Author |
Topic: 2013 World Championship Format (Read 31137 times) |
|
aaaa
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #958
Posts: 768
|
 |
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #165 on: Oct 17th, 2012, 1:19pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Quote:| Minimize the sum of (for players with unequal losses, the square of their rank difference) plus (for players with equal losses, the square of the difference between their rank difference and half the number of players with that number of losses). |
|
I don't understand why you felt the need to modify the formula; the way I see things, slide pairing should have the smallest priority of them all, not having the penalties for deviating from this ideal grow in a superlinear fashion, thus not competing on an equal footing with the desire to minimize the rank differences between paired players with different number of losses.
Concerning what else is on the wiki right now:
Quote:| The six preliminary rounds will be paired in modified Swiss format. |
|
This is just a quibble, but personally, I think this description doesn't quite cover the fact that it has an elimination component in it; perhaps having something like "hybrid" occur somewhere would make it more faithful.
Quote:The time controls for the tournament games are
- 60s/5m/100/0/4h/4m for the six preliminary rounds (about 1½ hours game length)
- 90s/5m/100/0/6h/5m starting with round seven (about 2¼ hours game length)
- 120s/5m/75/0/8h/6m when only two or three players remain (about 3 hours game length)
|
|
I'm a bit loath to restart this discussion, but from what I'd gathered, there was little support in the community for the idea of not banking everything from the leftover time. In addition, two of these time controls also don't equal the common ones in terms of the starting reserve. I see little harm and some benefits in being consistent here. In fact, this all actually echoes your own words.
For completeness sake, the corresponding standard time controls are (currently):
- 1m/4m/100/0/4h/4m
- 1m30s/5m/100/0/6h/5m
- 2m/6m/100/0/8h/6m
Quote:| It is therefore recommended that players send their move with at least 30 seconds of reserve remaining. This is the policy of nearly every engine (a.k.a. bot) in the Arimaa Computer Championship; |
|
This is a bold claim, which I'm skeptical of. I can buy 15 seconds maybe, but not a whole quarter of the time for a move.
Quote:| after about four rounds seeding becomes irrelevant as pairing is then done entirely on the basis of in-tournament results. |
|
Four seems like too much, especially with this new system of two sets of performance ratings affecting the pairings. Realistically, the seeding should already stop being an influence after two rounds.
Quote:| 4. Give the bye only to a player among the players tied for the fewest/most losses so far. |
|
This is phrased too binarily; it implies that if the bye can't be given to the ideal player, the respective pairing priorities are indifferent with respect to whoever else gets it.
Quote:| Maximize the sum of the squares of the rank differences between paired players. |
|
This is a silent change from the previous championship, but the argument of wanting to avoid players in the top of their loss group (repeatedly) facing players in better ones is a persuasive one.
Quote:| Players caught cheating will be banned from all future Arimaa World Championships. |
|
I'm not much of a proponent of lifetime bans; one could make a ban last quite some time without it having to be permanent.
Given how elaborate the text is intended to be, you might also want to mention how successful participants may play themselves into the spotlight for possible recruitment as Challenge defenders.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender: 
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #166 on: Oct 17th, 2012, 5:58pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 17th, 2012, 1:19pm, aaaa wrote:| I don't understand why you felt the need to modify the formula; the way I see things, slide pairing should have the smallest priority of them all, not having the penalties for deviating from this ideal grow in a superlinear fashion, thus not competing on an equal footing with the desire to minimize the rank differences between paired players with different number of losses. |
|
I didn't feel a need to modify the formula; I simply incorrectly copied what you wrote. To repeat what I explicitly said in the chat room: my goal is for the rules to reflect how the algorithm works rather than for the rules to dictate how the algorithm must work. I have changed the wording; please let me know if I now have it correct. If it is still wrong, please believe that it is a second error on my part, not the workings of my unspoken agenda.
Quote:| This is a silent change from the previous championship, but the argument of wanting to avoid players in the top of their loss group (repeatedly) facing players in better ones is a persuasive one. |
|
This is not a silent change; I have twice tried to start discussion on the exact point of making this change. You never positively accepted or rejected the notion, but my best guess was that you approved.
