--- In pente2@y..., esm, my remarks weer nt rude or condescending, I call it liek I see it. I donlt bother sugarcoating my posts or filling it sith silly internet pounctuations such as LOL or smiley faces, if that makes them seem rude or condescending by comparison, so be it, but I was just being matter of fact.
You say you do not wish to elaborate on your (still) unnamed accusations of cheating. Well, you asre using the potential for cheating to make a point, yet as far as I can tell, this cheating does not extst. Yet after saying you would not discuss it, you then restate your claim:
Perhaps your reaction was ignited by my comment that some people use the database during games. They do, but if you thought I was pointing my finger at you then I apologize that my meaning wasn't clear.
I really do not know how you can state with certainy that someone is doing this, but if a person is, I doubt it is one of the top ranked players, and I doubt it would have abny effect on the tournament.
As for children reading the board, I do not know what it is that you think was said that is offensie to children, everything looked ok to me. The sytrongest words I used were npnsense, crap, and absurd. Given the way I hear and see kids talk these days, I would hope they DO emulate the language on this board.
As Joe King said, the oppurtunirty to play and watch top players should be incentive enough to enter; and as Gary said, anyone who doesn't ewnter because of the seedings is copping out.
you say what fun is it to get massacred right away and get knocked out by the top players? well, SOMEONE has to lose right away!! But that is why we have double elimination!! or have you forgotten about that? If, as you seem to think will happen, all the top players win early, then bracket 2 will have only the weaker players, and you will then have exactly what you want-- a bunch of weak player playing each other while the top players battle it out in bracket 1. so what is all the complaining about?
I think some people just like coplaining. If any of the compainers spent their time studying pente games instead of complaning, they might actually improve enough to get seeded.
perhaps in the ULTIMATE absurdity,Regan cotinues to use Mark Mammel as an example as one of the people who (paraphrasing regan) want to get some reward or advantage for all their time put in to the game.
As Gary pointed out, Mark might not even get a seed in the tornament, But what is more amazing is that Regan, at 1550, is actually higher rated than Mark, and therefor Regan has as good a chance as Mark of being seeded.
Back to the comment of receiving osmethig for the time and effort put in, Why shouldn't they? I don't just eman Mark or Dweebo, but any of the top rated players who are top rated becasue they have spent so much tiem studying games and practicing! Sorry, but in life you don't get to start out at the top by doing nothing and getting an advantage over those who have spent long hours at their trade.
Some of the people here seem to lie in a land of make-believe....
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
reply to my own message.
Posted:
Apr 13, 2002, 5:42 PM
I posted my previous message before readinfg Gary's response. As you can all see, gary has more ability in the tact department than I do. I still feel strongly about my points, but I will try to expres them in a less confrontational manner. I do enjoy a good debate, and when I am passionate about soemthing I debate fiercely.
I really hope the seedings do not keep anyone from entering the tournament. If soemoe is avoiding the tournament for that reason, It is a shame, because either way, entering the tournament will be interesting and educational. The only reason I am any good at this game or have a good rating is because I came on to dweebo's site and IYT and got my *** kicked time and tiem again. Often in am IYT tornament I got matched up in an early roudn with a tough opponent and got eliminated. I used these losses to improve my game, and before long I was using the attacks that defeated me to defeat others. For a long time, my rating was around 1300 and I couldn't beat any of the top players, then I started to win some and I eventually became able to hold my own. I am sure the same holds for other of the potential seeded players. And we just do not think it is right to have us matched up agaist one another early on. The eward is slight, we are simply being given assurance that we will go a round or two before meeting up with another to level player, and I do not think that is unreasonable.
If those opposed to the seedings look at this from our perspective, in our shoes, I think they will find that we are not asking for a lot here, andthat the partial seeding idea is a good compromise providing a solid middle ground that should appease both sides.
Let's at least just try it out and see how it goes. We had a tournament theo ther way, and there wre some peoppel wh thought it should be changed. If this doesn't work out, maybe it will be changed back. No systme will please everyoe, but I think it is unfortunate that a new idea isn't being given a chance before it is being objected to.
