Posts:
260
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
Maryland
Age:
53 Home page
Dweebo's Stone Games Tournament 3
Posted:
Apr 9, 2002, 11:27 AM
Announcing the third tournament at DSG! Email me to sign up. The tentative starting date is April 26.
There are several new rule changes that are being implemented after discussion thru the first two tournaments:
1) Increased time. To allow for more competive thinking, the game time limit is increased from 15 to 20 minutes per player.
2) True double elimination. If the winner of bracket one loses only the final championship game, that player has only one loss, and will play again for the championship. To support this rule and to save time, the winner of bracket one will actually join the remaining players in bracket two instead of receiving a bye for a few weeks.
3) Seeding of top players. As is seen in chess and tennis tournaments, the top 25-50% of the players will be seeded according to rating on DSG. The rest will be seeded randomly. In each round, matches will be assigned by pairing the highest seed against the lowest, then the next highest vs. the next lowest ( with 12 players: #1 vs #12, #2 vs #11 etc).
4) No ties. If, after three matches, two players are still tied, they play additional matches of 5 minute speed games until a winner is determined.
The full set of rules will be posted on Dweebo?s site.
-Mark
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Posts:
44
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
Texas
Age:
40
DSG Tournament
Posted:
Apr 11, 2002, 1:06 AM
I don't know where I fall in the rankings but my opinion would be the same no matter where I fell. I don't agree with the seeding of the tournament. There will be the same amount of games played so it won't be any quicker, except for there will be fewer players. If your ranked #12 Why enter if your guaranteed to go up against #1 player your very 1st game. I think Pente should always be FUN & Challenging. I think the Wild Card aspect should be kept. If I tried this with the Texas Tournament there wouldn't be enough players to have one. I would like to hear everyone else's opinion on this Pro & Con. I only wished we could of had this discussion before the decision was already made. We should never forget we were all beginners at one time & that just because we have advanced we shouldn't punish those who are just beginning now.
Regan B. Stephens
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Regarding regan's post about hte seedings... I am one of the biggest prpponents of the seedings, I may have been the one to get the ball rolling after last tournamentm, where I faced Dweeno and mrk in the first tqo rounds, which I was a bit annoyed about. Regan, you said why should the person seeded twelveth enter kowing he will ace number 1. Well, soemone has to face number 1, and why is it any fairer to ahev anyoner else do it? I sure as hell sjhouldnlt have to do it in roudn 1, nor should any seeded player. But the wild card aspect you mention still holds! only half of the players wil be seeded, the reast will be done so randomly, so if there are ten or 15 players seeded randomly, any of them could face number 1.
The oturnaments should have the stroingest players in the later rounds, not allow weaker players to go afr by virtue of havin the striong players knock each other off. YEs, we were all beginners at one pint, but this system rewards those who advanced the farthest. Now, players can play on DSG to jockley for position, which I think it a great idea, th enxt fwe weeks can be thought of as the qualifying rounds....
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Posts:
44
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
Texas
Age:
40
DSG Tournament
Posted:
Apr 11, 2002, 10:53 PM
>>>>>1. Well, soemone has to face number 1, and why is it any fairer to ahev anyoner else do it? I sure as hell sjhouldnlt have to do it in roudn 1, nor should any seeded player.
The way it was everyone had a equal chance of going against the #1 player. I've went up against the best 1st rnd myself but it was random now it is no longer equal. To me it just seems you couldn't stand to see a lower ranked player go to the next rnd when you had already been beaten. To me that is all this is doing is getting the lower players out of the way & insuring the top players going on to the next rnd. Which is wrong.
>>>> In each round, matches will be assigned by pairing the highest seed against the lowest, then the next highest vs. the next lowest ( with 12 players: #1 vs #12, #2 vs #11 etc).
Everyone says there's a 1/2 of a chance of who gets assigned or its 1/8 of a chance but the truth is if you take the top 4 against the bottom 4 the only players that are random are 5,6,7,8 that's not what I call random
Mark,Dweebo,Gary,Dimitri are all for this. I can't imagine why. You guys are the top 4 in most cases it's in your favor. Maybe after I see this in action I will change my opinion but to me it's discriminating against players. I just wish all the people who agree with me would stand up here with me instead of leaving me like I'm the only one with this opinion.
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Seedings at DSG tourneys
Posted:
Apr 11, 2002, 11:01 PM
I completely agree with all of DmitriKing's comments regarding the seeding of the DSG tourney.
Although I think that there was another player or two that brought up seeding the DSG tourney, I believe that I was the one that suggested the EXACT seeding system that we are going to use in the next tourney. Mark can probably confirm this. I had initially proposed seeding all players but quickly realized after discussions with Mark, Dweebo, and Joe that the beginners would be frustrated by getting beat up on by the top players in the first two rounds.