Again, I am not trying to mandate any changes to the pairing algorithm. Maximizing the sum of squares over all games was a publicly-proposed solution to a publicly-lamented problem, and more consistent with the evolving notion of rewarding tough pairings in earlier rounds with easier pairings later. I don't recall a single objection to it, but if there are any objections now (including even that it would be a hassle to change and not worth it) I'm OK with keeping the old formula too.
I am very grateful for your feedback on draft of the rules, but I wish it could be given without suggesting that I am being sneaky about the process. I have been open and above-board up to this point, and the evolution of the rules is ongoing; I'm still soliciting feedback and making changes on the basis of that feedback.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 17th, 2012, 6:33pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #167 on: Oct 17th, 2012, 6:07pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 17th, 2012, 1:19pm, aaaa wrote:| This is just a quibble, but personally, I think this description doesn't quite cover the fact that it has an elimination component in it; perhaps having something like "hybrid" occur somewhere would make it more faithful. |
|
I have changed it from "modified Swiss" to "Swiss-divider", resurrecting the term I invented earlier in the thread. I think "divider" captures the spirit better than "elimination" in a case where the players who can't win keep on playing, so they aren't actually eliminated. The essence of the difference is mostly the division that says players with three or more losses can't be paired against players with two or fewer losses. I'm open to other wording, though.
Quote:I'm a bit loath to restart this discussion, but from what I'd gathered, there was little support in the community for the idea of not banking everything from the leftover time. In addition, two of these time controls also don't equal the common ones in terms of the starting reserve. I see little harm and some benefits in being consistent here. In fact, this all actually echoes your own words.
For completeness sake, the corresponding standard time controls are (currently):
- 1m/4m/100/0/4h/4m
- 1m30s/5m/100/0/6h/5m
- 2m/6m/100/0/8h/6m
|
|
You quote me in a discussion about AWL time controls, and in the AWL it is standard practice for a game to be started by the players themselves following a rescheduling or substitution. Clearly a replacement game should be at the same time control as the original, but this would be a hassle for the players involved if the league time control were not on the standard menu.
For the World Championship I want to explicitly forbid the players from starting or rescheduling a game on their own. There are several benefits to games being officially scheduled, most importantly the spectator delay, but also the disabling of bots and even the display of upcoming official games in the announcements. Thus my insistence that any rescheduling be done through official channels. Therefore the main harm of using a non-standard time control is alleviated.
You are quite right that the consensus opinion was against me on this score. If I am not mistaken, this is the only point of the rules on which there exists a consensus that I am defying. Is it really so important?
Here's an offer: If two more people post in this thread to say, "Please use only the standard time controls," I will change to use the standard time controls.
Quote:| This is a bold claim, which I'm skeptical of. I can buy 15 seconds maybe, but not a whole quarter of the time for a move. |
|
OK, I have changed it to 15 seconds.
Quote:| Four seems like too much, especially with this new system of two sets of performance ratings affecting the pairings. Realistically, the seeding should already stop being an influence after two rounds. |
|
I am not sure that two rounds is enough. If there are 64 players, after two rounds there will be 16 players at 2-0. If the victories and losses are all true to seeding, all 16 players will have exactly the same UTPR, so they will be ranked by STPR. Of course the number of ties in UTPR will be reduced by upsets and odd numbers in pairing groups; the number of participants won't be a multiple of two and favorites don't always win. Still, it is highly improbable that seeding will "stop being" an influence after two rounds. I think it is much more accurate to call it a "rapid decrease" in influence.
We can see how it pans out this year. If there are no ties in UTPR after two rounds, I will quote this post in an admission of my incorrect prediction.
Quote:| This is phrased too binarily; it implies that if the bye can't be given to the ideal player, the respective pairing priorities are indifferent with respect to whoever else gets it. |
|
Hmmm, I'm suddenly in doubt as to the actual algorithm. Is the condition actually absolute? That is to say, must the bye go to a player in the loss group regardless of all lower priorities? In other words, is the condition "Give the bye only to a player among the players tied for the most losses so far," in fact less binary than the condition "Give the bye only to a player among the players with the fewest byes so far"?
Quote:| I'm not much of a proponent of lifetime bans; one could make a ban last quite some time without it having to be permanent. |
|
I don't anticipate any punishments being invoked, but I'm curious what folks feel an appropriate punishment for cheating would be. Lifetime ban? Ten-year ban? If you say, "Sorry," then you can play next year?
