Author |
Topic: Ongoing Opening Event? (Read 7135 times) |
|
crazyharry
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #7323
Gender: 
Posts: 38
|
 |
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #15 on: Apr 29th, 2013, 2:27pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Apr 29th, 2013, 2:23am, mattj256 wrote:My one "important" objection is I think the scoring should have no room for judgement whatsoever. In the beginning you'll probably want to do exactly what you said: post a game, discuss the score and the scoring system, but when the tournament is running "for real" the scoring should be either automated or able to be automated. (If I have time I'll work on the automation part but no promises...)
Matthew |
|
I agree that ideally, human judgement would play no part in the scoring process, but in the interest of keeping things simple, I think it would be ok if both participants scored their matches. If the scores match, then that could be accepted as the official score; if there is a discrepancy, a moderator could look into it to resolve the discrepancy(but I'm not sure this would be necessary unless something were on the line, like a tournament or a WHROpening, if that sort of thing finds it's way into the event). Automation of the scoring process would be ideal, but that is far beyond my meager coding ability, and I don't think I have time to commit to both coordinating the event and teaching myself the code to write such a program.
I'm working on a draft for my vision of the event format now. I'll post it here when it's finished so people can read it and give feedback, then I'll look into getting things on the wiki.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
crazyharry
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #7323
Gender:
Posts: 38
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #16 on: Apr 29th, 2013, 3:03pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Ok, I have a rough draft drawn up for the event format and rules. Anybody have any thoughts, concerns, or suggestions?
OOE Format
1. Game Scheduling
a) Players will play a five-game series. The schedule for these games will be decided privately between the two players, and the series can be completed at their leisure.
2. Game Format
a) Game 1: Player 1 chooses his own setup position and color. Player 2 plays a 99of9 position of his choice.
b) Game 2: Player 2 chooses his own setup position and color. Player 1 plays a 99of9 position of his choice.
c) Game 3: Player 1 chooses his own setup position and plays as gold. Player 2 plays an EHH position as silver.
d) Game 4: Player 2 chooses his own setup position and plays as gold. Player 1 plays an EHH position as silver.
e) Game 5: Both players choose their own setup positions with player 1 as gold and player 2 as silver.
3. Scoring
a) Openings will be scored according to the guidelines set forth in the scoring rubric.
b) At the completion of each game, both players will score the opening and post the score as they see it in the comments section of the game (or other location, if it is decided that someplace else would be better).
c) If a discrepancy between the scores generated by the participants results in a disputed game (e.g. both participants claim victory), a moderator will be appointed to settle the dispute.
4. Pairing
a) The event coordinator will create pairings from available participants (those not still completing a series) every Saturday and post the pairings on the designated OOE thread in the forum.
b) Players will be matched to the player closest to them in WHR, or when WHR is unavailable, gameroom rating, except when:
i) The two players have already played a series against each other.
ii) The difference between the WHR/gameroom ratings of the two players is greater than 300, in which case, unless both players consent to the mismatch, rematches will be considered.
c) Whenever possible, pairings will seek an equilibrium between the number of times a player is player 1 and player 2.
5. Contingencies
a) If a player wishes to withdraw from the event at any time, he/she will notify the event coordinator and be removed from the list of available participants with no questions asked.
b) Pairings may be terminated and new pairings issued for the next round when:
i) The two players in a pairing are unable to find a common available time to play their games.
ii) A player does not respond to his/her opponent’s attempts to schedule games, in which case the nonresponsive player will be removed from the active players list and the remaining player will be issued a new pairing for the next round.
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 29th, 2013, 3:15pm by crazyharry » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Hippo
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4450
Gender:
Posts: 883
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #17 on: Apr 29th, 2013, 4:56pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 26th, 2013, 9:31pm, crazyharry wrote:
I scored this opening 2.5-0 for Gold. The opening was ended because the gold horse had been hostaged for two turns. No pieces were captured, and although the c3 trap is contested, silver has occupied a second key square or taken other measures to ensure that the gold elephant remains in place. Gold receives 2.5 points for the horse hostage and silver receives 0 points because at this point his budding blockade has as much potential to work against his long-term goals as for them. Although silver eventually won this game, it was a consequence of gold's inability to make a plan to free his elephant in the midgame, rather than any skillful opening play on the part of silver.
|
|
I am sceptical with the event when you have to go to lost arimaa position to "win the openning". May be this position is not lost, but gold would have problems to rotate camel to obtain Mh hostage and E cannot leave till h would be dislodged. Therefore m would be strongest free piece at least for several turns.
