Author |
Topic: 2010 World Championship (Read 16512 times) |
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender: 
Posts: 5928
|
 |
Re: 2010 World Championship
« Reply #90 on: Feb 3rd, 2010, 2:46pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Feb 3rd, 2010, 1:55pm, omar wrote:The email with the tentative time does state that:
"If this time will not work for you, please contact your opponent to discuss a new time before changing your preferred times. You should not change your preferred times without having agreed on a new mutual time with your opponent. If you do not contact your opponent then they should be able to assume that this tentative time is OK with you and will be the final time." |
|
OK, my apologies. That is clearer than I gave you credit for, based on the middle sentence only. The first sentence suggests only that you ought to ("please") contact and discuss before changing times, not that you must agree. Likewise the third sentence makes it sound like the issue is all about informing your opponent that you don't like the scheduled time, and once they are no longer assuming the scheduled time is OK with you, you can go ahead and change your preferences. Only the middle sentence expresses what I now understand as your true intent, and even in that sentence the phrase "you should not" sounds like this is a suggestion, not a rule. The perception that it is not a rule is reinforced by the first and third sentence, not to mention by calling it a "preliminary" time and running the scheduler again.
Quote:| ...but I had to make an exception since you changed your times after it was scheduled the first time without discussing it with your opponent. |
|
Even here in the forum you are making it sound like all you have to do is discuss before changing your preferences, not that it is mandatory agree to a new time before changing preferences.
How about instead:
"The scheduled time is final unless you and your opponent mutually agree on a new time. You may not change your preferences except to implement a new time that you and your opponent have both agreed to. The scheduler will be run a second time solely to permit mutual agreements between the players to be implemented."
|
| « Last Edit: Feb 3rd, 2010, 3:05pm by Fritzlein » |
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2010 World Championship
« Reply #91 on: Feb 3rd, 2010, 2:57pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Feb 3rd, 2010, 2:13pm, omar wrote:| I am glad at least that in the one case so far where it did not work it was not due to dishonest behavior, but rather because Nevermind wasn't able to access his emails. |
|
I also am glad that the dual runs of the scheduler have caused only one problem so far, and that the one case where it didn't work out was due merely to miscommunication. Even so, it will be sad if that miscommunication results in a forfeit.
In addition to communicating to the players after the first run of the scheduler that they may not change their time preferences, it would be good to communicate to the players before the "preliminary" run of the scheduler that they must have their final preferences implemented.
|
| « Last Edit: Feb 3rd, 2010, 3:24pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2010 World Championship
« Reply #92 on: Feb 3rd, 2010, 3:21pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Feb 3rd, 2010, 2:29pm, Nevermind wrote:They are the only times during which I can play this week. All times are Greenwich central times:
Friday: 19:00-22:00
Saturday: 19:00-22:00
Sunday: 19:00-22:00
Monday: 14:00 - 22:00 |
|
Ah, this is terrible. If we could run the scheduler, there would be a fair decision between two outcomes, namely (A) one of these twenty-one slots is not too bad for 99of9, so you get a preferred slot and (B) all of these times are bad for 99of9, so another slot from your thirty-nine non-preferred slots would be selected and you would have to forfeit. But now the decision between (A) and (B) rests entirely on 99of9, so it can't be fair. How does he know how much you are being demanding or accommodating? How can he know how much it would be fair for himself to accommodate you or insist on his rights? That is what the scheduler is for: it makes a level playing field.
I don't see a good solution, and I expect that you will forfeit.  (Also, as Omar suggests, please update your Arimaa account to have an e-mail address that you read.)
|
| « Last Edit: Feb 3rd, 2010, 3:26pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
SpeedRazor
Forum Guru
Skepticism is the Immune System of Science
Gender:
Posts: 72
|
|
Re: 2010 World Championship
« Reply #93 on: Feb 3rd, 2010, 3:35pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 11th, 2010, 9:16am, omar wrote:During the:
fritzlforpresident vs omar
|
|
You mean: Fritz isn't president?! Maybe I should go back into a coma...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2010 World Championship
« Reply #94 on: Feb 3rd, 2010, 3:47pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Feb 3rd, 2010, 3:35pm, SpeedRazor wrote:
Fritz wishes for a lot of things that Fritz can't have. 
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
 
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: 2010 World Championship
« Reply #95 on: Feb 3rd, 2010, 5:20pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Feb 3rd, 2010, 3:21pm, Fritzlein wrote:| How does he know how much you are being demanding or accommodating? How can he know how much it would be fair for himself to accommodate you or insist on his rights? |
|
I can get a sense of it from the fact that he is offering 21 slots out of the available 119, which doesn't sound particularly flexible. But secondly on the nights he is available, he is offering to start between 9pm and midnight (his local time). Personally, on available nights I had a 4 hour evening start-window, but had not offered go all the way to midnight. So that shows some flexibility on his part.