Quote:| Given how elaborate the text is intended to be, you might also want to mention how successful participants may play themselves into the spotlight for possible recruitment as Challenge defenders. |
|
I'm open to emphasizing the social rewards of doing well, but is this particular reward quite accurate? I believe the schedule is such that Omar must select the human defenders of the Arimaa Challenge before the World Championship has even finished.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 17th, 2012, 7:18pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
aaaa
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #958
Posts: 768
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #168 on: Oct 18th, 2012, 2:41am » |
Quote Modify
|
You're reading a tone into my words that doesn't exist. It was never my intention to suggest that you are being sneaky or have an unspoken agenda; The fact that you're drafting the rules out in the open, belies that very notion. I just took the different formula for the Swiss pairing at its face value and figured it constituted a counterproposal on your part, expecting that had mine been adopted as is, my phrasing of it would simply have been taken verbatim, with there being little chance that any subsequent editing of it would inadvertently cause a change in meaning that looked as deliberate as it did here. As for the FTE part, as the pairing formula constituted a slight, single change with respect to how the existing algorithm works, I felt the need to explicitly point this out in order to avoid it flying under the radar and possibly causing any future misunderstandings.
I'm not into power politics, I just feel strongly about getting details right and my comments should be seen in that light.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
rbarreira
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1621
Gender:
Posts: 605
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #169 on: Oct 18th, 2012, 4:04am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 17th, 2012, 6:07pm, Fritzlein wrote:
I don't anticipate any punishments being invoked, but I'm curious what folks feel an appropriate punishment for cheating would be. Lifetime ban? Ten-year ban? If you say, "Sorry," then you can play next year? |
|
I would say between five to ten years.
In the extreme, anything less than 3 years seems too small, more than 10 years seems too big.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 18th, 2012, 4:10am by rbarreira » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #170 on: Oct 18th, 2012, 4:55am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 18th, 2012, 2:41am, aaaa wrote:| You're reading a tone into my words that doesn't exist. It was never my intention to suggest that you are being sneaky or have an unspoken agenda; The fact that you're drafting the rules out in the open, belies that very notion. I just took the different formula for the Swiss pairing at its face value and figured it constituted a counterproposal on your part, expecting that had mine been adopted as is, my phrasing of it would simply have been taken verbatim, with there being little chance that any subsequent editing of it would inadvertently cause a change in meaning that looked as deliberate as it did here. |
|
OK, fair enough. It was my transcription mistake that caused there to be a misunderstanding at all.
Quote:| As for the FTE part, as the pairing formula constituted a slight, single change with respect to how the existing algorithm works, I felt the need to explicitly point this out in order to avoid it flying under the radar and possibly causing any future misunderstandings. |
|
Well, maybe we do need a further discussion of this change so that folks aren't surprised by it. After all it hasn't been hashed out in this thread. I'll make a separate post about it.
Quote:| I'm not into power politics, I just feel strongly about getting details right and my comments should be seen in that light. |
|
I appreciate your passion about getting the details right; it is a passion that I share. Thanks for your commitment and service.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Adanac
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #892
Gender:
Posts: 635
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #171 on: Oct 18th, 2012, 9:43am » |
Quote Modify
|
We may as well ban cheaters for life during online World Championships. They would just be a distraction in a future WC and would raise suspicions after every victory, which would further tarnish Arimaa’s integrity. In fact, if just 2 or 3 people get caught cheating in the same World Championship, that might be enough to destroy the whole integrity of an online championship. We have to be very strict about this. Accidentally staying logged into the chatroom during a game wouldn’t be a big deal but I agree with a lifetime ban if a player is somehow caught cheating with computer assistance, dummy accounts, etc. Since it’s easier to monitor face-to-face games, we could allow those players to participate in a future tournament if the games are in person (if Arimaa ever becomes popular enough to justify this).