If a hostage would be used as victory condition ... it must be held by just one stronger piece ... .
I would much more liked overloaded phant as victory condition. But what it exactly means ?:)
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #18 on: Apr 29th, 2013, 5:21pm » |
Quote Modify
|
There have been several times in my Arimaa career when my opponent and I each explicitly thought we were winning out of the opening. Sometimes it felt like we were not playing against each other, but rather pulling on the same team, since we were trying to create the same position. Each of us expected to win from there on out.
This same phenomenon can be observed in timed-out games against bot_Bomb2005. The human player may try to unrate the game he was winning, only to be told that he can't unrate because he was losing. The judge of the ability to unrate, of course, is bot_Bomb2005!
I think if we could all look at an opening position and agree who was ahead, it would be a sad day for Arimaa, because it would mean that everyone would be playing the same strategies. It would mean everyone would agree what markers to play for, and the only differentiation between players was technique in achieving those markers. It would signal the end of winning Arimaa games simply by having better strategic judgment.
In the mean time, I simply can't see how to make an opening-only event work. The game must be played out until the rules themselves decide the winner. Note that historically, chess events that focused on openings didn't try to cut off the games after a certain number of moves; they merely mandated certain openings and let the players take the games from there to a natural conclusion.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
crazyharry
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #7323
Gender:
Posts: 38
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #19 on: Apr 29th, 2013, 5:40pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 29th, 2013, 4:56pm, Hippo wrote:
I am sceptical with the event when you have to go to lost arimaa position to "win the openning". May be this position is not lost, but gold would have problems to rotate camel to obtain Mh hostage and E cannot leave till h would be dislodged. Therefore m would be strongest free piece at least for several turns.
If a hostage would be used as victory condition ... it must be held by just one stronger piece ... .
I would much more liked overloaded phant as victory condition. But what it exactly means ?:)
|
|
You're right, of course. Maybe that particular game was a poor example. m would be the strongest free piece for at least 2-3 turns, enough to potentially capture the H on the off side, but if silver dawdles, there is nothing to prevent gold from replacing his elephant with either his horse or his camel within 2 turns.
Either way, Fritzlein has nicely summed up the problems with trying to score openings. I think there could be an argument the loss of an apparent opening advantage is more the result of poor play in the mid and endgame than a flawed opening strategy, but I really don't have the experience necessary to make that argument when the body of evidence is so varied and diverse. I still believe that it would be completely acceptable to not keep score and just use this as an opportunity to test out concepts and get feedback from the community, but having things be a little competitive could be fun, even if the scoring algorithm is a bit flawed.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
browni3141
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #7014
Gender:
Posts: 384
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #20 on: Apr 29th, 2013, 5:56pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 29th, 2013, 5:40pm, crazyharry wrote:
You're right, of course. Maybe that particular game was a poor example. m would be the strongest free piece for at least 2-3 turns, enough to potentially capture the H on the off side, but if silver dawdles, there is nothing to prevent gold from replacing his elephant with either his horse or his camel within 2 turns.
|
|
The position you gave is unclear to me. Any piece gold gets to b3 could be pulled, which would force the gold elephant to stay near c3. It's not really as simple as this, but I'm just trying to say that the position is still unclear.
Also, I agree completely with Fritzlein. You will not find a set of rules that even two experienced players would agree upon.
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 29th, 2013, 5:58pm by browni3141 » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
crazyharry
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #7323
Gender:
Posts: 38
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #21 on: Apr 29th, 2013, 6:17pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 29th, 2013, 5:56pm, browni3141 wrote:| Also, I agree completely with Fritzlein. You will not find a set of rules that even two experienced players would agree upon. |
|
Well, then maybe the rules should be scrapped. Would anybody have any problems with just not keeping score?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
browni3141
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #7014
Gender:
Posts: 384
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #22 on: Apr 29th, 2013, 7:33pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 29th, 2013, 6:17pm, crazyharry wrote:
Well, then maybe the rules should be scrapped. Would anybody have any problems with just not keeping score? |
|
Not me :). Normally I like things to be competitive, but I don't think there's a good way to do it here AND keep the games short.
I personally think it would be best to play the games to the finish. I think this is not only important if you want to keep score, but also if you want people to learn as much as possible. How are you supposed to improve without some sort of feedback? If the games are cut short you get less feedback. You might get stuck thinking some structure is good when it is really not because you didn't have to struggle through a middlegame.