I will now respond to some of Regan's comments.
Regan writes: >> I don't know where I fall in the rankings but my opinion would be the same no matter where I fell. I don't agree with the seeding of the tournament. <<
Obviously you haven't had happen to you what happened to DmitriKing in the first tourney. As he stated, he was knocked out by Mark Mammel and Dweebo in the first two rounds, yet he was probably in the top 8 ranked players in that tourney. There is no justice in that. If a person works hard to get their rating up to a high intermediate level (where they will now be seeded) and then gets knocked off in the first two rounds by a couple of experts, that is VERY frustrating!
Regan writes: >> There will be the same amount of games played so it won't be any quicker, except for there will be fewer players. <<
The point isn't to speed up the tourney by playing less games, it is to make it fairer so that high intermediate players aren't knocked off by experts in the first two rounds.
There will only be fewer players if they don't read how the seeding system works. I respectfully request that you read the seeding process again carefully before shooting it down. See my response to your next comment.
Regan writes: >> If your ranked #12 Why enter if your guaranteed to go up against #1 player your very 1st game. <<
This is incorrect! As Mark Mammel states, the #12 ranked player would only have a 1 in 8 chance of going up against the #1 ranked player. #12 would have the same chance as #5 of playing #1 in the first round. Please re-read the seeding process. Only the top 4 seeds in a 12-player tourney would be seeded according to ranking. The rest are randomly seeded.
Regan writes: >> I think Pente should always be FUN & Challenging. I think the Wild Card aspect should be kept. <<
The 'Wild Card' system is what IYT does. That is a recreational site which is why so few top players play in many tourneys there. We are attempting to develop a tourney that both top players and beginners will play in. If we continue to have a random tourney, top players will not want to play in it like at IYT. I personally avoided the last DSG tourney because of it. The game can only advance when top players enter the tourneys.
In Mark Mammel's PBEM championship tourney, he seeds the players into divisions based on rating or estimated rating so that the divisions are of equal strength. Because of this, some of the top players in the world play in that tourney. It is a true world E-mail Pente championship. We would like to duplicate that for real-time play.
Regan writes: >> If I tried this with the Texas Tournament there wouldn't be enough players to have one. <<
As far as I know, you wouldn't have a rating system to attempt to seed the players. Any system that you could come up with for ratings would be controversial. We have specific ratings at Dweebo's.
You can't know for sure that the players wouldn't go for it, even if you did have specific ratings, because it doesn't appear that you are aware that we only seed less than half of the players by rating.
Regan writes: >> I would like to hear everyone else's opinion on this Pro & Con. I only wished we could of had this discussion before the decision was already made. <<
Consider this a Pro! A discussion was had amongst Dweebo, Mark, Joe, and myself. We didn't have a formal vote, but it was quite obvious that 3 of the 4 of us were in favor of some sort of seeding process. Joe echoed your sentiments. We hope that only seeding the top players was a good compromise.
Regan writes: >> We should never forget we were all beginners at one time & that just because we have advanced we shouldn't punish those who are just beginning now. <<
I completely agree. A beginner will have no greater chance of playing a top player than a middle-intermediate will. Many times, they will play another randomly seeded player in the first round. There is even the possibility that the two lowest ranked players could still play in the first round.
The random system punishes the high-intermediates who are attempting to become experts. The seeded system for DSG3 gives equal opportunity to all middle-intermediates and beginners, while guaranteeing that the high-intermediates and experts aren't knocking each other off in the first couple of rounds. I can't think of a fairer way to do it.
Sincerely, Gary Barnes (I.D. ProGambler at Dweebo's)
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
regan, your thought process isn't making sense
Posted:
Apr 12, 2002, 2:19 AM
The way it was everyone had a equal chance of going against the #1 player. I've went up against the best 1st rnd myself but it was random now it is no longer equal. To me it just seems you couldn't stand to see a lower ranked player go to the next rnd when you had already been beaten. To me that is all this is doing is getting the lower players out of the way & insuring the top players going on to the next rnd. Which is wrong.
Why is that wrong? think about this in terms of familar occurrences. How about at the end of the NFLseason, we have the top ranked teams play each other, while the wild card teams play each other... that is abrusd! In very few walks of life are tournaments run the way you are suggesting... I am nto saying we shoudl always go with conveniontal wisdom, but we should unless there is a VERY good reason not to. The reason you are presenting is very weak. You say I cannot stand the thought of a lesser played advancing whiel I am knocked out. DAMN RIGHT! so what? you make that point without actually giving a reason for WHY someone is wrong to feel that way.
