Author |
Topic: 2014 World Championship Rules (Read 13247 times) |
|
Janzert
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #247
Gender: 
Posts: 1016
|
 |
Re: 2014 World Championship Rules
« Reply #15 on: Sep 27th, 2013, 8:45pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
ok, I think I'm convinced. Seems like this is probably the best compromise for this year:
seed = (((1400 + gameroom) / 2) + (WHRH * # of WHRH games)) / (1 + # of WHRH games)
Here is a spreadsheet with today's (9-27) WHRH with this seeding formula and a column to show the difference from straight WHRH.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2014 World Championship Rules
« Reply #16 on: Sep 27th, 2013, 9:43pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 27th, 2013, 8:45pm, Janzert wrote:| Here is a spreadsheet with today's (9-27) WHRH with this seeding formula and a column to show the difference from straight WHRH. |
|
For players in the top 100 or 200, it is quite clearly advantageous to have more WHRH games, because the other component drags you down. This is well and good as far as I am concerned.
Further down the spreadsheet the trends are less clear. We'll just have to see whether the seeds in the actual tournament seem reasonable, and/or whether the seeding system induces weird behavior on the part of tournament entrants.
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 27th, 2013, 9:43pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
aaaa
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #958
Posts: 768
|
|
Re: 2014 World Championship Rules
« Reply #17 on: Sep 30th, 2013, 9:24am » |
Quote Modify
|
No matter how slight, do we really want to allow even for the possibility that the same set of games plus outcomes can lead to a different final ranking depending on what the players' seed ratings were? And if an exception is made for the final ranking such that that is calculated based purely on what happened during the tournament, isn't it suspiciously unnatural if that isn't then just as well extended to the scheduling?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2014 World Championship Rules
« Reply #18 on: Sep 30th, 2013, 12:53pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 30th, 2013, 9:24am, aaaa wrote:| No matter how slight, do we really want to allow even for the possibility that the same set of games plus outcomes can lead to a different final ranking depending on what the players' seed ratings were? |
|
Yes, I do want to allow for that possibility, because there is a positive benefit that outweighs the probable harm. To me this isn't a case of absolutes, but rather one of relative advantages, relative disadvantages, and the probabilities of each.
If we seed a tournament in any way, i.e. if we don't place all entrants on an equal footing starting with the first round being paired randomly, then the players' seed ratings will affect the final ranking via their effect on pairings. Having accepted that seed ratings already have an impact on the final standings, in exchange for the tangible benefit of delaying climactic pairings, improving ordering of players relative to performance, and increasing the chance that the best player is crowned champion, I don't have to reach very far to accept a small possibility of seed ratings affecting the final outcome beyond the way they determine pairings.
The tournament outcome under Janzert's proposal to use STPR and not use UTPR will still be determined overwhelmingly by wins and losses of players in their games. The current discussion of how to pair and rank players is a relatively minor refinement to a system that is basically functioning well. I won't be heartbroken if no changes are made from last year; things basically worked then. The issues with pairing last year were drowned out by over-the-board performance.
I understand, of course, if others take a different stance towards the relative benefits and detriments of various pairing/ranking schemes. I'm merely expressing the balance that I perceive.
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 30th, 2013, 1:03pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Janzert
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #247
Gender:
Posts: 1016
|
|
Re: 2014 World Championship Rules
« Reply #19 on: Oct 3rd, 2013, 12:22am » |
Quote Modify
|
I agree with what Fritzlein said, I just want to add that besides the pragmatism motive I also would like to make the tournament system as clear as possible. Part of that is reducing complexity where it's not giving an appropriate benefit.
Janzert
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Janzert
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #247
Gender:
Posts: 1016
|
|
Re: 2014 World Championship Rules
« Reply #20 on: Oct 3rd, 2013, 1:18am » |
Quote Modify
|
I'd like to hear any thoughts on the idea of making the last round of the preliminaries step up to the next time control. Last year the step up was done in the first round of the finals.
There are two primary motivations. First is that it gives the players on the cusp of making the finals a higher quality time control game to decide whether they make it in or not. Second is that it gives all the players in the tournament a taste of a longer time control.
The largest disadvantage I see is that it may be an overwhelming number of games to handle at the longer time control for that one week.
Janzert
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Hippo
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4450
Gender:
Posts: 883
|
|
Re: 2014 World Championship Rules
« Reply #21 on: Oct 3rd, 2013, 10:56am » |
Quote Modify
|
I would prefere all games in preliminary with the same time controll.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
supersamu
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #7523
Gender:
Posts: 140
|
|
Re: 2014 World Championship Rules
« Reply #22 on: Oct 3rd, 2013, 12:12pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I also think that every round in the preliminaries should have the same time control.
What does it really matter for a game in what order it is played?
The first game is as important as the last game in the preliminaries, at least in the sense that you either lose a life or don´t lose a life.
The last round isn´t really special in any way.
(I know that the pairing algorithm changes things up and my statement is not entirely true (it would be true for random match-ups), but I still think that the importance of the game in the first round is almost as high as the importance of the game in the last round.
