Author |
Topic: 2009 World Championship (Read 9064 times) |
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
 
Gender: 
Posts: 1413
|
 |
Re: 2009 World Championship
« Reply #15 on: Jan 7th, 2009, 4:55pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Ben and I would like our game shifted back by 2 hours due to an unexpected commitment arising for Ben. Thanks Omar.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
arimaa_master
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2010
Gender:
Posts: 358
|
|
Re: 2009 World Championship
« Reply #16 on: Jan 10th, 2009, 6:26am » |
Quote Modify
|
Ron,
LevB had some connectivity problems. Hopefully our first game (number 93730) will be not counted as 2009 Arimaa Open Classic game. Instead we played another one (number 93733) with the same time control.
Thanks in advance for counting 93733 game instead of game 93730.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
RonWeasley
Forum Guru
Harry's friend (Arimaa player #441)
Gender:
Posts: 882
|
|
Re: 2009 World Championship
« Reply #17 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 6:01am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 10th, 2009, 6:26am, arimaa_master wrote:Ron,
LevB had some connectivity problems. Hopefully our first game (number 93730) will be not counted as 2009 Arimaa Open Classic game. Instead we played another one (number 93733) with the same time control.
Thanks in advance for counting 93733 game instead of game 93730.
|
|
If taken literally, the current rules do not allow this. However, it is early enough in the tournament that we can address this issue. Because of this game and the three forfeits in the first round, I am considering a proposed standard rule change to cover replacement games. Here is the proposed rule:
In the event of a game won by forfeit or a connection loss before gold's move 3 is registered, the winner may elect to invalidate that game and play a replacement game within 24 hours of the original games start. The winner of the original game has no obligation to offer a replacement game. If a replacement game is not played within 24 hours, the outcome of the original game takes precedence. Scheduling of the replacement game is the responsibility of the two affected players. Once move 1 of a replacement game has been registered by silver, the original game is invalidated and the replacement game becomes the official tournament game.
I would propose to apply this retroactively to the beginning of the tournament.
Comments are invited. In fairness to all contestants, if any current contestant objects to this proposal, even without providing any reason, I would reject the proposal. This is because all contestants entered the tournament with the current rules and without foreknowledge of this proposal.
The advantage of this proposal is that more outcomes may be decided by arimaa games rather than connections and forfeits. One worry I have is that forfeit or early connection winners would feel obligated to play a replacement game. I don't want there to be any social pressure to negate a win like this, especially if there's money or a title on the line. Also there's the spectator contest to think about.
I would like to make a final ruling before the next round, so please comment.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: 2009 World Championship
« Reply #18 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 6:40am » |
Quote Modify
|
fine by me
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2009 World Championship
« Reply #19 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 7:17am » |
Quote Modify
|
I like this rule. I have an extra reason to support it: without it I would not have won the 2005 World Championship! BlackKnight and I could barely get our game started, and (if I remember correctly) I timed out on the first move. He generously offered to try again the next day, and almost won anyway.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: 2009 World Championship
« Reply #20 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 8:31am » |
Quote Modify
|
Ron I like this rule because it allows more games to be completed. Though there is potential for this to be abused and potential that someone will be short changed, I think it is worth giving it a try and hope for the best. Technically it is a bit of a mess for me since I have to manually change fields in the database when this happens, but I can deal with it.
Does anyone know what happened in the camelback vs Emaad game? It seems like neither player entered the game and so the game was eventually deleted without creating a forfeit.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Adanac
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #892
Gender:
Posts: 635
|
|
Re: 2009 World Championship
« Reply #21 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 9:03am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 12th, 2009, 8:31am, omar wrote:Does anyone know what happened in the camelback vs Emaad game? It seems like neither player entered the game and so the game was eventually deleted without creating a forfeit.
|
|
Omar, camelback was in the chatroom last night but Emaad didn't show up in the gameroom at all. If camelback didn't officially "sit" at the table, that could explain why the forfeit wasn't recorded.
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 12th, 2009, 9:10am by Adanac » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
chessandgo
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1889
Gender:
Posts: 1244
|
|
Re: 2009 World Championship
« Reply #22 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 9:29am » |
Quote Modify
|
I like the new rule as well.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2009 World Championship
« Reply #23 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 9:41am » |
Quote Modify
|
Apparently thefrankinator, Amina, and Emaad all forfeited. According to the rules a "player who forfiets a game is automatically removed from the tournament and will not play in future rounds unless the tournament directors accepts the appeal". Ron, have any of the players appealed to you to continue the tournament? My feeling is that just asking to continue is enough reason for an appeal to be accepted, but the rules clearly leave it to the discretion of the Tournament Director whether or not to allow forfeiting players to continue.
If we have only fifteen players, I believe that Sana gets a bye next round. The tiebreaker points have not been explicit, but my understanding is that byes and forfeit wins should earn zero tiebreaker points, no matter which round they occur in.