In IYT, at least the two players can draw and both advance to meet in the final or later ronds, as it shold be. but with no ties now, good players cold be knocked off while weaker ones advance WITHOUT EARNING IT. that doesn't make sense. you pain a picture of myself being selfish, but I cna make the same argument-- you seem to want the possibility of gary playing dwweebo, arne playing ilurath, and myself playing Kurupt.... hey, great, 3 of the to players out of the tournament to make it easier for you to win... well, that is equally selfish, but also illogical. I mean no disrespect, but I do think the stronger players shold not be matched up against on another, and in the asbsense of a good reason not to, the players will be seeded. It is the fairest and most logical solution.
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Re: Seedings at DSG Tourneys
Posted:
Apr 12, 2002, 3:38 AM
(My apologies if this shows up twice. Yahoo's server is acting up.)
This seeding system guarantees that higher-ranked players will face lower-ranked players in the first few rounds. Basically, it prevents strong players from facing comparable opponents until late in the tournament.
I believe this kind of seeding is usually used in spectator sports so that people who have paid higher prices for late-round tickets will get to see as many big-name players as possible. Other kinds of tournament systems sort players out by skill level so that less experienced players will face less experienced players and skilled players will compete against other skilled players. (The Swiss and McMahon systems.)
Both kinds of systems are valid. It just depends on what you want to accomplish with the tournament.
I can understand why an experienced player would want comparable competition in a tournament, but, what I can't understand, and, maybe it's because I just don't have a killer instinct, is why a serious player would want to play less experienced players in a competitive environment. I don't want to be insulting, but I really can't come up with anything except that, maybe, these players want to be able to brag about how many people they trounced on their way to the final rounds. I mean, there aren't any ticket-holders who are going to complain about how they paid big bucks to see a fourth-round game and all they saw were some no-names.
Honestly, what difference does it make whether the #1-ranked player defeats the #3-ranked player in round 2 or round 5? The #1-ranked player won either way.
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.
But, the almost certain prospect of participating in mis-matched games is one of the reasons I shy away from playing in the DSG Tourney.
Sincerely, Walt
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
More response to DSG tourney seedings
Posted:
Apr 12, 2002, 4:25 AM
Well, it looks like I've/we've created quite a stir with Regan here on the DSG seedings. It looks like he posted his last response 3 times.
First, I'd like to say that Mark and Dweebo agreed with me that when we get enough players, they'd like to have two types of tourneys, as follows: 1. An 'open' or 'championship' type tourney where all or most of the players are seeded by rating. ANY player could play in this. 2. A 'recreational' type tourney where the players are randomly paired. (Dweebo suggested a max rating allowed in this tourney of 1500, but that was just arbitrary.)
Also, like Regan, I would like to see if anyone feels strongly against seedings like he does.
Now I'll respond to Regan's comments.
>> The way it was everyone had a equal chance of going against the #1 player. I've went up against the best 1st rnd myself but it was random now it is no longer equal. <<
When are things EQUAL when it comes to game play or for that matter, life in general? The idea is to make things as FAIR as possible, NOT equal. In life and in games, people are simply NOT equal.
I'd like to make some comparisons to world economic policies that I think are very applicable here. Having a random tourney is comparable to PURE socialism. Everyone is considered equal. Pure socialism doesn't work well because there is little reward for excellence. Having a tourney where EVERYONE is seeded is comparable to PURE capitalism. Pure capitalism doesn't work either, because the 'small guy' must be given a chance to succeed, which is why we have taxes.
So as the U.S. and many other great economic powers have found, we must have rewards for excellence while giving the 'small guy' a chance to better himself. I think that with the system designed for DSG3, we are simulating just that. That is if you work hard and are good at what you do, you will be rewarded! In this case, if you are among the top 8 rated players (with 16-31 players), you will be rewarded with a seed. If you are a beginner, you might also play another beginner or an intermediate player, which gives you a chance to win.
But the beginner may get bad luck and have to play a top player in round 1. That's the way life is. But he knows that if he enters another tourney after some additional time spent studying the game, chances are he won't draw the top player a second time and may advance a long way and possibly have a chance to be seeded in future tourneys.
>> To me it just seems you couldn't stand to see a lower ranked player go to the next rnd when you had already been beaten. To me that is all this is doing is getting the lower players out of the way & insuring the top players going on to the next rnd. Which is wrong. <<
Not true at all, as far as I'm concerned. I'd love to see some MAJOR upsets. For that matter, someone can beat me in the first round. Sure I'd be mad. But there's nothing like a good butt stomping to send one back to the old drawing board to improve one's game. Actually, it'd be cool to see several top seeded players get beat in the first round. It means that there are MORE excellent players out there who will compete mightily for the prize! THAT is what we want!