Having distinct time controls for different phases of the tournament makes it clear that the second part of the Championship has begun.
As for the Seeding algorithm:
If we want to include everybody and not sort possible participants out, because they haven´t played enough games against humans (and I think we should include everyone),
we either have to dilute the purity of the seeding algorithm for sake of simplicity or implement a "fair" seeding algorithm that is very complicated.
I think we are in a good spot with Janzert´s algorithm, although I have very little experience with Tournaments.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Janzert
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #247
Gender:
Posts: 1016
|
|
Re: 2014 World Championship Rules
« Reply #23 on: Oct 4th, 2013, 9:08pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Ok sounds like there isn't any interest in the longer time control for a preliminary round, so I'll drop that idea.
Next topic, does anyone mind or see a problem if the time scheduling is done 2-3 hours earlier (e.g. Monday at 2100 or 2200UTC)? Of course it would be pushed back if the final game of the previous round was still in progress.
Janzert
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2014 World Championship Rules
« Reply #24 on: Oct 4th, 2013, 10:54pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 4th, 2013, 9:08pm, Janzert wrote:| Next topic, does anyone mind or see a problem if the time scheduling is done 2-3 hours earlier (e.g. Monday at 2100 or 2200UTC)? Of course it would be pushed back if the final game of the previous round was still in progress. |
|
You say you have a schedule conflict every Monday evening. Does that schedule conflict have a predictable end time? I would slightly prefer having the pairing be done at the same time every week a few hours later, i.e. consistency to me would outweigh having more advance notice.
Conversely, the earlier pairing time would be just fine with me, except that it would mildly annoy me every time it got pushed later by an unpredictable amount.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Janzert
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #247
Gender:
Posts: 1016
|
|
Re: 2014 World Championship Rules
« Reply #25 on: Oct 5th, 2013, 2:12am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 4th, 2013, 10:54pm, Fritzlein wrote:| You say you have a schedule conflict every Monday evening. Does that schedule conflict have a predictable end time? |
|
I have a training on Monday evenings 3 weeks a month starting at 24:00UTC. I usually arrive roughly 10 minutes early and it generally lasts 2-3 hours. A few times a year it may go as long as 3.5 hours. Travel time to and from is less than 10 minutes.
Quote:| Conversely, the earlier pairing time would be just fine with me, except that it would mildly annoy me every time it got pushed later by an unpredictable amount. |
|
Looking at last year a 22:00 time would only have been interfered with one time when game 255808 ended at 21:59. Interestingly I believe it's also the only game that could have even theoretically made it past 24:00.
Looking theoretically, a game in the last time slot could make it 2, 4 or 6 hours past the 24:00 mark depending on tournament stage.
Janzert
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Janzert
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #247
Gender:
Posts: 1016
|
|
Re: 2014 World Championship Rules
« Reply #26 on: Oct 11th, 2013, 5:16pm » |
Quote Modify
|
For now at least I went with scheduling 3 hours later at 03:00UTC.
I think I'm also going to leave the forfeit procedure alone for this year. I'd still like to try changing it eventually. But maybe it can be changed earlier in the year and tried in a few events before being used in the WC.
Janzert
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
chessandgo
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1889
Gender:
Posts: 1244
|
|
Re: 2014 World Championship Rules
« Reply #27 on: Oct 12th, 2013, 9:10am » |
Quote Modify
|
I just became aware of the new (and lenghtier) Code of Conduct replacing the Cheating section. I'm not sure how to inquire about its intent / existence of discussion on this topic / etc without using unwelcome smileys  oops.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Janzert
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #247
Gender:
Posts: 1016
|
|
Re: 2014 World Championship Rules
« Reply #28 on: Oct 12th, 2013, 12:59pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Certainly I'd like to hear feedback on the new code of conduct. It is heavily based off of the US Chess Federation code of ethics, along with bits and pieces picked up from a few others that I'm familiar with.
There are two reasons I hadn't explicitly brought it up for discussion yet. First I'm not really happy with the TD being the primary arbiter. I'd much rather have an ethics committee like the USCF does. But given the difficulty of having the committee get together in a timely manner and performing a considered discussion over the internet at any given point throughout the length of the tournament, I don't think it's a practical option. Maybe I'm wrong on that. Either way I'd like to see any complaint resolved within a few days.
The second thing I haven't done yet is to check with Omar that he is willing to act as the final appeal. Although I'm not sure it will work well if he doesn't, given that he is the final person that will need to enforce any sanction.
Janzert
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 12th, 2013, 1:00pm by Janzert » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
chessandgo
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1889
Gender:
Posts: 1244
|
|
Re: 2014 World Championship Rules
« Reply #29 on: Oct 13th, 2013, 6:18am » |
Quote Modify
|
The rules on cheating used to very brief and as non-specific as possible in order to avoid unenforceability, which was even mentioned verbatim. This mention to enforceability has disappeared, everything became a lot more specific, and about 40% of the space is even dedicated to underlining the procedure for a player to file a complaint.
Any particular reason for this all? Was this new version written by someone else (Omar, or Fritz maybe?) if you don't like some of it Janzert?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print