The extra problem I have is that it is not me that this choice inconveniences. I either inconvenience Nevermind, or I inconvenience the person who asked for my help on Saturday. Nevermind made two mistakes (invalid email and late preference setting), the person who asked my help made none (two rounds of communication, one general far from the time, one more specific once the preliminary game times were set). The main thing in my decision that Nevermind has going for him is that perhaps more rests on the WC game than exactly what time furniture gets moved (although some might say that reality beats games...).
Sorry to delay, but I will need to speak with the house-mover before deciding.
In the mean time, if you want to push your boundaries and open up more slots, that may give you a better chance of a game. Especially relevant, what time are you willing to get up in the mornings to get a game out of the way before your daytime activities start? (Assuming you could go to bed at 9pm the night before )
|
| « Last Edit: Feb 3rd, 2010, 5:36pm by 99of9 » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Nevermind
Forum Full Member
Arimaa player #3181
Gender:
Posts: 16
|
|
Re: 2010 World Championship
« Reply #96 on: Feb 4th, 2010, 3:51am » |
Quote Modify
|
I am reluctant to admit that I have made a mistake, simply because the system allowed me to act as I did. Nevertheless, I understand your position on this matter.
Regarding the new game time, I am only able to extend the monday time, and only slightly. How does 8:00 Monday morning sound to you (Greenwich central time again)?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2010 World Championship
« Reply #97 on: Feb 4th, 2010, 8:25am » |
Quote Modify
|
Omar, as I read my posts from yesterday, I realize I was overly harsh. I was frustrated because I had anticipated problems in advance that you didn't seem to think would matter. But of course you might have been right, and the double-scheduling might have gone entirely without a hitch. What would I have said then? Lots of times you want to do something experimental, and it works out much better than I expect. On the whole it is a very good thing that you keep tinkering and improving the server and the tournaments. Don't let my "I told you so" rant stop you from innovating.
And on that note, here's a snippet from a recent article by Kasparov about AI and computer chess:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23592
"Like so much else in our technology-rich and innovation-poor modern world, chess computing has fallen prey to incrementalism and the demands of the market. Brute-force programs play the best chess, so why bother with anything else? Why waste time and money experimenting with new and innovative ideas when we already know what works? Such thinking should horrify anyone worthy of the name of scientist, but it seems, tragically, to be the norm. Our best minds have gone into financial engineering instead of real engineering, with catastrophic results for both sectors."
Based on that quote, Kasparov should be a big fan of Arimaa! If I could find a mailing address for him, I would send him a copy of Beginning Arimaa.
|
| « Last Edit: Feb 4th, 2010, 8:42am by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: 2010 World Championship
« Reply #98 on: Feb 4th, 2010, 9:23am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Feb 3rd, 2010, 2:46pm, Fritzlein wrote:
How about instead:
"The scheduled time is final unless you and your opponent mutually agree on a new time. You may not change your preferences except to implement a new time that you and your opponent have both agreed to. The scheduler will be run a second time solely to permit mutual agreements between the players to be implemented." |
|
Thanks. I like this stronger wording better. It definitely makes it clear that you should not update the times without agreeing to a new time with your opponent. I'll use that in the next round.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: 2010 World Championship
« Reply #99 on: Feb 4th, 2010, 9:49am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Feb 4th, 2010, 8:25am, Fritzlein wrote:Omar, as I read my posts from yesterday, I realize I was overly harsh. I was frustrated because I had anticipated problems in advance that you didn't seem to think would matter. But of course you might have been right, and the double-scheduling might have gone entirely without a hitch. What would I have said then? Lots of times you want to do something experimental, and it works out much better than I expect. On the whole it is a very good thing that you keep tinkering and improving the server and the tournaments. Don't let my "I told you so" rant stop you from innovating.
|
|
No problem. There were probably more times when I didn't listen to you, tried out something and then changed it to what you said before I value your suggestions (and everyone else) so keep them coming. In the end it's not about whether or not I listened to your suggestion, it's about finding what works. Our intuition helps to guide us on what might work, but only after experimenting will we really know. You can rest assure that I am not afraid of admitting mistakes and changing course if what I thought might work doesn't pan out.
BTW, I haven't closed the book on running the scheduler twice. It seems to be working pretty good, but it's too early to know for sure.
|
| « Last Edit: Feb 4th, 2010, 10:47am by omar » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: 2010 World Championship
« Reply #100 on: Feb 4th, 2010, 11:32am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Feb 4th, 2010, 8:25am, Fritzlein wrote:
And on that note, here's a snippet from a recent article by Kasparov about AI and computer chess:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23592
"Like so much else in our technology-rich and innovation-poor modern world, chess computing has fallen prey to incrementalism and the demands of the market. Brute-force programs play the best chess, so why bother with anything else? Why waste time and money experimenting with new and innovative ideas when we already know what works? Such thinking should horrify anyone worthy of the name of scientist, but it seems, tragically, to be the norm. Our best minds have gone into financial engineering instead of real engineering, with catastrophic results for both sectors."