On the issue of time controls, I’m very happy to see that the games will be 2 minutes per move in the final rounds. There will be a higher quality of play with the additional 30 seconds, yet most games should still end in a reasonable amount of time. In fact, if we expanded to 2 minutes when there are 4-5 players remaining, I would like that even better. Either 75% or 100% banking of time is OK with me.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #172 on: Oct 18th, 2012, 12:32pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 18th, 2012, 9:43am, Adanac wrote:| I’m very happy to see that the games will be 2 minutes per move in the final rounds. There will be a higher quality of play with the additional 30 seconds, yet most games should still end in a reasonable amount of time. In fact, if we expanded to 2 minutes when there are 4-5 players remaining, I would like that even better. |
|
I wavered between having the cutoff for 2min/move games being 5 players remaining or 3 players remaining, so I would be easy to persuade on this point. Does anyone else want to weigh in?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
browni3141
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #7014
Gender:
Posts: 384
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #173 on: Oct 18th, 2012, 12:58pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 18th, 2012, 12:32pm, Fritzlein wrote:
I wavered between having the cutoff for 2min/move games being 5 players remaining or 3 players remaining, so I would be easy to persuade on this point. Does anyone else want to weigh in? |
|
I would say five, but I like longer games.
I'm also wondering if 6m maximum move time is too short. My ultimate preference would probably be unlimited move time, but that would probably be a pretty radical suggestion here, so I'll just suggest 8-10 minutes max for the two minute time control. In my opinion questions like "How will the commentators fill that time?" and "What if the spectators get bored?" have no place in this discussion, but if others shared this opinion then the max move time would probably already be longer. In my opinion the most relevant question is "How often do the players wish they could have used more of their reserve time?" How often do you wish you could have dipped farther into your reserve Fritzlein? I'm sure you've had positions where you would have wanted to use every last second (with a few seconds safety net). For me I probably wouldn't have many opportunities to use 10 minutes of time, because I don't usually have that much left  . Starting with a greater reserve would make some sense if we were to increase the max time per move.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Adanac
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #892
Gender:
Posts: 635
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #174 on: Oct 18th, 2012, 2:08pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 18th, 2012, 12:58pm, browni3141 wrote:
I would say five, but I like longer games.
I'm also wondering if 6m maximum move time is too short. My ultimate preference would probably be unlimited move time, but that would probably be a pretty radical suggestion here, so I'll just suggest 8-10 minutes max for the two minute time control. In my opinion questions like "How will the commentators fill that time?" and "What if the spectators get bored?" have no place in this discussion, but if others shared this opinion then the max move time would probably already be longer. In my opinion the most relevant question is "How often do the players wish they could have used more of their reserve time?" How often do you wish you could have dipped farther into your reserve Fritzlein? I'm sure you've had positions where you would have wanted to use every last second (with a few seconds safety net). For me I probably wouldn't have many opportunities to use 10 minutes of time, because I don't usually have that much left . Starting with a greater reserve would make some sense if we were to increase the max time per move. |
|
Omar created time controls with short initial reserves, maximum limits per move and sometimes <100% banking of unused time because he wants games to move at a steady pace rather than boring the spectators when players think for long, long times. I know that in chess there were some classic games where players used well over an hour to think of a single move:
Bent Larsen used over an hour on his 13th move because he saw he was doomed and couldn’t find a way out.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1128831
Nigel Short used over an hour on his 14th move planning out a brilliant, but slightly flawed, queen sacrifice.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070682
If we gave players the freedom to use an hour of thought for a single Arimaa move, it would definitely put spectators to sleep (and avoiding that is important to Omar). But I think up to 10 minutes per move is OK, as that is used in the Arimaa Challenge. Similar to the chess examples above, I’d expect Arimaa players would tend to think for long periods of time either because they’re frantically trying to find a move in a desperate position (like Larsen) or trying to decide if a bold and daring move will actually work (like Short). In either case, I don’t think it should be boring for the commentators. After about a few minutes they should try to entertain the spectators by describing all the possible difficulties or brilliant attacking move that the player might be thinking about. I think that would be an interesting exercise. I’m not lobbying for a rule change here because I know Omar didn’t like long move ceilings in the past, I’m just pointing out that a long think can still be entertaining if the commentators speculate on what the upcoming move might be. Theoretically, the quality of play should also improve if players have extra time during critical points in the game.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
browni3141
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #7014
Gender:
Posts: 384
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #175 on: Oct 18th, 2012, 2:52pm » |
Quote Modify
|
After seeing Adanac's argument I also support the life-time ban. At first I tried to imagine the thought of never being able to play in the world championship, but then I remembered that it doesn't matter, because I would never cheat even if there were no consequences. I love Arimaa too much  (and I'm just an honest person  ). Someone who would cheat to get the title doesn't deserve a chance at it.