The one who beats me or another top player in round 1 would be a randomly seeded player with a lower rating so they would see a strong increase in their rating. Then THAT player would probably get a REAL seeding in the next tourney because of their improved play! Now, THAT may NOT be equal, but it is certainly FAIR!!!
>> Everyone says there's a 1/2 of a chance of who gets assigned or its 1/8 of a chance but the truth is if you take the top 4 against the bottom 4 the only players that are random are 5,6,7,8 that's not what I call random. <<
I don't know what you mean by a 1/2 of a chance of who gets assigned. 1/2 of the players OR LESS will be seeded by rating in each tourney. The others will be randomly seeded. The 1/8 chance for the randomly seeded players of drawing a top player in round 1 is if there was 12 players. If there were 15 players, it would only be a 1/11 chance. Of course it's not completely random. Random pairings is tantamount to equality and socialism. People are NOT equal!
The example that you are stating is the extreme case where the no. of players is an exact power of 2, which would occur infrequently. Yes the top 4 would be seeded but the other 4 would be randomly placed below them. So #5, #6, #7, and #8 would all have a 1 in 4 chance of playing #1 in the first round. #1, #2, #3, and #4 have earned the right through their skill and effort to not have to play one another in the first round.
In other words, if I'm the CEO of a company, I have probably worked hard to get there and hence expect to make more money then a mid- level manager, secretary, or cashier. Otherwise, I'm not going to put in the effort to get to that position.
<< Mark,Dweebo,Gary,Dimitri are all for this. I can't imagine why. You guys are the top 4 in most cases it's in your favor. Maybe after I see this in action I will change my opinion but to me it's discriminating against players. <<
Sorry, Mark, I have to let the cat out of the bag here. I don't think that Mark's rating (I think about 1550) will get him a rated seed in the next tourney. So I don't see Mark getting a benefit from this. Top 4? What about Arne Blom or Ilurath?
Discrimination?? I don't think so. A general definition of discrimination is: To not allow someone an opportunity for something because of something they can NOT control like race, gender, age, etc. MANY players can work to improve their game and hence get a seed in a future tourney. That IS within their control!
Your witness.............
Gary Barnes
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Well. I guess I have to agree with Regan here. As long as players can use the database when playing at Dweebos, then how accurate are the ratings anyway? I've also seen players drive their stats up to the top ten by PLAYING ONLY EACH OTHER! How fair is that if the stats are being used for anything other than just an indicator?
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Response to Sandsquish on seeded tourneys
Posted:
Apr 12, 2002, 2:54 PM
>> This seeding system guarantees that higher-ranked players will face lower-ranked players in the first few rounds. Basically, it prevents strong players from facing comparable opponents until late in the tournament. <<
Not true, seeded players can play in the 2nd round and would be guaranteed to play amongst one another by the 3rd round unless they're knocked out in round 2. The tourney usually takes 8 rounds. I don't think that you can call rounds 2 and 3 'late' in the tourney. Keep in mind that we are seeing only 1/2 or less of players by rating.
>> I believe this kind of seeding is usually used in spectator sports so that people who have paid higher prices for late-round tickets will get to see as many big-name players as possible. <<
That's pure speculation and is definitely incorrect for chess, which is not a spectator sport. Most low and intermediate U.S. Chess Federation chess tourneys use the Swiss system, which pairs EVERYONE based on rating in the first round. I know this because I played in over-the-board chess tourneys for 5 years. I'll go into the Swiss system below. For the world championship, the top 8 players in the world as established by zonal tourneys, excluding the current world champion, are paired in a single elimination tourney, 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, etc. based on rankings at that time. The winner plays the reigning world champion for the title.
>> Other kinds of tournament systems sort players out by skill level so that less experienced players will face less experienced players and skilled players will compete against other skilled players. (The Swiss and McMahon systems.) <<
I'm not familiar with the McMahon system.
That is incorrect about the Swiss system. I know from experience. In the Swiss system, all players are guaranteed a set no. of games (usually 4, 5, or 6), regardless of rating or wins and losses in the tourney. BUT...It is paired based on rating, which is split right down the middle, and current points (1 for wins, 1/2 for draws) in the following manner:
(For symplicity, 8 players) Round 1: #1 vs. #5 rated #2 vs. #6 rated #3 vs. #7 #4 vs. #8 (Notice the split right down the middle of the ratings, if it were 16 players, than #1 vs. #9, #2 vs. #10, etc.)