My prediction is that this will probably work out great and everyone will have a great tiem with competitive games. If I am wrong, I'll be the first to admit it, but let's withhold judgment until we can evaluate the results instead of speculating on what will happen.
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Re: Responses to the Seedings Debate
Posted:
Apr 13, 2002, 11:09 PM
gd_barnes wrote: <times, fellow chess players will stand around and watch Grandmasters or Masters play, but the general public would have no inclination to do so.>>
Yes, I mean that Chess is a spectator sport in Russia. Recently, even here in the States, Intel has been successfully sponsoring and selling tickets to Chess tournaments and CNN has even broadcast highlights from several events. But, I think this is probably getting off-topic now.
gd_barnes wrote: <say that that form of seeding is generally reserved for spectator sports.>>
Well, this is only a discussion, not a court of law, and matching top-ranked players against bottom-ranked players isn't a crime.
I just don't think it's very reasonable, unless you're selling tickets to late-round events and you want to ensure that only highly ranked players are there for your spectators. And it is not the notion of seeding competitors that I disagree with, although I don't think it's really necessary.
What bothers me is the way the participants will be seeded.
gd_barnes wrote: <number of games and by the 3rd round you're playing comparable opponents. A Swiss system CLASS tourney would prevent most blowouts, but we don't have enough players for that yet.>>
And I don't think DSG is going to find enough players if it starts doing this ...
There are more reasonable ways to match up players in a tournament. Ways that allow everyone, no matter what his skill level, to enjoy the competition without getting frustrated, embarrassed, discouraged or bored. The Swiss system, that we both have mentioned, is a good step in the right direction.
Regards, Walt
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
And it is not the notion of seeding competitors that I disagree with, although I don't think it's really necessary.
What bothers me is the way the participants will be seeded.
I am puzzled, as it seemed to em that the seeding itself was your main objection. How else would the players be seeded? we have nothing else to go on.
I hope you reconsider and join the tournament, I really don't think these problems are going to be problms at all. BUt at this point, it seems that yo are unwilling to even give it a try. If you try it once and are dissatisfied and you have the same complaints you have now, and if others feel the same way, that at that time I imagine the process will be reviewed. However, as it stands, the current format hasn't even been tried yet, but some are already saying it won't work.
This is in contrast to the previous format, which HAS been used and had some complaints.
Again, I point out that the current format is ALREADY a compromise, yet it appears that some still aren't going to enter unless they get exactly what they want.
That is unfortunate, because I think the tournament will be a success, and I think anyone who sits out because of the mentioned objections is cutting off his nose to spite his face.
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
And it is not the notion of seeding competitors that I disagree with, although I don't think it's really necessary.
What bothers me is the way the participants will be seeded.
I am puzzled, as it seemed to em that the seeding itself was your main objection. How else would the players be seeded? we have nothing else to go on.
I hope you reconsider and join the tournament, I really don't think these problems are going to be problms at all. BUt at this point, it seems that yo are unwilling to even give it a try. If you try it once and are dissatisfied and you have the same complaints you have now, and if others feel the same way, that at that time I imagine the process will be reviewed. However, as it stands, the current format hasn't even been tried yet, but some are already saying it won't work.
This is in contrast to the previous format, which HAS been used and had some complaints.
Again, I point out that the current format is ALREADY a compromise, yet it appears that some still aren't going to enter unless they get exactly what they want.
That is unfortunate, because I think the tournament will be a success, and I think anyone who sits out because of the mentioned objections is cutting off his nose to spite his face.
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Re: Tournaments and Seedings
Posted:
Apr 14, 2002, 5:14 AM
Okay, the thread so far ...
The DSG Pente Tournament will now be an elimination tournament with high-ranking players initially matched against low-ranking players with some of the lower-ranking players matched against each other.
Some of us think this will attract more players to Pente tournaments and improve the quality of play and some of us think this will discourage casual players from competing or encourage more players to cheat to achieve better seedings. These are, of course, opinions.