Suppose I am 3-1 heading into the final round, and I am paired with another 3-1 player who doesn't show up, so I win by forfeit. Should I get three tiebreaker points for that win? I say that I should get zero tiebreaker points, because I didn't have to earn my win. Compared to another 4-1 player, I will probably end up lower in the standings, and I should, because he actually won four games over the board, whereas I only won three. My strength of schedule is genuinely weakened by winning a forfeit.
Does this make sense? It isn't spelled out in the tournament rules one way or another, but it should probably be clarified somewhere.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
woh
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2128
Gender:
Posts: 254
|
|
Re: 2009 World Championship
« Reply #24 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 2:40pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I also think the new rule is a good idea.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: 2009 World Championship
« Reply #25 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 3:14pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 12th, 2009, 9:41am, Fritzlein wrote:| byes and forfeit wins should earn zero tiebreaker points |
|
Does that mean they should also give zero tiebreaker points (to other players who've previously or subsequently beaten the winner-by-forfeit)? That would make the calculations quite complex.
I agree this is an important issue to nail down. I think there are theoretical reasons for either choice, and neither makes the situation perfect, but it is absolutely essential to settle on one version or other before too many people have a stake in the issue.
My memory is that last year forfeits did count in the normal way for tiebreakers, and I suspect we should preserve that until the next set of rules is written.
You also need to be careful of the slippery slope. By your argument perhaps someone winning by disconnection-timeout from a losing position may not have "earnt" the tiebreaker points associated with the win.
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 12th, 2009, 3:20pm by 99of9 » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Adanac
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #892
Gender:
Posts: 635
|
|
Re: 2009 World Championship
« Reply #26 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 5:06pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 12th, 2009, 9:41am, Fritzlein wrote:| Suppose I am 3-1 heading into the final round, and I am paired with another 3-1 player who doesn't show up, so I win by forfeit. Should I get three tiebreaker points for that win? I say that I should get zero tiebreaker points, because I didn't have to earn my win. Compared to another 4-1 player, I will probably end up lower in the standings, and I should, because he actually won four games over the board, whereas I only won three. My strength of schedule is genuinely weakened by winning a forfeit. |
|
Right now, the problem is that winning by forfeit usually hurts the winning player. Unless thefrankinator rejoins the tournament I'll receive a 0 SoS from him for the remainder of the tournament. Obviously I'd have been better off playing someone who didn't forfeit. I don't want to make any changes that further penalize players for winning by forfeit. Granted, your example is at the other extreme, where a forfeit actually benefits the winner in the later rounds.
I made a proposal last year that I still think is more fair than the current system:
You receive the SoS for your opponent for all games up to the current round, but none thereafter. That way you still receive SoS for a difficult schedule but don't get penalized if your opponent later withdraws from the tournament. That happened to me last year as PMertens withdrew from the tournament and I only received 2 points from him -- despite playing him when he had a 2-0 record! The advantage to this proposed system is that a player who starts 0-2 and then wins 3 straight will always have a lower SoS than a player who begins 3-0 and then loses two in a row against the top players. Note that's not necessarily the case in the current system where you could theoretically win your first 3 games but receive little SoS if your opponents later withdraw.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: 2009 World Championship
« Reply #27 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 5:48pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I'm not sure if I like your proposal or not, but I think it would be very unwise to implement it now. It has a very large effect on those who have to play the #1 or #2 in the first or second round... they basically don't get any credit for what someone in a later round will get a lot of credit for.
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 12th, 2009, 5:49pm by 99of9 » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2009 World Championship
« Reply #28 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 8:38pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 12th, 2009, 5:06pm, Adanac wrote:| Right now, the problem is that winning by forfeit usually hurts the winning player. |
|
But you are discounting the chance of losing. Yes, playing woh will get me better tiebreak points than you will get for your forfeit, but I also survived a chance that I wouldn't even get the win.
Quote:| I made a proposal last year that I still think is more fair than the current system: |
|
There are definitely fairness issues with the current system. On the other hand, at least in the current system when two people play the identical opponents they will have the same tiebreaker points. If I understand your proposal, playing the same opponents in a different order results in a different strength of schedule.
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 12th, 2009, 8:42pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
camelback
Forum Guru
Arimaa perl monger
Gender:
Posts: 144
|
|
Re: 2009 World Championship
« Reply #29 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 9:55pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 12th, 2009, 9:03am, Adanac wrote:
Omar, camelback was in the chatroom last night but Emaad didn't show up in the gameroom at all. If camelback didn't officially "sit" at the table, that could explain why the forfeit wasn't recorded.
|
|
Thanks Adanac  . I did sit on the table and it displayed "waiting for opponent". I waited for 20 minutes then I went to chatroom.
I like the new rule, it would be a good idea to add a comment on the replacement game, so that it can be easily identified.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print