Now in the 2nd round, all the players with 1 point would play each other, all the ones with 1/2 point would play, and all the ones with 0 points would play, and would be paired amoungst equal-point players with a split down the middle of the ratings like before. But like in our tourney, the rules specify that a player can not play another player twice until the latest possible time. So if one game ends up in a draw in the first round which leaves only 2 players with a 1/2 point, the rules in the Swiss system state that the higher rated one must play up in the 1 point group and the lower down in the 0 point group, but they would still be paired based on the ratings split.
In the 3rd round, all players with 2 points would play each other, etc. Many times in a 5-round tourney with 40 or 50 players, the top players may be tied with 4-1/2 points. If so, then the player with the highest average opponent rating wins the tie break.
So as you can see, the swiss system is seeded also. That brings up another discussion. Maybe we should run a swiss system tourney in the future. That way, everyone gets to play the same number of games and no one would complain about getting knocked out by top players in the first 2-3 rounds.
As far as the other systems that sort players out so that they only play players of equal strength, perhaps you are talking about class tourneys. In class tourneys that I have played in, the Swiss system is still used but only amongst the players in that particular class. FYI, a class is defined as players within a 200 point range of one another. 1600-1799 is B-class, 1800-1999, A-class, 2000-2199 expert, etc. If we had enough players in the DSG tourney, it would be good to have a class tourney so that only players of equal strength would play one another. But we simply don't have enough players yet.
>> I can understand why an experienced player would want comparable competition in a tournament, but, what I can't understand, and, maybe it's because I just don't have a killer instinct, is why a serious player would want to play less experienced players in a competitive environment. <<
Serious players don't have a desire to play lesser players in a competitive environment. At least I know I don't. But the fact is that players with far different abilities enter tourneys. So at some time a serious player is going to go up against a beginner. As far as having a killer instinct, it is that instinct that will get you rewarded with a seed in DSG tourneys in the future. There is absolutely no champion of any competitive game in this world that does not have a passion and/or killer instict for their specialty.
>> I don't want to be insulting, but I really can't come up with anything except that, maybe, these players want to be able to brag about how many people they trounced on their way to the final rounds. <<
Why would a top player brag about beating beginners and intermediates? They would only be looked upon as a bully. A top player can brag only if they knock off another top player. But they better not brag too long! There's always another top player that will come along and knock them off.
>> Honestly, what difference does it make whether the #1-ranked player defeats the #3-ranked player in round 2 or round 5? The #1- ranked player won either way. <<
If you were the hard-working and talented #3 player, it would make all of the difference in the world!! Also, why are you assuming that the #1-ranked player would always win. If that's the case, why even play the tourney in the first place? The idea is to reward SOME of the top players and high-intermediates for their efforts so that they don't have to play one another in the first round or two while still giving the beginners and middle-intermediates a chance to win. As I said in my last memo response to Regan, what's the point in trying to excel at something if there is no reward for doing so. That is tantamount to PURE socialism!
>> 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 doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter how you do a tourney, random, Swiss, fully seeded, partially seeded, there will ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS be times when a strong player plays a weak player in a tourney with widely varying abilities. We don't desire a tourney that always pits strong vs. weak players, we want one that will attract top players, intermediates, and beginners alike.
The random pairings simply doesn't attract top players at all. You may think that Dweebo, Mark, myself, Arne Blom, Ilurath, amongst others are tough, but we haven't even seen Scott Justice, Dmitri Krasnonosov, Oleg Stepanov, and how about former over-the-board champions Tom Braunlich and Bodo Kunz in the DSG tourney yet. It would be nice to attract some of those big boys to the tourney. That's when we'll see some REAL action!
>> 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. <<
Actually, I was the one who recommended the specific seeding system that we are going to use. Mark and Dweebo agreed that in order to attract more top players that we need to have some sort of seeding process. Having more top players in the tourneys is what advances the game.
>> But, the almost certain prospect of participating in mis-matched games is one of the reasons I shy away from playing in the DSG Tourney. <<
Then you are going to shy away from playing ALL tourneys! IYT, PBEM, Dweebo's, random, fully seeded, partially seeded, Swiss, it doesn't matter. That is a cop out! There is no way to have a tourney with widely varying player abilities and not have SOME mis-matched games.
Like I said, if and when we get enough players, we could maybe have class tourneys, where there would be a champion of each class. Those are fun but are a ways off right now. We would probably need at least 40-50 players in order to make that worthwhile. Keep in mind that it would take the tourney director(s) much longer to run numerous class tourneys than to run one big tourney.
