Author |
Topic: 2007 World Championship Format (Read 5291 times) |
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
 
Gender: 
Posts: 1413
|
 |
Re: 2007 World Championship Format
« Reply #75 on: Oct 1st, 2006, 1:02am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Sep 30th, 2006, 3:28pm, jdb wrote:| The difference between the original and the experimental time controls is the limiting of the reserve time. |
|
If that was all, I wouldn't be too fussed.
As far as I can tell, there is another difference between the two 90s controls:
Under the old controls:
90s/90s/100/7m/6h
which includes:
7 minutes maximum reserve limit
so one crucial move can theoretically take 8 minutes 30 seconds.
Whereas under the experimental controls:
90s/9m/90/0/6h/5m
which includes:
5 minutes maximum turn time
so you cannot ever take more than 5 minutes.
Even if your computer crashes, or you need to make a game bifurcating decision.
Fritz, I agree this is a different issue to the not being able to see your full reserve. But I still think that is an issue in itself. We can chat about it sometime.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 1st, 2006, 1:03am by 99of9 » |
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2007 World Championship Format
« Reply #76 on: Oct 1st, 2006, 11:37am » |
Quote Modify
|
I agree, 99of9, there are several issues:
(1) Can you see your reserve at all times? Not being able to see how much time is in your full reserve when you have more than the max time per move seems like a small issue to me, and one that can be technically remedied to be no issue at all.
(2) Should you be able to accumulate reserve beyond the amount that is the maximum for one move? I think having this ability is clearly desirable. It allows the players some additional control over time management without sacrificing the enjoyment of the spectators. No matter what we set as the theoretical maximum for one move (be it 5:00 or 8:30 or anything else) it makes sense to me to let players have reserve beyond that, but not use it all at once.
(3) What should the maximum time allowed for one move be? Five minutes, or ten, or eight and a half? We discussed this last year, and we should discuss it more. I'm happy to chat about it as well, but also I think it is good to have discussion in the forum where everyone can see what the pros and cons are.
If I recall correctly, MrBrain was philosophically opposed to any controls on the players' management of their time. He always advocated a large block of time for the players to do with as they see fit.
I'm a fan of chess where they do just what MrBrain wants, and it makes chess a terrible spectator sport. Even in the current World Championship games it annoyed me. Kramnik would reach a "game-bifurcating decision", and I would have to wait around twenty minutes or more before anything happened. Call me impatient, say I have ADD, whatever, but I get bored and go do something else rather than wait forever for a move, even if the position is intrinsically interesting.
Settling on five minutes per move maximum time for Arimaa seemed like a good idea to me. I think the needs of the spectators (not to mention the other player) to keep the game going should trump the right of time management of the players to that extent at least. Five minutes per move is already very slow for spectators, and for some players as well. PMertens would have to simultaneously play a game of blitz on the side to keep from falling asleep.
I don't mind forcing players to make critical decisions within five minutes. Frankly, I don't believe that giving players full control over their time results in better chess anyway. In chess, too many players agonize too long over midgame moves, and then end up with time trouble later which causes them to blunder away games. Forcing a steadier pace might actually improve the overall chess game quality.
But even if there are cases where the quality of games is slightly raised by giving the players more control, I come out in favor of respecting the spectator. I watch American football, and sometimes a 300-pound lineman will be bearing down on the quarterback, who has only a second or two to make a critical decision. Could he make a better decision if he had more time? Certainly, but decisions under pressure are part of what make football a fun game to watch.
Of course, there has to be a balance. You could say that the World Championship would be more exciting for spectators if all games were played at 30 seconds per move. On the other extreme, you could say the games would be of highest quality at 3 minutes per move with total control to the players. For me 90 seconds per move with a five minute maximum hits the sweet spot. The game quality won't improve all that much from more time per move, and the spectator experience will deteriorate significantly by raising the per-move maximum. Obviously other folks will feel the sweet spot differently.
I admit, the issue of protecting against disconnects is tricky. Having a flaky connection puts a player at a real disadvantage. It would be a huge shame if someone lost on time due to technical difficulties during a World Championship game. On the other hand, a large reserve can't entirely protect against it anyway. Sometimes it takes fifteen minutes or an hour to resolve something. I don't know what to do about the issue, but increasing thinking time to deal with it seems unsatisfactory to me.