I'm also wondering how bot use could be proven. It is easier to do in chess, but still difficult. How would someone ever be proven to be a cheater if they only used a bot to check for blunders? That's about all they're good for at the world championship level, IMO. EEE is showing that humans can even outplay bots in a highly tactical endgame. In chess engine use can be detected using match-up rates. In Arimaa a blatant engine user would only be hurting himself, and I doubt you could use match up rates to prove bot use to any reasonable degree of certainty anyway. We would have to call a player out because his/her play looks bot-like, and I think most would agree with me that human intuition isn't enough "evidence" to enforce a lifetime ban. Players suspected of cheating can only be observed after the fact to make sure they aren't cheating in the remaining games, and they'd be pretty stupid to do it then, so I doubt we could ever get enough evidence to enforce a life-time ban.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #176 on: Oct 18th, 2012, 6:23pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 18th, 2012, 12:58pm, browni3141 wrote:| How often do you wish you could have dipped farther into your reserve Fritzlein? |
|
I can think of many cases where I wished I had more time total. Everyone plays better when they can think for longer, and I always want to play better. Futhermore, I tend to do relatively better at slow time controls than other people, i.e. extra thinking time helps me more than average, so I have an extra reason to want more time.
That sentiment, however, isn't the same thing as needing more leeway over time management on a particular move. In truth, I can't recall a single clear-cut case when it would have helped me to allocate more than the max time on a particular move. Arimaa has relatively few automatic moves, so when I need a long think on one move, it is usually a sign of general trouble, i.e. a sign I need to spread my reserve over the course of the next several moves rather than entirely front-loaded.
A reasonable first-pass model for the quality of play versus thinking time is that Elo improvement is linear in the log of thinking time. If increasing from 1 minute to 2 minutes is worth 100 Elo, then the next 100 Elo require thinking for 4 minutes, and the 100 Elo after than require 8 minutes, etc. If every move were equally important and/or equally amenable to finding better moves with increased thinking time, then this logarithmic relationship would clearly mean the optimal policy is to think exactly the same amount on each move.
For example, if you are in the championship game, coming up against the 6-minute thinking limit, extending to 8 minutes might buy you another 41.5 Elo for that move, whereas saving those two extra minutes to double the next move's thinking time from 2 minutes to 4 minutes buys you 100 Elo then. And furthermore, to even build up such a large reserve, you had to make a lot of 1-minute moves at a penalty of -100 Elo on each of those moves. On average you are costing yourself a ton of playing strength to manage time unevenly.
Of course, some moves are indeed more obvious than others, and some moves are indeed more important than others. But my general intuition is that players who want to exceed the max time per move are wanting to manage their time badly. Forcing them to move at a steadier pace is probably usually to their benefit, even if they are frustrated by it. If my theory is true, this is hardly the only case where giving people more freedom of choice results in worse choices on average.
This isn't my reason for wanting a max time, though. I'm not trying to help bad time managers improve. The serious reason is consideration for the spectators, commentators, and even the opponent. Waiting around for even six minutes is boring. This is not just my feeling; it is backed up by the general behavior of spectators in a wide variety of situations. The preceding paragraphs were just my theory of why players shouldn't kick and fuss too much at not having complete leeway on time management; it simply wouldn't help much beyond the leeway they already have.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
browni3141
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #7014
Gender:
Posts: 384
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #177 on: Oct 18th, 2012, 9:41pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 18th, 2012, 6:23pm, Fritzlein wrote:
A reasonable first-pass model for the quality of play versus thinking time is that Elo improvement is linear in the log of thinking time. If increasing from 1 minute to 2 minutes is worth 100 Elo, then the next 100 Elo require thinking for 4 minutes, and the 100 Elo after than require 8 minutes, etc. If every move were equally important and/or equally amenable to finding better moves with increased thinking time, then this logarithmic relationship would clearly mean the optimal policy is to think exactly the same amount on each move. |
|
That is a huge if. I wouldn't be surprised if optimal time management looks nothing like this model in many cases. I think time management is much more complex than that. In practical play 2 extra minutes on one move might be nearly insignificant, while on another move it could win the game for you. And then there may be times when only a small boost in strength is worth a few extra minutes.
