Author |
Topic: 2008 World Championship Format (Read 7338 times) |
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender: 
Posts: 1003
|
 |
Re: 2008 World Championship Format
« Reply #45 on: Oct 8th, 2007, 8:40am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
The registration for the 2008 World Championship is now open.
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/wc/2008/
Lets hope we have another record breaking year of participation. If anyone would have a problem with sending the registration fee through PayPal, please let me know through the contact page:
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/contact/
Since we do have a few months until the WC begins, people may decide to delay registering until later to avoid sending the registration fee now. However I would rather have players register now and send the fee later then to delay registering. That way we begin to more quickly get an estimate of how many players there will be.
One of the nice things about the new format with a Swiss preliminary is that I don't have to worry about the pairing program crashing if the number of players gets beyond 22 
It is also good for the players because it means more games against closely matched opponents even if they don't make it to the finals.
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 6th, 2007, 6:32pm by omar » |
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2008 World Championship Format
« Reply #46 on: Oct 8th, 2007, 9:25am » |
Quote Modify
|
I notice the rules for pairing the finals still refer to using the rating. Would it not be better to use the seeding instead? The seeding would be determined by the order of finish in the preliminary tournament, not by the rating.
I also notice that the time controls only bank 75% of unused time instead of 100% of unused time. I like this change because it encourages people to think for about the same length of time on every move rather than blitzing some and being slow on others. Not only is that better for the spectators, it is generally better for the players. I wonder, however, whether it will be controversial just because it is new.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: 2008 World Championship Format
« Reply #47 on: Oct 9th, 2007, 2:31am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 8th, 2007, 9:25am, Fritzlein wrote:| I notice the rules for pairing the finals still refer to using the rating. Would it not be better to use the seeding instead? The seeding would be determined by the order of finish in the preliminary tournament, not by the rating. |
|
Yes, it should have been changed to use the ranks from the Swiss rather than ratings. I've changed it now. Thanks for spotting that; I'm glad someone is reading
Quote:| I also notice that the time controls only bank 75% of unused time instead of 100% of unused time. I like this change because it encourages people to think for about the same length of time on every move rather than blitzing some and being slow on others. Not only is that better for the spectators, it is generally better for the players. I wonder, however, whether it will be controversial just because it is new. |
|
I've added these time controls to the 'Invite' and 'Start Game' buttons so we can try them out. I've also temporarily changed Bomb2005CC to use the same time control as in the Swiss preliminary. Since we have a few months before the WC starts I hope this will give players a chance to try it out and practice with these time controls.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 9th, 2007, 2:31am by omar » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2008 World Championship Format
« Reply #48 on: Oct 9th, 2007, 7:37am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 9th, 2007, 2:31am, omar wrote:| I've also temporarily changed Bomb2005CC to use the same time control as in the Swiss preliminary. Since we have a few months before the WC starts I hope this will give players a chance to try it out and practice with these time controls. |
|
Perhaps you should instead change the default on Bomb2005P1 to the swiss preliminary time time control, because BombP1 was in any case playing at one minute per move, and because it gets played more often than BombCC? For BombCC you could use the proposed time control for the final, since that is closer to Bomb's normal two minutes per move.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 9th, 2007, 7:39am by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2008 World Championship Format
« Reply #49 on: Oct 10th, 2007, 10:07am » |
Quote Modify
|
Thanks for changing the rules to reflect the finals being seeded, not by rating, but by the results of the preliminary swiss. Yes, someone is reading the rules, as this post will show.  Of course my intention is not just to be critical but to raise points of possible improvement.
I notice that for the four of us already registered, the listed ratings are as of last year. Woh is still listed at 1705! According to the current rules, the ratings still do matter, because they seed the swiss tournament, so we would want them to be as accurate as possible. Omar, what do you say to using some sort of "HvH only" rating for seeding the preliminary?