But I have noticed something that keeps popping up that isn't a matter of opinion. Some of us think that there are only one or two ways to organize a tournament. High-dollar spectator sports do tend to use a system similar to the one that will be used at Dweebo's, and this is probably the system most of us are most familiar with. But, a quick browse of the Web turned up the following information on tournament systems ...
- Round-Robin - Everyone plays everyone else. The champion is the player with the most wins.
- Swiss/Monrad - Winners in the previous round play each other and losers in the previous round play each other. The champion is the player with the most wins.
- McMahon/Ladder - Competitors play those nearest to them in a list. Winners move up one step and losers move down one step. The champion is the player who moves to the top of the ladder.
- Double Elimination - Winners in the previous round play each other. Losers play each other only if they have never lost before, otherwise they're eliminated and cannot play. The champion is the survivor. (Dweebo's uses this tournament system.)
- Knock-Out - Winners play each other. Losers are knocked-out and cannot play. The champion is the survivor.
These systems can be mixed with each other, usually by grouping players together into zones or classes (IYT for instance, combines Round-Robin with Knock-Out) or using one system as a qualifying round and another as a championship round. (And, I'm quite sure, other systems could be devised by the creative.)
None of these systems requires seeding, but the McMahon system would take a lot of time without it and seeding would be pointless in the Round-Robin system.
Seeding a tournament just means using some sort of a ranking system to match players against each other. Here are some seeding systems ...
- Random - Players are matched against each other randomly. (Which isn't really a seeding system, but it is a way to match players with each other.)
- Split and Pair - A list of players, ordered by rank, is split into a top and bottom half. The top player from the top half plays the top player from the bottom half, and so on.
- Fold and Pair - The top player, in a list ordered by rank, plays the bottom player. The next highest player plays the next lowest player and so on. (Dweebo's will be using this.)
- Nearest Pair - Players play those closest in rank to each other.
To seed a tournament you need a ranking or ratings system. Here are some that I found ...
- Points for Wins.
- Points for Score (or number of moves, or playing time, or some other game-related device).
- Points for Placement (in competitions).
- Points for Meeting Expectations (like the ELO system -- Dweebo's uses this).
Just some food for thought, Walt
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
A final clarification on the seeding process of Dweebo's tourney
Posted:
Apr 14, 2002, 11:00 AM
Sandquish (Walt) -
Marvelous work on reviewing the various tourney systems on the web. Commenting on all them would be very time consuming, but I would suggest keeping a copy of that memo for future reference.
I do want to clarify the exact seeding process that will be used at DSG 3. Perhaps this clarification will encourage you to play in it. Also, I will take time to comment on what I thought is probably the most interesting of the tourney formats that you suggested (and I had previously commented on) that may appeal to ALL players with hopefully few complaints.
Right now, the Swiss system strikes me as the most interesting possibility that both high and low-ranked players may go for in the future. Perhaps that's why it has been popular in OPEN over-the- board chess tourneys with players of widely varying strength. In our case, top to bottom may be as wide as 700 rating points.
The Swiss system splits it down the middle of each 'point' group, as you and I have both previously stated. In the first round, everyone has zero points, so everyone is split and top players aren't playing one another in the first round. This might appeal to the higher group. But the fact that the matchups are pretty even by the 3rd round and everyone plays in all rounds (unless there is a bye, due to an odd # of players) would probably appeal to the lower group.
The only disadvantage to the Swiss system is that when lower ranked players realize that they don't have a chance by round 3-4, I have seen some of them not continue to play, which would be frustrating to their scheduled opponents. But I think that would be a poor reason to not have a Swiss system tourney for the same reason that the remote possibility of cheating is not a good reason to avoid using ratings as a seeding tool.
Please keep in mind that Mark, Joe, and Dweebo are the ones makign the decisions about tourney format here. We can all make suggestions to them. I believe that their E-mail addresses are on Dweebo's site. If there seems to be enough interest in a Swiss system tourney, I will put a post on here on exactly how it works. I personally would like to see the current tourney format tried for at least two tourneys. But if it brings about too many complaints, then I may suggest the Swiss tourney to Mark and the others.