Based on that quote, Kasparov should be a big fan of Arimaa! If I could find a mailing address for him, I would send him a copy of Beginning Arimaa. |
|
Thanks for sharing this article.
"Perhaps chess is the wrong game for the times." -GK
That's kind of what I felt also after the 1997 match. Actually it started out with me feeling sorry for GK that IBM wasn't going to give him a rematch, but then thinking that even if they did he might not be able to win. It seemed to me that the root problem was chess and GK needed a different game that would allow him to show the depth of his "real" intelligence over artificial intelligence. Tweeking the rules of chess to make such a game seemed like it would be simple (knowing what I knew about how computers play chess). Little did I know what I was getting myself into
It would be interesting to know what GK thinks about Arimaa. In a way Arimaa was designed for him so that he could use it to stay ahead of the computers. It would be nice if he at least knew about it
I recently came across this page which suggests that the folks at IBM have at least heard about Arimaa:
https://www-927.ibm.com/ibm/cas/hspc/histProfiles.shtml#Newborn
|
| « Last Edit: Feb 4th, 2010, 11:36am by omar » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2010 World Championship
« Reply #101 on: Feb 4th, 2010, 2:39pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Feb 1st, 2010, 4:51pm, Adanac wrote:
Fritzlein 1 3 3 5
chessandgo 1 3 3 7
Adanac 1 1 1 3
99of9 2 4 5 9
Tuks 4 6
ChrisB 12 14 14 16
omar 10 14 13 15
PMertens . . . 8 13
The_Jeh 2 3 4 8
naveed 12 14 14 16
woh 5 9 8 12
Simon 4 8 8 11
Nevermind 4 9 8 11
Nombril 7 9 9 14
fritzlforpresident 14 16 16 16
Hippo 10 13 13 14 |
|
Tuks's win all but guarantees Adanac the top seed into the finals. I can only get the top seed if I win and The_Jeh wins, or if I win and both Nombril and Omar win. Chessandgo can't get the top seed at all, even if he beats The_Jeh and I beat Adanac. Thus the top seed is very valuable because it will allow either me or Adanac to avoid chessandgo until the third round of the finals. Adanac is on a course for a pleasurable second round of the finals in which he gets to play the #4 seed while watching chessandgo and Fritzlein beat each other up. Indeed, if Adanac is really scared of me and chessandgo, he should at all costs avoid beating me tomorrow to knock me down to the #4 seed and have to meet me in round 2 of the finals anyway!
I can't work out all the cases, but I think that Tuks's win also guarantees 99of9 a spot in the finals even if 99of9 loses to Nevermind. If I am right, that means that six spots in the finals are wrapped up (chessandgo, Fritzlein, Adanac, 99of9, Tuks, The_Jeh), plus the winner of Simon vs. woh to bring us to seven. The eighth spot is divided between Nevermind, Nombril, and a lucky 2-3 player if both Nevermind and Nombril lose.
Probably I'm oversimplifying by missing some corner cases, such as woh, Nevermind, and Nombril all winning, but woh being left out anyway. Oh, well. 
|
| « Last Edit: Feb 4th, 2010, 2:50pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Adanac
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #892
Gender:
Posts: 635
|
|
Re: 2010 World Championship
« Reply #102 on: Feb 4th, 2010, 3:23pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Feb 4th, 2010, 2:39pm, Fritzlein wrote:
Tuks's win all but guarantees Adanac the top seed into the finals. I can only get the top seed if I win and The_Jeh wins, or if I win and both Nombril and Omar win. Chessandgo can't get the top seed at all, even if he beats The_Jeh and I beat Adanac. Thus the top seed is very valuable because it will allow either me or Adanac to avoid chessandgo until the third round of the finals. Adanac is on a course for a pleasurable second round of the finals in which he gets to play the #4 seed while watching chessandgo and Fritzlein beat each other up. Indeed, if Adanac is really scared of me and chessandgo, he should at all costs avoid beating me tomorrow to knock me down to the #4 seed and have to meet me in round 2 of the finals anyway!
I can't work out all the cases, but I think that Tuks's win also guarantees 99of9 a spot in the finals even if 99of9 loses to Nevermind. If I am right, that means that six spots in the finals are wrapped up (chessandgo, Fritzlein, Adanac, 99of9, Tuks, The_Jeh), plus the winner of Simon vs. woh to bring us to seven. The eighth spot is divided between Nevermind, Nombril, and a lucky 2-3 player if both Nevermind and Nombril lose.