I notice that the preliminary rules refer to 2 points for a win, 1 for a draw, and 0 for a loss. It is true that with swiss pairing (as opposed to elimination) draws are not a problem, so we could use the game room rules that declare a game drawn if all 16 rabbits are captured. However, I have come to like the match rules better, where capturing all 8 opposing rabbits is a win, so I recommend removing the possibility of draws even from the preliminary.
Whichever decision you make (draws possible or impossible) the rules should make it clearer than at present which is in force. Right now it says in one place that a draw is worth 1 point, and in a later place that draws are not allowed, but it isn't clear if the latter statement applies only to the finals.
I notice that the rules say the preliminary will be five or six rounds, depending on the number of players. What did you have in mind for the tipping point? 16 players? 32?
Here is one strange way to define the tipping point: It would be weird if players with a 3-3 record would qualify in the final eight. But if there are only 16 players, then two or three 3-3 players will indeed qualify. That makes six rounds of qualifying seem like overkill: it's enough to play five rounds and let all the 3-2 players advance. However, as soon as there are 24 or more players, then a 3-3 record is no longer good enough to qualify in the top eight, and it takes 4-2 or better to advance. So by this sideways logic, there should be a six-round preliminary for 24 or more players, but only a five-round preliminary for 23 or fewer.
The rules say "If a player does not show up for the game within 3 minute after the scheduled start time then that player will lose by forfeit. In case of a valid reason the tournament director may consider rescheduling the game." I don't like this much, because the time window is very narrow (only three minutes) and the punishment fuzzy (what is a valid reason?). I would prefer the time window to be wider (say ten minutes) and the punishment to be absolute (forfeit regardless of the reason). Even if I had to take my dying wife to the hospital, surely a valid reason for being late, we shouldn't disrupt the tournament to reschedule games on this account.
I note there can still be a two-way tie for third place, which is a small matter now that no money is on the line, but the glory of being listed among past medalists is still important. It is quite possible in future years that there will be no prize money and people will play only for glory. Therefore let me object to the rule "Highest pre-tournament ratings will be used to break ties for third place." I would rather have the tiebreaker be first by sum of wins of opponents, and second by rank in the preliminary tournament. This is in service of rewarding whoever played best in the tournament, not whoever played best before the tournament.
In the time controls 60s/120s/75/0/4h/4m and 90s/90s/75/0/6h/5m, isn't the initial reserve rather small? I would have expected something like four moves' worth in the bank, i.e. 60s/4m/75/0/4h/4m and 90s/6m/75/0/6h/5m. That way the players don't have empty banks at the very beginning, and can survive a minor connection issue. My intention this tournament will be to keep at least four minutes in my reserve, not for the purpose of using on tough moves, but as insurance against a disconnection or computer crash. I would rather not have to blitz at the beginning to build up this safety net. Given that it is already quite harsh for a four-minute disconnection to result in forfeiting the game, I think we should at least provide that safety net in the initial time bank.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 10th, 2007, 11:26am by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: 2008 World Championship Format
« Reply #50 on: Oct 30th, 2007, 5:47pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:
I notice that for the four of us already registered, the listed ratings are as of last year. Woh is still listed at 1705! According to the current rules, the ratings still do matter, because they seed the swiss tournament, so we would want them to be as accurate as possible. Omar, what do you say to using some sort of "HvH only" rating for seeding the preliminary?
|
|
I plan to use HH P8 ratings. For now ignore those ratings.
Quote:
Whichever decision you make (draws possible or impossible) the rules should make it clearer than at present which is in force. Right now it says in one place that a draw is worth 1 point, and in a later place that draws are not allowed, but it isn't clear if the latter statement applies only to the finals.
|
|
Changed the wording to make it clear that drawn games are not allowed in the preliminary or the final; which is what the original intent was.
Quote:
I notice that the rules say the preliminary will be five or six rounds, depending on the number of players. What did you have in mind for the tipping point? 16 players? 32?
