

   
WWW

Gender: male
Posts: 194
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #61 on: Jun 29th, 2011, 11:05pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I'm on the side of not awarding points based on the length of the game.  That would make the league scoring system more interesting, but do you think that it would increase the quality of the games themselves?  I tend to agree with other comments in this thread, that it might do the reverse by leading to unnecessarily aggressive or conservative (to draw out games that are clearly lost) play.  
 
The only scoring change I really want to see is that timeouts and resignations should count the same as a loss by playing out the game.
« Last Edit: Jun 29th, 2011, 11:07pm by ocmiente » IP Logged

Hippo
Forum Guru
*****




Arimaa player #4450

   


Gender: male
Posts: 883
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #62 on: Jun 30th, 2011, 5:56am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jun 29th, 2011, 11:05pm, ocmiente wrote:
I'm on the side of not awarding points based on the length of the game.  That would make the league scoring system more interesting, but do you think that it would increase the quality of the games themselves?  I tend to agree with other comments in this thread, that it might do the reverse by leading to unnecessarily aggressive or conservative (to draw out games that are clearly lost) play.  
 
The only scoring change I really want to see is that timeouts and resignations should count the same as a loss by playing out the game.

 
I agree
IP Logged

Fritzlein
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #706

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 5928
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #63 on: Jun 30th, 2011, 9:46am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jun 29th, 2011, 11:05pm, ocmiente wrote:
The only scoring change I really want to see is that timeouts and resignations should count the same as a loss by playing out the game.

Just to be clear, you think a resignation on move five should score as many point as a game fought to the finish and lost on move forty?
« Last Edit: Jun 30th, 2011, 9:47am by Fritzlein » IP Logged

Sconibulus
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #4633

   


Gender: male
Posts: 116
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #64 on: Jun 30th, 2011, 10:04am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Ahh, I wasn't considering it to be repeated many times, I was considering it on an individual, case by case basis.  In each individual situation the net change relative to the opponent is the same, but over the season the distribution of risk would be a relative benefit, although I'd still rather the length of the game had no effect.
 
on Jun 30th, 2011, 9:46am, Fritzlein wrote:

Just to be clear, you think a resignation on move five should score as many point as a game fought to the finish and lost on move forty?

 
I'd say this depends on the scenario, after all, you, one of the top players in the game, resigned about ten moves into one of the games of the 2010 World Championship, because you'd lost your elephant, and therefor couldn't put forth a credible game. I'd suggest that in the event of an early resignation a panel (quite possibly the Legislators Committee suggested in another thread)  might, if requested, vote to declare the game a forfeit. I'd say that this would only an option on games that end before move twenty, and would require a complaint to be brought. If they agree that the resigner's position was severely compromised, then the game would be scored as a forfeit on the part of the resigning player.
« Last Edit: Jun 30th, 2011, 10:05am by Sconibulus » IP Logged

Fritzlein
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #706

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 5928
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #65 on: Jun 30th, 2011, 12:58pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jun 30th, 2011, 10:04am, Sconibulus wrote:
I'd say this depends on the scenario, after all, you, one of the top players in the game, resigned about ten moves into one of the games of the 2010 World Championship, because you'd lost your elephant, and therefor couldn't put forth a credible game.

Yes, I think that losing an elephant in the opening is a legitimate time to resign, because it will be hard to make the game interesting or challenging for the player in the lead, yet the game isn't just a few moves from over.  If the remaining moves would either be tense, instructive, or few, I would feel that something had been lost.
 
I would be uncomfortable with a committee expressing an opinion on whether or not a given resignation is legitimate.  It's a can of worms to write a judgement call like that into the rules.  I would, on the other hand, be comfortable with my team being penalized because I lost on move 14, and would not protest if the penalty was increased because I lost by timeout rather than goal.  If the feeling of the league is that the spectators were ripped off because they didn't get to watch a good fight, I would agree: they didn't get to watch a good fight.  This is independent from my feeling that it was an appropriate time to resign.
IP Logged

ocmiente
Forum Guru
*****




Arimaa player #3996

   
WWW

Gender: male
Posts: 194
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #66 on: Jun 30th, 2011, 1:59pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jun 30th, 2011, 9:46am, Fritzlein wrote:

Just to be clear, you think a resignation on move five should score as many point as a game fought to the finish and lost on move forty?

 
Yes.  
 
A player could simply say that their internet connection went down.  It is pretty much impossible to distinguish between timeouts and resignations.  I don't think we can make the system bulletproof, so we shouldn't try.  
 