Gary Barnes
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
--- In pente2@y..., esm76016 <no_reply@y...> wrote: > Well. I guess I have to agree with Regan here. As long as players > can use the database when playing at Dweebos, then how accurate are > the ratings anyway? I've also seen players drive their stats up to > the top ten by PLAYING ONLY EACH OTHER! How fair is that if the > stats are being used for anything other than just an indicator?
what do you mean by As long as players > can use the database when playing at Dweebos, then how accurate are > the ratings anyway?
I do not understand your comment here. EVERYONE can use the database to study moves before games so it gives an advantage to no one. If you are implying that people can play games by exmaining the database during the game in order to cheat and win and boost their rating, well, **** HAPPENS! I have news for you.. this whole tournament in onn the honor system ANYWAY!!! nothing is stopping anyone from using books, friends, or the database or worse, AI, DURING AN ACTUAL TOURNAMENT GAME! so, we are using the honor system here under the assumption that cheating defeats the purpose of playing, so why wold anyone bother. and, for the most part, I do not think anyone does!
We can't base decisions on the what if's of someone cheating, that possiblity is always there. But, the top ranked players who immediately come to my mind who I know are entering the tournament are Dweebo, gary, ilurath, arne, myself, kurupt, elzorro, mike, sparky. I am sure I am forgetting some, but I know all of these players earned their rating and did not attain it by cheating. Your random and example-less suggestion of potential cheating is meaningless.
then you say I've also seen players drive their stats up to > the top ten by PLAYING ONLY EACH OTHER! How fair is that if the > stats are being used for anything other than just an indicator?
anyway, I am getting tired of this nonsensical debate, so I don't have the patience to eb tactful. this comment is complete CRAP. First of all, you cite no example, nor can I think of one. I play at DSG a lot, and I follow the ups and downs of the ratings. None of the top ranked players attained their rating by the method you are suggesting. If you check the database you will see that the players I mentioned all put their ratrings on thel ine aginst very low ratedp layers all the time... We play games where a win will not even raise our rating AT ALL, kowing that a loss will lower it by 32! and we'll do this as second player even!!
These reasons are weak at best, and completely absurd and innaccurate at best.
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
DSG tournament
Posted:
Apr 12, 2002, 8:34 PM
Hey all, The opportunity to play with (win or loose) and watch the top players from all over the world is a great opportunity in my opinion. The tournament is a fun and exciting way to learn more about the game! And... what do you have to loose?? And... one match every 2 weeks takes almost no time! I hope everyone will consider entering. Hey, you might get lucky and win a game or 2!!! I have. I was in favor of the keeping the random selection method but am now eager to see how the seeding thing will work. See yall (Texas for you all) at the action!! Joe ps: Did anyone ever sat what wrap message text means??
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Re: Response on Seeded Tourneys
Posted:
Apr 13, 2002, 2:53 AM
sandsquish wrote: << <sports so that people who have paid higher prices for late-round tickets will get to see as many big-name players as possible.>> >>
gd_barnes wrote: <is not a spectator sport.>>
Are you sure? Have you asked Alexander Nosovsky, or Oleg Stepanov about this? (And when did speculation turn into a bad word? My dictionary lists it as a synonym of think.)
sandsquish wrote: << <so that less experienced players will face less experienced players and skilled players will compete against other skilled players. (The Swiss and McMahon systems.)>> >>
gd_barnes wrote: <[The best player in the top half plays the best player in the bottom half, and so on] Now in the 2nd round, all the players with 1 point would play each other, all the ones with 1/2 point would play, and all the ones with 0 points would play, and would be paired amoungst equal- point players with a split down the middle of the ratings like before.>>
Yes, players are sorted out by skill and matched up with comparable opponents.
gd_barnes wrote: <another discussion. Maybe we should run a swiss system tourney in the future. That way, everyone gets to play the same number of games and no one would complain about getting knocked out by top players in the first 2-3 rounds.>>
I think this is a good idea.
gd_barnes wrote: <competitive environment. At least I know I don't.>>
I can understand this. But why, if you feel this way, would you propose a system that deliberately matches top-ranked players against lower-ranked players?
gd_barnes wrote: <tourneys. So at some time a serious player is going to go up against a beginner.>>
Yes, but before that was determined by fate. It was random. Now, it's calculated. And it will occur much more often. If that really isn't what you want, you're using the wrong kind of seeding system.
sandsquish wrote: << <games is one of the reasons I shy away from playing in the DSG Tourney.>> >>
gd_barnes wrote: <Dweebo's, [...]>>
No, I do particapate in the IYT tournaments. And I have been matched up against a strong player twice. And it was very discouraging. But I still play at IYT because this kind of thing happens rarely. If the IYT tournaments were seeded the way the DSG Tourney will be, it would occur much more often.
gd_barnes wrote: <world that does not have a passion and/or killer instict for their specialty.>>
Okay, but not all of us have the desire to invest this much time and energy into the game. Does that mean that we don't deserve to have fun in competitions? What fun is it to get slaughtered, (or to massacre) other participants in a tourney? One of best players is going to end up the winner in any reasonably organized tournament. So, why organize the tournament so that, at the point the most people are participating -- the first round -- the most mis-matches will occur?
gd_barnes wrote: <>
I think having more people play, and enjoy, the game, whether seriously or casually, is what keeps a game alive and healthy. And I think this seeding system will discourage casual players from entering competitions. That doesn't sound wise to me.