Here is one strange way to define the tipping point: It would be weird if players with a 3-3 record would qualify in the final eight. But if there are only 16 players, then two or three 3-3 players will indeed qualify. That makes six rounds of qualifying seem like overkill: it's enough to play five rounds and let all the 3-2 players advance. However, as soon as there are 24 or more players, then a 3-3 record is no longer good enough to qualify in the top eight, and it takes 4-2 or better to advance. So by this sideways logic, there should be a six-round preliminary for 24 or more players, but only a five-round preliminary for 23 or fewer.
|
|
Thanks for thinking through this. I'll go with that recommendation. For now I've just said that there will be 5 rounds if less than 24 players and 6 otherwise. But at what points would we want 3 or 4 rounds and when would we want to go to 7 rounds.
Quote:
The rules say "If a player does not show up for the game within 3 minute after the scheduled start time then that player will lose by forfeit. In case of a valid reason the tournament director may consider rescheduling the game." I don't like this much, because the time window is very narrow (only three minutes) and the punishment fuzzy (what is a valid reason?).
|
|
Yes I think it is good to have this clearly defined and take the preasure off the TD in such situations and also eliminate such situations from disrupting the tournament schedule. I've changed it to allow 15 minutes before the game is considered forfeit.
Quote:
I note there can still be a two-way tie for third place, which is a small matter now that no money is on the line, but the glory of being listed among past medalists is still important. It is quite possible in future years that there will be no prize money and people will play only for glory. Therefore let me object to the rule "Highest pre-tournament ratings will be used to break ties for third place." I would rather have the tiebreaker be first by sum of wins of opponents, and second by rank in the preliminary tournament. This is in service of rewarding whoever played best in the tournament, not whoever played best before the tournament.
|
|
I decided to use a tie breaker game to decide third.
Quote:
In the time controls 60s/120s/75/0/4h/4m and 90s/90s/75/0/6h/5m, isn't the initial reserve rather small? I would have expected something like four moves' worth in the bank, i.e. 60s/4m/75/0/4h/4m and 90s/6m/75/0/6h/5m. That way the players don't have empty banks at the very beginning, and can survive a minor connection issue. My intention this tournament will be to keep at least four minutes in my reserve, not for the purpose of using on tough moves, but as insurance against a disconnection or computer crash. I would rather not have to blitz at the beginning to build up this safety net. Given that it is already quite harsh for a four-minute disconnection to result in forfeiting the game, I think we should at least provide that safety net in the initial time bank.
|
|
In consideration of the possibility of disconnects I've increased the initial reserve in both games to 5 minutes.
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback on the tournament rules.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2008 World Championship Format
« Reply #51 on: Oct 30th, 2007, 6:01pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:| For now I've just said that there will be 5 rounds if less than 24 players and 6 otherwise. But at what points would we want 3 or 4 rounds and when would we want to go to 7 rounds. |
|
I'm not sure if my weird logic holds up, but here's the extension by analogy: The preliminary tournament, although it is a Swiss so everyone can keep playing until the end, could effectively be triple-elimination in terms of qualifying. If you lose three games, you don't make it to the final, period. If you lose exactly two games, you will probably make it to the final, but not necessarily, depending on the strength of your opponents and how many people entered. Of course if you lose one or none in the qualifier you automatically advance.
To put in another way, in the table below the column "wins" means that you can't advance to the final unless you get that many wins in the qualifier. Among those who win exactly that many, most to all of them will advance.
| Players | Rounds | Wins | | 1-8 | 0 | 0 | | 9-11 | 3 | 1 | | 12-15 | 4 | 2 | | 16-23 | 5 | 3 | | 24-35 | 6 | 4 | | 36-55 | 7 | 5 |
I'm not sure if the system makes sense as the number of players grows. If we have 56 registrants, do we really want to have an 8-round Swiss qualifier? We could stick with 7 rounds even as the number of players grows, with fewer and fewer two-loss players qualifying, up until there are 128 players, and only the one-loss players qualify.