By the way, I'm not writing this treatise to try to bludgeon everyone into submission. I respect that Omar has already made his decision for this year's time control. I also respect that different people will feel differently about what concessions should be made to the players rather than the spectators. I'm writing because it is worthy of discussion, and it's good for everyone to air their opinions.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 1st, 2006, 11:38am by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
RonWeasley
Forum Guru
Harry's friend (Arimaa player #441)
Gender:
Posts: 882
|
|
Re: 2007 World Championship Format
« Reply #77 on: Oct 3rd, 2006, 7:45am » |
Quote Modify
|
Moaning Myrtle told Harry she's been giving advice at some muggle chess tournament. How would you stop something like that, huh?
The really creepy thing is that she watches you from inside the loo when you go.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
PMertens
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #692
Gender:
Posts: 437
|
|
Re: 2007 World Championship Format
« Reply #78 on: Oct 5th, 2006, 9:21am » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:| PMertens would have to simultaneously play a game of blitz on the side to keep from falling asleep. |
|
well ... actually I start reading news or watch tv ... both does not really help my concentration ...
unfortunately my brain still is the brain of a real time strategy player .... 
"could you please hold that missile a second, I need to ponder what unit you are going to target so I can move it away in time"
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Janzert
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #247
Gender:
Posts: 1016
|
|
Re: 2007 World Championship Format
« Reply #79 on: Oct 10th, 2006, 8:27am » |
Quote Modify
|
I ran across this today although I haven't had time to read more than the abstract it looks like something people here (well at least Fritzlein ) may be intrested in. Probably something to take a look at before deciding on next years tournament format.
"Bayesian optimal design of knockout tournaments"
Janzert
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2007 World Championship Format
« Reply #80 on: Oct 10th, 2006, 11:15am » |
Quote Modify
|
Wow, thanks for the fantastic link, Janzert. The paper only deals with single-elimination, but the lessons might be applicable to multi-elimination formats as well. A few nuggets of wisdom I glean from a quick first reading:
* If you are trying to determine the best player, folding pairing after each round works better than fixed-bracket pairing or random pairing. That makes sense. What is startling is that they have a method that is even better than folding pairing.
* Their method somehow gets its advantage from the uncertainty of ratings in the way it gives a break to the top-rated players. For example, if there are 8 players and folding pairing, you pair #1 with #8 because that gives the best probability of the best player not being upset. But if #8 is rated 1410 with an RU of 112, whereas #7 is rated 1420 with an RU of 30, then there is less of an upset chance if you pair #1 versus #7, because we know so little about #8, he might be a ringer. Indeed, #8 might actually be the best player, so we want to avoid hammering him the first round.
* Most important (to me): The FTE pairing algorithm doesn't have to search an exponential number of possible pairings. There exsists an O(N^3) algorithm to find the best pairing. I am so embarrassed that I didn't realize this on my own. What were my graduate math courses for, anyway? We studied exactly this in Network Flows, if I could only remember that a maximum-weight perfect matching applies also to non-bipartite graphs. But anyway, my personal humilitation aside, the existence of an efficient pairing algorithm is a good thing for the future of floating triple elimination. I was afraid FTE would be nice but impractical for large tournaments, and therefore FTE would never catch on. Now, given an efficient implementation algorithm (vastly better asymptotically than doublep's branch and bound), FTE will rise or fall on its intrinsic merits, rather than its computational difficulty.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 10th, 2006, 4:00pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
RonWeasley
Forum Guru
Harry's friend (Arimaa player #441)
Gender:
Posts: 882
|
|
Re: 2007 World Championship Format
« Reply #81 on: Oct 10th, 2006, 12:59pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:| We studied exactly this in Network Flows, if I could only remember that a maximum-weight perfect matching applies also to non-bipartite graphs. |
|
I think Hermione said the same thing in Snape's potion class last week. That was just before her cauldron spewed tapioca all over Longbottom.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2007 World Championship Format
« Reply #82 on: Oct 19th, 2006, 8:51pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Omar, just a quick note that the "World Championship" link in the gameroom is still pointing to last year.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print