Regards, Walt
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
I didn't mean to raise your defenses by implying you or the other high ranked players cheated, Dmitri, and certainly did not mean to solicit such a potent reaction! I merely intended to point out the fallibility of the system, and it was my understanding that other points of view were wanted. (And no, I don't care to elaborate on the example-less suggestion you say I provided. The less said about the baser things humans will do to win the better and I don't care for gossip.) After following this debate, one thing does come through clearly to me, however. This whole deal is becoming a pretty hot topic, and the tone of the argument is cheapening pente. We should not be arguing, not when the whole future of the game seems rather uncertain. Rather than intimidating new players who might stumble on to these messages, they should be attracted by the civilized behavior of the pente community. Even children visit this site, and I'd hate for them to get the idea that some of the language I've seen is okay to use. This IS a public site, after all. Furthermore, Dmitri, you comment about this being a nonsensical debate then state that my thoughts are absurd and inaccurate. Opinions here were solicited and there is no call for rude and condescending remarks. Were I a new player reading this I would hesitate to visit the site, and it makes me sad to see the behavior here descend into hurtful remarks. There's an honor system in personal conduct too. 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've certainly got to respect your stolid resolve in playing us lesser ranked riff-raff when you stand to lose so much. Ya'll have a good tournament.
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
More kind responses to the seedings debate
Posted:
Apr 13, 2002, 1:57 PM
I think that ESM brings up a good point. We need to not get too defensive here about the debate on seedings of the tourney. We need to maintain a proper semi-structured debate format. I'm not excluding myself here. We do want to encourage players to frequent this site, play lots of Pente, and have fun.
I will now respond to some recent remarks:
--------
ESM responding to DmitriKing: >> Furthermore, Dmitri, your comment about this being a nonsensical debate then state that my thoughts are absurd and inaccurate. Opinions here were solicited and there is no call for rude and condescending remarks. <<
I believe that ESM is correct here. While Dmitri is in favor of the seedings (a view in which I share) and ESM is not in favor of them, we shouldn't consider anyone's opinions to be invalid because they are different. We asked for other opinions and I was happy to see that both Sandquish and ESM responded. Even if the debate is a bit heated, let's at least keep it reasonably friendly.
--------
ESM responding to DmitriKing (about the potential for padding one's rating, using the database, and other forms of cheating): >> I merely intended to point out the fallibility of the system, and it was my understanding that other points of view were wanted. <<
I had already mentioned the possibility of 'padding' one's rating to Dweebo before Mark and Dweebo implemented the seeded tourney. Dweebo can easily check if one player has been playing 1-2 other players exclusively in order to pad their rating.
In the future, he may even program that kind of check in automatically. It wouldn't be easy to pad one's rating very much without it going noticed. If someone is found to be doing this, I would guess that that player would either be excluded from the tourney or placed as a random seed, regardless of their prior rating.
As far as using the database, I don't think that 20 mins. would be enough time to look through numerous potential moves on the database early in the game. And once a move was made that wasn't in the database, you're on your own. The database isn't going to help you much in a real-time game. That should be a non-factor.
As far as using AI, there isn't a program out there that can compete with top players in short-term play. (Sorry, Mark!)
I hope these comments put to rest people's questions on the potential for cheating in the tourneys.
---------
Sandsquish wrote: >> I believe this kind of seeding is usually used in spectator sports so that people who have paid higher prices for late-round tickets will get to see as many big-name players as possible. <<
I responded: >> That's pure speculation and is definitely incorrect for chess, which is not a spectator sport. <<
Sandquish responded: >> Are you sure? Have you asked Alexander Nosovsky, or Oleg Stepanov about this? (And when did speculation turn into a bad word? My dictionary lists it as a synonym of think.) <<
I wasn't clear on what you're asking me to ask Alexander or Oleg about. If you're talking about chess, I have stated that virtually all over-the-board chess tourneys that I have played in in the U.S. are Swiss system with pairings based on rating as previously stated. If you're talking about chess being a spectator sport, I don't think so. Many 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, speculation is a synonym of think or meditate. But...the 2nd definition (after one relating to meditating, pondering, and thought) in my Collegiate dictionary lists the definition as To take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence. I think that the way in which I worded my response, it should be obvious that that is what I meant by speculation. I think it is fair to say that you are using insufficient evidence when you say that that form of seeding is generally reserved for spectator sports.
