Author |
Topic: 2009 Postal Mixer (Read 6128 times) |
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender: 
Posts: 5928
|
 |
Re: 2009 Postal Mixer
« Reply #60 on: Nov 9th, 2009, 6:03pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Adanac's victory over chessandgo today has insured that I will top the standings on the official page. I cleverly chose to play nine games as opposed to chessandgo's eight, so that even though we each lost once, my final score is plus seven to his score of plus six. Incidentally, Adanac also finished on plus six. My choice to play nine games ultimately insured me top billing; that's what I call long-term strategic planning!
But in another sense, chessandgo, Adanac, and I all finished near the middle of the pack. A truer measure of who had a good tournament or a poor tournament is how we each did relative to expectations. Given chessandgo's dominant rating in the wake of the 2009 World Championship, for him to win seven and lose one was a par score. Meanwhile Tuks's six wins and eight losses against opponents rated (on average) well above him was a stellar performance.
ChrisB's win over woh today establishes ChrisB as the clear tournament winner, while Simon will take second. I am assuming Simon will complete his victory over woh, leaving the only game with an uncertain outcome ChrisB vs. Simon. Thus the standings are:
Player . Rating Games Wins Expected Delta
---------- ------ ----- ---- -------- -----
ChrisB . 1803 12 7(8) 3.15 3.85 (4.85)
Simon . 1554 4 3(4) 0.71 2.29 (3.29)
Tuks. . 1904 14 6 4.48 1.52
omar. . 2014 4 3 1.99 1.01
Fritzlein. 2537 9 8 7.49 0.51
chessandgo 2604 8 7 6.92 0.08
blue22 . 2267 14 9 8.94 0.06
Adanac . 2451 12 9 9.50 -0.50
mistre . 2002 8 3 3.61 -0.61
bot_OpFor. 1897 10 3 3.89 -0.89
woh . . 1720 12 1 2.15 -1.15
The_Jeh . 2036 8 2 3.27 -1.27
RonWeasley 2279 12 6 8.01 -2.01
arimaa_master 2093 13 2 5.88 -3.88
One could argue that if Simon prevails in the final game for a perfect score of 4-0 he should rightfully be considered the tournament winner. I certainly tip my hat to Simon and acknowledge an impressive performance from the pre-tournament underdog. But he only played four games simultaneously, while ChrisB was taking on twelve against much tougher average competition. Given his greater time pressure and greater scale of undertaking, I have to rank ChrisB's performance as the more amazing feat.
It is fitting that, while all the other games are long decided, ChrisB vs. Simon is presently, after 62 moves, just as unclear as it was to begin. This is a game that could easily go 100 moves and have many more dramatic swings before it is over. I truly hope that this clash of the over-performers is not prematurely terminated by the 300-day game-time limit. If time is what ultimately decides this epic battle, I will vigorously argue that the 2010 Postal Mixer should have a 360-day game-time limit instead.
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 9th, 2009, 6:20pm by Fritzlein » |
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
Tuks
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2626
Gender:
Posts: 203
|
|
Re: 2009 Postal Mixer
« Reply #61 on: Nov 10th, 2009, 7:19am » |
Quote Modify
|
im satisfied with that, even though, without sounding too petty, my game against chris was a blunder loss, im pretty sure i was in a position with a forced goal but instead i committed a suicide move.
other than that, i look forward to next year, ill keep reminding myself not to move too fast, i got through my games this year months before most other people and i had more games to get though than most other players too
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
ChrisB
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2339
Gender:
Posts: 147
|
|
Re: 2009 Postal Mixer
« Reply #62 on: Nov 12th, 2009, 9:33pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 9th, 2009, 6:03pm, Fritzlein wrote:
Player . Rating Games Wins Expected Delta
---------- ------ ----- ---- -------- -----
ChrisB . 1803 12 7(8 ) 3.15 3.85 (4.85)
Simon . 1554 4 3(4) 0.71 2.29 (3.29)
Tuks. . 1904 14 6 4.48 1.52
omar. . 2014 4 3 1.99 1.01
Fritzlein. 2537 9 8 7.49 0.51
chessandgo 2604 8 7 6.92 0.08
blue22 . 2267 14 9 8.94 0.06
Adanac . 2451 12 9 9.50 -0.50
mistre . 2002 8 3 3.61 -0.61
bot_OpFor. 1897 10 3 3.89 -0.89
woh . . 1720 12 1 2.15 -1.15
The_Jeh . 2036 8 2 3.27 -1.27
RonWeasley 2279 12 6 8.01 -2.01
arimaa_master 2093 13 2 5.88 -3.88
|
|
Interesting analysis Fritzlein. It nice for the low-to-middle-ranked players to have an additional chance to get a top score. It's tough, though, for the top ranked players to win this metric. Had any of the three highest ranked players (chessandgo, Fritzlein or Adanac) gone undefeated, they still would not have had the highest score.
I set up a spreadsheet which duplicated your analysis (I got identical scores) and would be interested in doing this analysis again for next year's postal mixer.
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 12th, 2009, 10:14pm by ChrisB » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2009 Postal Mixer
« Reply #63 on: Nov 13th, 2009, 7:59am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 12th, 2009, 9:33pm, ChrisB wrote:| It's tough, though, for the top ranked players to win this metric. |
|
It's only fair to add a metric by which all but the top-ranked players can do well, since it is tough for all but the top-ranked players to go undefeated and win by the traditional metric. Perhaps chessandgo, Adanac, and I could not have won by this metric, but we have the consolation of topping the standings in the "official" scoring of wins-losses.
Of course, one would never want to give prizes on out-performing expectations, because then the easy way to win is to lower expectations. Chess tournaments have suffered from people sandbagging to lower their ratings and thereby get into easier divisions.
Personally, I liked calculating this metric because I was so disappointed to lose even one game this year. Using the ratings helps to remind me that my par score was losing 1.5 games, so that my "disappointing" performance was actually slightly better than my average performance.
I have noticed chess players are prone to this disease too. If you listen to chess folks talk, they are almost always performing below their true ability because of (fill in excuse). Only when they are performing brilliantly, far above their usual level, do they consider it an "OK" performance. I always wanted to tell chess players that playing flawlessly is not normal, it is a wild aberration.
Quote:| I set up a spreadsheet which duplicated your analysis (I got identical scores) and would be interested in doing this analysis again for next year's postal mixer. |
|
Awesome. The job is officially yours.
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 13th, 2009, 8:03am by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print