As an example I used to think that giving up an early dog frame on the camel side of an opponent's EHH/M setup was to my advantage. Only by continuing through the middlegame was I able to learn that it is a very difficult position to play. I'm not sure if it's just a difficult position or a truly bad one, but the middlegame experience has taught me a lot. Without that feedback from playing the middlegame I would still think that the frame is quite good for me, when in fact it is clearly unclear.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
crazyharry
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #7323
Gender:
Posts: 38
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #23 on: Apr 29th, 2013, 8:33pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 29th, 2013, 7:33pm, browni3141 wrote:
Not me :). Normally I like things to be competitive, but I don't think there's a good way to do it here AND keep the games short.
I personally think it would be best to play the games to the finish. I think this is not only important if you want to keep score, but also if you want people to learn as much as possible. How are you supposed to improve without some sort of feedback? If the games are cut short you get less feedback. You might get stuck thinking some structure is good when it is really not because you didn't have to struggle through a middlegame.
As an example I used to think that giving up an early dog frame on the camel side of an opponent's EHH/M setup was to my advantage. Only by continuing through the middlegame was I able to learn that it is a very difficult position to play. I'm not sure if it's just a difficult position or a truly bad one, but the middlegame experience has taught me a lot. Without that feedback from playing the middlegame I would still think that the frame is quite good for me, when in fact it is clearly unclear. |
|
Actually, I agree with you on all counts. I never intended to advocate players resigning at any point in their games. Mostly I've just been throwing out ideas to try to get some good feedback, and it seems like I've gotten some of that.
So, proposal:
The scoring rubric is thrown out.
The pairing protocol and 5-game series structure stays in place, and a 2-minute time control is recommended to give participants plenty of thinking time without stretching the games into marathons.
The event games are archived in a designated location so the community can easily discuss the strategies and tactics employed.
How does that sound?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
mattj256
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #8519
Gender:
Posts: 138
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #24 on: Apr 29th, 2013, 9:03pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Crazyharry, I'm glad to see your images on the bulletin board!
on Apr 29th, 2013, 1:43pm, crazyharry wrote:| As far as the event format goes, I think we have two different visions. |
|
Probably but you seem very motivated to carry out your vision so I won't argue with you. 
(I only argue about stupid pointless things.)
Just to reiterate, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have artificial games with artificial scoring where the game is cut off at move 20 or some other arbitrary criteria. But it would be a variant of Arimaa, not Arimaa. Just like you could play the variant where each player gets two cats and four rabbits. I seem to be the only one in favor of this so I won't waste time arguing about it, but I do think it would be fun. (Like sparring practice for a boxer.) I guess it would be good for teaching tactics and bad for teaching strategy. [Edit: I didn't read everything in the thread. If this happens at all it will be for a different event, not the one being planned here.]
I like what Fritzlein mentioned about mandating a certain opening. Brainstorming off of that, you could have two strong players play a game, with a delay before the rest of the world sees the moves and everyone encouraged to watch the game and join the chat room, just like is done for a tournament game. In the chat room, instead of trying to guess the next move people could try to answer the question: "who is winning?" Whenever you have two people who disagree about who's winning, those two people could start from the position on the board and play a fresh game with their chosen side. It would be interesting to have the whole Arimaa community obsessively analyze a single game, with many games branching off from it, rather than having the same amount of analysis spread out over dozens of games that are completely unrelated.
(I'm terrible about implementing stuff but I really like brainstorming...)
If you want, here's the info on setting up an account to edit the wiki:
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php/Create_Account
I'm glad to see there's so much enthusiasm in this!
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 29th, 2013, 9:13pm by mattj256 » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
mattj256
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #8519
Gender:
Posts: 138
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #25 on: Apr 29th, 2013, 9:10pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 29th, 2013, 8:33pm, crazyharry wrote:| The pairing protocol and 5-game series structure stays in place |
|
I have one minor objection: I think that each series should have an even number of games with both players required to play silver and gold an equal number of times. What do other people think about that? Other than that I think everything is great! And thanks for doing all this work crazyharry!
Matthew
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
crazyharry
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #7323
Gender:
Posts: 38
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #26 on: Apr 29th, 2013, 9:41pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 29th, 2013, 9:03pm, mattj256 wrote:
Just to reiterate, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have artificial games with artificial scoring where the game is cut off at move 20 or some other arbitrary criteria. But it would be a variant of Arimaa, not Arimaa. Just like you could play the variant where each player gets two cats and four rabbits. I seem to be the only one in favor of this so I won't waste time arguing about it, but I do think it would be fun. (Like sparring practice for a boxer.) I guess it would be good for teaching tactics and bad for teaching strategy. [Edit: I didn't read everything in the thread. If this happens at all it will be for a different event, not the one being planned here.]