There is one thing that I want to make sure that everyone is clear on. You have stated at least twice that the highest seeded player will play the lowest seeded player. I think that YOU understand the format, but I want to make sure that others aren't mislead by these statements.
The players that are NOT rated in the top 8 (for a 16-31 player tourney) are RANDOMLY seeded below the top 8 DIFFERENTLY in EVERY round, regardless of their rating before the tourney. So the lowest seed in round 1 might be the 9th ranked player or the lowest ranked player. But...those seeds below the top 8 will be re-randomized in EACH round. So if you are unlucky enough to get the lowest seed and draw the top player in round 1, don't worry, your seed will be re- randomized in round 2. You would not have to be the lowest seed for ALL rounds.
I hope this clarification puts to rest some concerns about beginners ALWAYS drawing the VERY top players in the first 2 rounds. We have made an effort to avoid that from happening MOST of the time.
Walt, thanks for all of your comments and research into the various web tourneys.
Sincerely, Gary Barnes
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Posts:
44
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
Texas
Age:
40
Regan's Response
Posted:
Apr 15, 2002, 12:18 AM
Everyone is wondering why I got quite. I had to go out of town to a funeral. One of lifes unfair happenings. I'm going to answer some of the statements that have been made in the order of the postings. so bare with me I'll try to be short.
Dmitri:Why is it wrong? Regan: It deliberately places the best against the weakest. Dmitri:The NFL does it Regan:Thats not even a good argument. There's to many differences to list. Dmitri:Lesser Player Regan:When I get knocked out & a lesser player advances I don't cry about it. It's part of the game I just move on. Sansqu:everything he said in the 1st e-mail Regan: I agree big surprise huh LOL Gary:Multiple e-mails Regan:I kept getting booted by my ISP & didn't think it was sent imagine my surprise when I got it 4 times Gary:stimulate the small guy as you put it Regan:How you can even say that's stimulating. When you put the best against the weakest 1st game. Unless you consider being pissed off stimulating. Gary: CEO example Regank so if your the CEO & play a pente game your going to play the mail boy first that doesn't even know how to play pente because your the boss? Regan:Thank You for your comments Cindy Gary:seeded players can play in the 2nd round and would be guaranteed to play amongst one another by the 3rd round Regan:With 12 players there would be only 6 players in the second rnd probably 1-4 & 2 other players Gary:Why would a top player brag about beating beginners and intermediates? They would only be looked upon as a bully Regan:Thats how this looks to many Regan:Gary, I could be wrong but if my tourny was done this way. It wouldn't prevent you from going to it. You would just beat the little people & win anyway but a lower ranked player wouldn't play at all if they had to play you the very 1st game. Regan:The Swiss system sounds more fair. Gary:More top players Regan:More top players is great but pente will never grow if you run off the next generations of players Dmitri:you cite no example Regan:Ese didn't site an example because it doesn't do any good to point fingers. She is just explaining to you what the player told her & she has know reason to lie about it It's an example Regan:As for the cussing you have cussed several times. She is just reminding you children get on this site & just remember these messages will be posted way after this debate is over. Dmitri:But what is more amazing is that Regan, at 1550, is actually higher rated than Mark, and therefor Regan has as good a chance as Mark of being seeded. Regan:No What's really amazing is you assumed that because I was standing up against something I felt was an injustice. That I had low stats LOL Dmitri: perhaps in the ULTIMATE absurdity,Regan continue to use Mark Mammel as an example as one of the people who (paraphrasing regan) want to get some reward or advantage for all their time put in to the game. Regan:I never said that about Mark & paraphrasing is just another word for putting words in my mouth. I have the utmost respect for Mark & what he has & will do for Pente. I also think he is just a good person all around. The only reason I say Marks name on some of the things I said is because I'm talking about the e-mail he sent me on how this is suppose to work. Regan:In closing--What I said in the very beginning. I'm not complaining because I'm ranked low. I just think this is a mistake to use this system. You said yourself Dmitri that IYT's system is what made you the player that you are today.The reason it was received badly is only a few players were asked there opinion before hand & it is already decided. Had we had this discussion in the beginning. We could of came up with a better system.