--------
Sandquish responded (in reference to Swiss system tourneys): >> Yes, players are sorted out by skill and matched up with comparable opponents. <<
I don't know what you mean by sorted out. As previously mentioned, in the first round of a 16-player OPEN Swiss system tourney, #1 plays #9, #2 plays #10, etc. (Notice I said OPEN, not CLASS.) They ARE sorted out and in the first round and there is always many mismatches. If there were no upsets, in the 2nd round, it would be #9 vs. #13, #10 vs. #14, etc. They're sorted out to close to their own skill level by the 3rd round, but after a number of beginners have been blown out and are 0-2. The main good thing about the Swiss system is that everyone plays the same 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.
---------
I'm glad that you think that the Swiss system is a good idea. I might suggest it for future tourneys if Mark and Dweebo are agreeable to giving the current system a try for at least a couple of tourneys. There would be MANY mis-matches in rounds 1 and 2, but everyone would play the same no. of games and eventually gravitate to players with their own skill level by the 3rd and 4th rounds.
---------
I wrote: >> Serious players don't have a desire to play lesser players in a competitive environment. At least I know I don't. << >> But the fact is that players with far different abilities enter tourneys. So at some time a serious player is going to go up against a beginner. <<
Sandquish responded: >> I can understand this. But why, if you feel this way, would you propose a system that deliberately matches top-ranked players against lower-ranked players? << >> Yes, but before that was determined by fate. It was random. Now, it's calculated. And it will occur much more often. If that really isn't what you want, you're using the wrong kind of seeding system. <<
We are offering a reward system for players to improve their play. If I were the CEO of a corporation, I would want to be paid more than a secretary or cashier. Otherwise, I would have no incentive to better myself. That is capitalism as we know it. If everyone were treated equally, regardless of their talents and efforts, than there would be no incentive to better one's self. We would have PURE socialism. But in GOOD capitalism, there is taxation. If we seeded EVERYONE, then the lowest beginner would always play the #1 ranked player. By randomly seeding 1/2 to 3/4 of players, we are giving them a chance in the first couple of rounds.
Yes, it means that a beginner will have a SLIGHTLY higher chance of playing #1. Example: In a 20-player random tourney, he would have a 1/19 chance. With ours, he would have a 1/12 chance. Is that really so bad? We are offering players a great reward for future improvement. That is what America and other great nations are all about! We are giving incentive for improvement, but also offering the beginner a chance.
Sandsquish wrote: >> I do particapate in the IYT tournaments. And I have been matched up against a strong player twice. And it was very discouraging. But I still play at IYT because this kind of thing happens rarely. If the IYT tournaments were seeded the way the DSG Tourney will be, it would occur much more often. <<
As I showed in the example above, it would only occur SLIGHTLY more often. Not much more need be said there. IYT is a great site!
I wrote: >> Having more top players in the tourneys is what advances the game. <<
Sandsquish responded: >> I think having more people play, and enjoy, the game, whether seriously or casually, is what keeps a game alive and healthy. And I think this seeding system will discourage casual players from entering competitions. That doesn't sound wise to me. <<
Point taken about more people playing and enjoying the game being part of what advances the game. I should have included that in my statement. But...the study by beginners and intermediates of top ranked players games also drives the game to new levels.
Unfortunately, at places like IYT where few top players play consistently, the competition improves very little over the long run because there is little incentive to improve, i.e. ratings and seedings. But at a place like PBEM, the rating system and the seeding that Mark does in the world championship tourneys there have brought out unbelievable numbers of top players (namely Russians!). We would like to duplicate that in Dweebo's tourney. It is the observance of some of these great players beautiful play that causes many players to become passionate about the game and become long- term, consistent, life-time improving players, which is what we REALLY want the most of.
Based on your comments, I do now agree that it is possible that we may lose some low-intermediate to beginner types from the tourney. But I think that that effect will be minimal and will be offset by more top players entering the tourney in the future.
--------
In closing, in case you can't tell, I love a good debate. I hope that everyone knows that it is a friendly debate. I am very passionate about Pente and its future. I have just consistently felt that we could do a lot better than random tourneys. I hope that as many people as possible will continue to play at Dweebo's, PBEM's, and IYT's tourneys in the future. Regardless of format, tourneys are simply a blast!
Sincerely, Gary Barnes
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