Probably I'm oversimplifying by missing some corner cases, such as woh, Nevermind, and Nombril all winning, but woh being left out anyway. Oh, well. |
|
Your analysis is very accurate except about the part where 99of9 has already clinched. There are still a few scenarios where he can be eliminated, for example, Nombril gets 4 opponent wins as shown below:
(it also confirms your shameful suggestion that I should avoid you and Jean by losing tomorrow  I dive for nobody, you're going down Juhnke  )
{| cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3 border=1
! Rank !! Participant !! Name !! WHR [Seed] !! Rd. 1 !! Rd. 2 !! Rd. 3 !! Rd. 4 !! Rd. 5 !! Wins !! SoS
|-
| 1 || Adanac || Greg Magne || 2319 [3] || G 11 W || S 6 W || S 4 W || S 3 W || G 2 L || 4 || 1.5953
|-
| 2 || Fritzlein || Karl Juhnke || 2568 [1] || G 5 W || S 15 W || G 3 L || G 7 W || S 1 W || 4 || 1.5316
|-
| 3 || chessandgo || Jean Daligault || 2561 [2] || G 13 W || S 10 W || S 2 W || G 1 L || S 5 W || 4 || 1.4453
|-
| 4 || Tuks || Daniel Scott || 2199 [5] || S 8 W || S 7 W || G 1 L || G 9 L || S 10 W || 3 || 2.5000
|-
| 5 || The_Jeh || John Herr || 1987 [9] || S 2 L || G 16 W || S 14 W || G 8 W || G 3 L || 3 || 2.1365
|-
| 6 || Simon || Simon Lambert || 1799 [12] || S 9 W || G 1 L || S 7 L || S 15 W || G 11 W || 3 || 2.0985
|-
| 7 || Nombril || Eric Momsen || 1753 [14] || S 12 W || G 4 L || G 6 W || S 2 L || S 14 W || 3 || 2.0985
|-
| 8 || Nevermind || Antti Laine || 1756 [13] || G 4 L || S 12 W || G 10 W || S 5 L || S 9 W || 3 || 1.9968
|-
| 9 || 99of9 || Toby Hudson || 2227 [4] || G 6 L || S 11 W || G 15 W || S 4 W || G 8 L || 3 || 1.8469
|-
| 10 || PMertens || Paul Mertens || 2004 [8] || S 14 W || G 3 L || S 8 L || G 13 W || G 4 L || 2 || 3.1531
|-
| 11 || woh || Herve Dhondt || 1851 [11] || S 1 L || G 9 L || S 16 W || G 14 W || S 6 L || 2 || 2.7516
|-
| 12 || ChrisB || Christopher Bovee || 2095 [6] || G 7 L || G 8 L || S 13 L || G 16 W || S 15 W || 2 || 2.3501
|-
| 13 || naveed || Naveed Siddiqui || 1859 [10] || S 3 L || G 14 L || G 12 W || S 10 L || S 16 W || 2 || 2.2484
|-
| 14 || Hippo || Vladan Majerech || 1581 [16] || G 10 L || S 13 W || G 5 L || S 11 L || G 7 L || 1 || 4.0579
|-
| 15 || omar || Omar Syed || 2012 [7] || S 16 W || G 2 L || S 9 L || G 6 L || G 12 L || 1 || 3.7682
|-
| 16 || fritzlforpresident || John Hoody || 1658 [15] || G 15 L || S 5 L || G 11 L || S 12 L || G 13 L || 0 || 4.4213
|}
|
| « Last Edit: Feb 4th, 2010, 3:27pm by Adanac » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: 2010 World Championship
« Reply #103 on: Feb 4th, 2010, 3:29pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Nevermind, you're in luck. Rain is forecast for Sydney on Saturday morning, so furniture moving has been delayed.
Omar, could you please bring the game forward by 14 hours once Nevermind sees this? (To the timeslot determined by the second run of the scheduler.)
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2010 World Championship
« Reply #104 on: Feb 4th, 2010, 4:21pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Yay! I'm so glad that the 99of9 vs. Nevermind game will happen after all. Not only is miscommunication about how to use the scheduler a poor reason for a forfeit, but also the game itself is extremely consequential to the tournament standings, and will be symbolic of the extent to which the old guard has been usurped (or not).
To make the good news even better, I believe the changed time will make live commentary feasible. I can hardly wait!
99of9, it is very good of you to agree to change the time when you could have insisted on the originally scheduled time, and especially when Adanac's scenario generator has shown you how you could still theoretically be eliminated by a loss. I vote that we have a sportsmanship prize every tournament, just so that we can award it for behavior like this.
|
| « Last Edit: Feb 4th, 2010, 4:24pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print