Thanks
Regan B. Stephens
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Re: Regan's Response
Posted:
Apr 15, 2002, 8:14 AM
Had we had this discussion in the beginning. We could of came up with a better system.
Regan, it is not always possible to consulteveryoen before making a decision. This is not realiastic. the people in charge, based on their own opinions and those of osme others, made what they thohgth was the best decision. Furthermore, it is your opinoin that a better systen is needed, but htta is just yopr opinion, and it is not the opinion of everyone.
as for the rest of your post, I do not apprecuate you continuing to harp on my language, claiming I cussed several times. You are starting to frustrate me a geat deal, because I do not know what cuss it is you are saying I used, perhaps you could clue me in, because we obviously have different ideas of what constitutes a cuss.
when you say I am siumply putting words in your mouth, that is nonsense. You specifically said perhaps those who put in the most effort wanted some sort of system that rewarded them for doing so, and you mentioned mark and dweebo. I guess I will have to go back to your post and quote you directly sicnwe you seem to have forgotten.
ALso-- I found your condensed replies to what gary and I said very confusing, as your use of only partial sentences left many parts of yor reply very unclear.
What this amounts to is a bunch of whining by a bunch of players who seem to be taking a defeatist attitude. I again state that perhapos instead of continuing to whine and moan abotu a system BEFORE EVEN TRYING IT OUT TO SEE IF IT WORKS (which it will), you might be better off studying soem games and preparing for the oturnament. If you were interested in playing pente you would be glad that the oturnament is starting, instead of complaining all the time. If I come off as being harsh here, I apologize, seriously, I have not perfected the art of bei tactful, and I feel that you are not presenting and useful insight here, but rather just making complaints.
NO one really has any grounds to compalin until we at least TRY THE SYSTEM OUT! Can't we just do that and then adjust, if necessary??
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
quote froim sandsquish not regan (my bad)
Posted:
Apr 15, 2002, 8:22 AM
In the commotion, I confused Regan's post with sandsquish's. I made a mistake and I apologize.
this was the quote in question, from sandsquish:
I know that some of these top players have invested a lot of time into this game, and if what they want is a system that pits weak players against strong players, then, well, that's fine. That's what the people who have the most invested in this game want. And Dweebo and Mark have both put a lot of hours into writing software and organizing tournaments, so their wishes should certainly be respected.
so I did attribute the quote to the wrong person, but, my paraphrasing of the actual quote was pretty much on target. Whatever point that regan responded to is still valid (but now I can't even rememebr why I as citing this quote in the first place!?).
Regardless, I really think everyone shoudkl just tery this ount. I do not understand whgat all the fuss is about. the change made was a minor compromise and anyoen who wanted to enter the first tournament shoudl still be interested and willing to enter the second one, I just can't see how it has changed ebough to make someoen decide not to re-enter this time around.
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Posts:
44
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
Texas
Age:
40
Dmitri
Posted:
Apr 15, 2002, 9:08 AM
Dmitri here is just 2 examples of the cussing that you deny: DAMN RIGHT! so what? you make that point without actually giving a reason for it......... well, **** HAPPENS! I have news for you.. this whole tournament in onn the honor system ANYWAY!!! nothing is stopping anyone........ And when you finally realize that you keep blaming me for someone else quote you don't even apologize you just say well I'm still mad at him for something even though you can't remember & another thing if you can't figure out my short statements & responses then read back thru the e-mails & you'll see your own comments you forgot.You talk about me complaining your complaining is one of the things that started this. You can say what you want I don't care but that seeding system is flowed & it will be changed.
Thanks Regan
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Posts:
44
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
Texas
Age:
40
DSG Tournament
Posted:
Apr 15, 2002, 5:02 PM
I apologize for my last e-mail. I just wanted us to discuss this not argue. I have stated my opinion so everyone will understand it or not. I can't add anymore to it so I guess will see how this works.
Thanks Regan
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Regan, I DID apologize, lok at my post!