I can think of other reasons having to do with motive,  the probability that this sort of thing will be a problem in actual play, and whether the team should be penalized for the act of an individual for whom there was no vetting process.  However, I hope the previous paragraph is a sufficient reason.  Keep it simple.
« Last Edit: Jun 30th, 2011, 2:10pm by ocmiente » IP Logged

megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****




Istanbul, Turkey

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 710
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #67 on: Jul 1st, 2011, 12:53am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

OK, the purists win Wink
 
So we're back to the 3-1-0 points system then. (Perhaps we should make it 4 or 5 points for a win, because in scoring systems like this the "1" in the middle there is usually to reward a draw, not a loss.) A "loss" is a loss through defeat, time or resignation.
 
The tiebreaker would be the "move difference" as proposed by aaaa. Total number of half-moves in lost games minus total number of half-moves in won games. Or do we need to be using averages instead of the total? I reckon not, because the only time the tiebreaker's ever going to be used is when two teams have won and lost the exact same number of games.
 
Are there any objections to this proposal?
 
If it's not too early to change the subject, I'd like to ask if people think we need to tweak the budget system or if we can just stick with last year's.
« Last Edit: Jul 1st, 2011, 12:54am by megajester » IP Logged

aaaa
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #958

   


Posts: 768
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #68 on: Jul 1st, 2011, 4:16pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

The question of how many points a win should be worth, provided a regular loss is worth 1 and a forfeit 0, is "isomorphic" to the question of how many wins a forfeit should cost. Forfeit penalties of, respectively, 1, 0.5 and x wins correspond to 2, 3 and 1+1/x points for a win.
IP Logged
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****




Istanbul, Turkey

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 710
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #69 on: Jul 1st, 2011, 4:29pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 1st, 2011, 4:16pm, aaaa wrote:
The question of how many points a win should be worth, provided a regular loss is worth 1 and a forfeit 0, is "isomorphic" to the question of how many wins a forfeit should cost. Forfeit penalties of, respectively, 1, 0.5 and x wins correspond to 2, 3 and 1+1/x points for a win.

Right, which is why I want to increase the number of points for a win.
IP Logged

aaaa
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #958

   


Posts: 768
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #70 on: Jul 1st, 2011, 4:34pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Why would you want to lessen the penalty for forfeits?
IP Logged
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****




Istanbul, Turkey

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 710
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #71 on: Jul 1st, 2011, 4:42pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 1st, 2011, 4:34pm, aaaa wrote:
Why would you want to lessen the penalty for forfeits?

Eh? Losses surely.
 
Lessen the penalty for losses? Surely increasing the reward for a win means rewarding losses less, thereby increasing the relative penalty for losing, isomorphically speaking...
IP Logged

aaaa
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #958

   


Posts: 768
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #72 on: Jul 1st, 2011, 4:57pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Rescale your point system by an offset such that regular losses are 0 points and then see what happens. Hint: inflation.
IP Logged
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****




Istanbul, Turkey

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 710
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #73 on: Jul 1st, 2011, 5:19pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Oh ok I think I understand you.
 
Well as I explained earlier, I think we should be rewarding wins more than we are. 3 losses should not equal 1 win. IMO. So I'm proposing we increase the number of points for a win.  
 
Which would also mean that the penalty for a forfeit is less than it was relative to a loss, you are right. It's not that I "want" to do that, it's just that doing one causes the other.
IP Logged

ocmiente
Forum Guru
*****




Arimaa player #3996

   
WWW

Gender: male
Posts: 194
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #74 on: Jul 1st, 2011, 5:59pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Instead of a 3-1-0 system, a 2-0-(-1) system could be used, so losses would never add up to a win.  
 
There is really no difference in those two systems other than perception.  
 
I agree with aaaa that increasing the points for winning a game only decreases the penalty for forfeits.
 
on Jul 1st, 2011, 12:53am, megajester wrote:
...So we're back to the 3-1-0 points system then... . A "loss" is a loss through defeat, time or resignation.
 
The tiebreaker would be the "move difference" as proposed by aaaa. Total number of half-moves in lost games minus total number of half-moves in won games. Or do we need to be using averages instead of the total? I reckon not, because the only time the tiebreaker's ever going to be used is when two teams have won and lost the exact same number of games.
 
Are there any objections to this proposal?
 
If it's not too early to change the subject, I'd like to ask if people think we need to tweak the budget system or if we can just stick with last year's.

 
No objection.  I agree with that.  
 
I have no preference with respect to the use of averages in the tie breaker, but I think that it might be possible for two teams to tie without having lost exactly the same number of games if the team that won more games had some forfeited games.  I suspect that is OK though, since it would (I think) harm the team with more forfeits.  
 
IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7  ...  12 Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »

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