I like what Fritzlein mentioned about mandating a certain opening. Brainstorming off of that, you could have two strong players play a game, with a delay before the rest of the world sees the moves and everyone encouraged to watch the game and join the chat room, just like is done for a tournament game. In the chat room, instead of trying to guess the next move people could try to answer the question: "who is winning?" Whenever you have two people who disagree about who's winning, those two people could start from the position on the board and play a fresh game with their chosen side. It would be interesting to have the whole Arimaa community obsessively analyze a single game, with many games branching off from it, rather than having the same amount of analysis spread out over dozens of games that are completely unrelated.
(I'm terrible about implementing stuff but I really like brainstorming...)
If you want, here's the info on setting up an account to edit the wiki:
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php/Create_Account
I'm glad to see there's so much enthusiasm in this! |
|
Well, I actually do like the idea of starting with random setups, or different subsets of pieces, but I feel like that's been covered pretty well by the EEE.
I really don't mind your brainstorming, I think most of your ideas are pretty good, I just don't really want to implement them this time around. Most of them are pretty cool ideas, but they sound like, well, work.
Thanks for all of the support Matt!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
crazyharry
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #7323
Gender:
Posts: 38
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #27 on: Apr 29th, 2013, 9:53pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 29th, 2013, 9:10pm, mattj256 wrote:
I have one minor objection: I think that each series should have an even number of games with both players required to play silver and gold an equal number of times. What do other people think about that? Other than that I think everything is great! And thanks for doing all this work crazyharry!
Matthew
|
|
Well, I was toying with the idea of an 8-game series earlier for just that purpose, but I worried that 8 games might be too difficult for people to schedule in a timely manner. I figured that over the course of multiple series, things would even out even though the individual series couldn't be even. Six could be a potential compromise.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
mattj256
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #8519
Gender:
Posts: 138
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #28 on: Apr 29th, 2013, 10:07pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 29th, 2013, 9:41pm, crazyharry wrote:| Well, I actually do like the idea of starting with random setups, or different subsets of pieces, but I feel like that's been covered pretty well by the EEE. |
|
You're right; I didn't know about EEE at the time.
on Apr 29th, 2013, 9:41pm, crazyharry wrote:| I really don't mind your brainstorming, I think most of your ideas are pretty good, I just don't really want to implement them this time around. |
|
Glad to hear you don't think I'm being a pest.
on Apr 29th, 2013, 9:41pm, crazyharry wrote:| Thanks for all of the support Matt! |
|
You're welcome and thank you! Like I said, I would never be able to organize an event like this. (Speaking of work, you're giving me some good ideas of technology stuff I "could" be doing.)
The thing about five games is pretty minor but I figured it was worth raising. Ok have fun and good night!
Matthew
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Boo
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #6466
Gender:
Posts: 118
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #29 on: Apr 30th, 2013, 4:16am » |
Quote Modify
|
I didn't take time to read all this thread, just some thoughts on the rules:
Quote:2. Game Format
a) Game 1: Player 1 chooses his own setup position and color. Player 2 plays a 99of9 position of his choice.
b) Game 2: Player 2 chooses his own setup position and color. Player 1 plays a 99of9 position of his choice.
c) Game 3: Player 1 chooses his own setup position and plays as gold. Player 2 plays an EHH position as silver.
d) Game 4: Player 2 chooses his own setup position and plays as gold. Player 1 plays an EHH position as silver.
e) Game 5: Both players choose their own setup positions with player 1 as gold and player 2 as silver. |
|
I think in terms of learning it would be better to select an opening position of high rated players when all the pieces are still on board, preferably with no hostages, frames established yet, in the interval of 7g-15s. And have all the players play the same position with both silver and gold. (5th time let the lower rated player choose the color) This way the players could learn the plans of both sides by comparing their game with the others. Also they could have the original game as an example and try to find the first improvement there.
Quote:3. Scoring
a) Openings will be scored according to the guidelines set forth in the scoring rubric.
b) At the completion of each game, both players will score the opening and post the score as they see it in the comments section of the game (or other location, if it is decided that someplace else would be better).
c) If a discrepancy between the scores generated by the participants results in a disputed game (e.g. both participants claim victory), a moderator will be appointed to settle the dispute. |
|
I would let the games to be played to their natural end. Learning the opening should not stop you from learning the endgame. "Learning" should be the keyword here.
I would let the players agree on the time control they want to play. If they cant find agreement - then choose the default one.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print