Posted:
Apr 15, 2002, 5:50 PM
From my post:
In the commotion, I confused Regan's post with sandsquish's. I made a mistake and I apologize.
You don't call that an apology!????? I do!!!!!
when I thenb discussed it further, I did so because I was trying to figure out hte context in which the topic was originally being discussed, that's all! And there is nothing wrong with that! In my earlier response to Sandaquish, I mistakenly attributed something he said to you, it was a simple error of putting the wrong name after a quote, and I already apologized to you! But, the fact that I inadvertantly put the wrong name after the quote doesn't make my overall points invalid! That is all I was saying in my recent post, the one where you claim I do not apologize, which is an obvious inaccuracy, because apologizing is clearly the first thing I did!
Now, on to the cursing. DAMN is not a curse. That is a simpel fact, and whether or not you choose to accept it is not something I really care about. If yo choose to consider it a curse, you are in the vast minority, as even my Webster's dictionary doesn't define it as obscene, vulgar, or slang, which is does with real cursewords.
As for my saying **** happens, well, I donlt apologize for that one either! that is a commonly used expression that soemoen says when things donlt go his or someoe else's way, and I think you are overreacting. I did not direct the comment to an individual, for instance you are a piece of _____, which woudl be using the word in an offensie manner.
If you or anyone else has children and is worried that hearing or seein someoen say **** happens then I suggest you not have them read the board, in fact, I suggest you lock them in a box an never let them out, because the s word is commonly used and not really thought os aas a curseword by many. Better yet, I suggest going back in time and not having kids, because getting bent out of shape over someone using the s word probably means soemone is living in a fairy tale world, since people use the word all the time in a non- offensive manner, for instance, oh ____, I am very late or oh _____! I just burned the steak! or I have to go ______ or I stepped in dog ____
who is this offensiev to? Is a child gonig to be warped if he hears soemone say these things? I think not, most likely he says them himself. or maybe he says the word crap instead, but I don't see a distinction. Not the way in which I used it, which was innocuous and not meant as an insult to anyone.
It is obvious inthe commotion of all these replies that soem of us are getting careless with reading the posts and makin our replies, as evidenced by my misquote and Regan's misin my apology for doing so. Unfortunately, these things happen in cyberspae discussions. I will try my best to make sure I am stating what I mean to say and that I am referring to people's posts accurately to preent further confusion.
Regan, you say that I object to the complaining, yet it was my complaining that got this started.
Axtually, I was one of several people who suggested a change, but here is the distinction, and I kow I have said this before, but I'l say it again-- I was suggesting a change to a system that had already been used TWICE!! YOU are complaining without even giving the system a try ONCE! I'll admit, in other aspects of life, I am guilty of this, as we are all at times, most likely, turning up our nose ta a strange looking food without trying it, but, where does that get us? I later foudn that I liked many of these foods I shunned. WHat I am saying is, a elast give soemthing a try ebfore complaining so vociferously about it! You and sandsquish have made your objections known. If we try it out and i becaomes apparent that your objections are well-founded, then changes will be made, just like they were this time!
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
And when you finally realize that you keep blaming me for someone else quote you don't even apologize you just say well I'm still mad at him for something even though you can't remember
this was poor paraphrasing on your part. I never said I was mad at you over soemthing I couldn't remember, I only said I couldn't remember what the original discussion that led to my using the (innaccurate) quote. Once I reviewwed the posts and found it, I simply stated that my original point was still valid. I am not mad at anyone--I might be frustrated, but that is not the same thing as being mad.
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Posts:
86
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
Lake Tawakoni just east of Dallas, Tx.
Age:
56 Home page
Pente 2002
Posted:
Apr 16, 2002, 7:12 AM
Hey all, This discussion is the most exciting thing to happen to pente since 1982! I hope we all have the same objective and that is to do what is best for the game we all love. The top 25% rated players are the ones who want things to be seeded and only the top 25% of entrants will be rated. Is that a perfect world or what? The rest of us will be randomly matched! Lets rumble! Joe
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
k so if your the CEO & play a pente game your going to play