But no, I actually like this system, at least in the range of players presented. If we get 56 registrants, an 8-round qualifier would not seem like an excessive way to celebrate. There must be some accounting for the luck of the draw, and I like the notion that you can probably make it to the final even if you lose twice.
Quote:| Thanks for the thoughtful feedback on the tournament rules. |
|
Thank you for taking the time to engage the feedback!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
mistre
Forum Guru
Gender:
Posts: 553
|
|
Re: 2008 World Championship Format
« Reply #52 on: Oct 31st, 2007, 8:42am » |
Quote Modify
|
I just signed up for the tournament. Looking forward to it. We might get more sign-ups if there was a link to the registration on the main page. I had to go back to this post and find the link to sign up.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
chessandgo
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1889
Gender:
Posts: 1244
|
|
Re: 2008 World Championship Format
« Reply #53 on: Oct 31st, 2007, 12:13pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 31st, 2007, 8:42am, mistre wrote:| I just signed up for the tournament. Looking forward to it. We might get more sign-ups if there was a link to the registration on the main page. I had to go back to this post and find the link to sign up. |
|
Yes, I agree, I wrote a post which has been apparently deleted when there was a pb with this thread ; it would be fine indeed if the WC link in the gameroom directed towards the WC08 and not 07. And thanks for answering my phantom question about which rating will be used, Omar
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: 2008 World Championship Format
« Reply #54 on: Nov 1st, 2007, 12:56am » |
Quote Modify
|
Hope to link the upcoming events in the gameroom soon. Just trying to finalize the write ups before I release them.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: 2008 World Championship Format
« Reply #55 on: Nov 1st, 2007, 9:02am » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:
To put in another way, in the table below the column "wins" means that you can't advance to the final unless you get that many wins in the qualifier. Among those who win exactly that many, most to all of them will advance.
|
|
Thanks a lot for coming up with this table. I've added it to the tournament rules page.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2008 World Championship Format
« Reply #56 on: Nov 1st, 2007, 11:05am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 30th, 2007, 5:47pm, omar wrote:| I decided to use a tie breaker game to decide third. |
|
Excellent. I suppose the winner of the third-place tiebreak gets an extra $10 in prize money for winning the extra game? It seems that whoever takes third place will net a $30 prize:
$10 for 5 preliminary wins
$20 for 2 finals wins
$10 for winning the tiebreak game
$10 for not forfeiting of resigning
-$20 for registration
Will the 3rd-place tiebreaker, if it happens, be included in the spectator betting with a prize of $15, just like the second-place tiebreaker? I suppose it should. If all games are coin flips, then there is a 50% chance a third-place tiebreak game will be necessary, a 25% chance a second-place tiebreak game will be necessary, and a 25% chance 1-2-3 will be clear with no tiebreak games.
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 1st, 2007, 12:58pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
PMertens
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #692
Gender:
Posts: 437
|
|
Re: 2008 World Championship Format
« Reply #57 on: Dec 8th, 2007, 5:42pm » |
Quote Modify
|
looks like the preliminaries might be rather short
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2008 World Championship Format
« Reply #58 on: Dec 9th, 2007, 10:09am » |
Quote Modify
|
Well, we still have four weeks of registration, and Omar hasn't yet sent out his mass mailing to inform everyone of the tournament. I still think we have a decent chance of beating last year's record of 20 participants.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
chessandgo
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1889
Gender:
Posts: 1244
|
|
Re: 2008 World Championship Format
« Reply #59 on: Dec 15th, 2007, 2:26pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I share Paul's fear as regards to the number of participants. It's been more than 2 months that Omar opened the registration, and only 8 players are in ... If I'm not mistaken, the tourney will start in 3 weeks. Maybe it would be a good idea to send the mass mail to the community ? Even though with the link in the gameroom, I guess most players were aware of the tourney anyway ... Maybe a good campaign of intensive teasing through the comments on the games of the "less-active" players will induce them into participating
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print