Quote:
For example, if you are in the championship game, coming up against the 6-minute thinking limit, extending to 8 minutes might buy you another 41.5 Elo for that move, whereas saving those two extra minutes to double the next move's thinking time from 2 minutes to 4 minutes buys you 100 Elo then. |
|
It's simple math, if we assume that your model is correct, but it doesn't make sense in practical play. You absolutely have to take each individual move into account. Spending 10 minutes on one move may easily be worth the time. In "critical" positions, you may need 10 minutes to work things out, and it won't matter that you won't have that time available later because the later positions are not nearly as important. I get the feeling that you don't consider tactics your strong suit. Maybe if you had more time...
Quote:| ...you had to make a lot of 1-minute moves at a penalty of -100 Elo on each of those moves. On average you are costing yourself a ton of playing strength to manage time unevenly. |
|
This doesn't make sense. The way I see it you might make max move time once, or maybe twice in a game. Let's say it's 30 moves until you get to the critical position. Saving an average of 15s per move nets you 7.5 minutes, with your starting reserve on top of that. This does not sound unreasonable to me. Some moves may easily be made in 15-30 seconds, bagging a large amount of reserve. Also remember that spending extra time on one move may increase strength on subsequent moves as well, and if you spend 10 minutes to get a strong position you may only need 2 minutes per move for the rest of the game to keep it and win.
Quote:
Of course, some moves are indeed more obvious than others, and some moves are indeed more important than others. But my general intuition is that players who want to exceed the max time per move are wanting to manage their time badly. |
|
I don't agree. I believe it may be beneficial to actually save up time in reserve that may be used if you need it. I know I'm a hypocrite for not following my own beliefs in my games
Quote:
This isn't my reason for wanting a max time, though. I'm not trying to help bad time managers improve. The serious reason is consideration for the spectators, commentators, and even the opponent. Waiting around for even six minutes is boring. This is not just my feeling; it is backed up by the general behavior of spectators in a wide variety of situations. The preceding paragraphs were just my theory of why players shouldn't kick and fuss too much at not having complete leeway on time management; it simply wouldn't help much beyond the leeway they already have. |
|
Serious opponent's should not be bothered by the opponent taking a long time. They should actually appreciate the extra pondering time. I often ponder every second that I can in a game, and I would never be bothered by an opponent using his time as he saw fit.
Can you find a professional chess player who complained about their opponent taking to long in an OTB tournament? Chess is so huge that you probably could, but such a thing would be extremely rare and certainly would be frowned upon. I can understand that the spectators might get bored, and the commentators may run out of things to say, but in my opinion the game is about the players. Accommodating the spectators at the players' expense is just wrong (IMO), which is why I said before that I don't think it's a relevant aspect of the discussion. Of course, you seem to think that the system in place is to not only the spectator's, but the player's benefit. Besides, if a player takes his full time on a move, it seems reasonable to say that the position is a complex, and therefore interesting, one. As a spectator, I think I could easily stay interested for 10 minutes if the position is interesting enough. Spectators may even be able to stay interested in a position longer than the players, because spectators fuel eachother's thought and each fuels a larger discussion if they are commenting as well as spectating.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 18th, 2012, 9:43pm by browni3141 » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Nombril
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4509
Gender:
Posts: 292
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #178 on: Oct 18th, 2012, 10:00pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 18th, 2012, 12:32pm, Fritzlein wrote:
I wavered between having the cutoff for 2min/move games being 5 players remaining or 3 players remaining, so I would be easy to persuade on this point. Does anyone else want to weigh in? |
|
I probably won't even make the final 5 this year, but if I did I would prefer the 2 min moves. It also wouldn't discourage me as a spectator or commentator.
As for providing commentary on a 10min move... it would be easy to provide a deeper analysis and discussion if the player warned us ahead of time... 
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #179 on: Oct 18th, 2012, 10:45pm » |
Quote Modify
|
OK, since I was on the fence anyway, that's enough votes to extend the 2min/move to the final 5 players. I have changed the rules.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print