Home » Forum Home » Tournaments » Tournaments - General

Topic: Dweebo's Stone Games Tournament 3
Replies: 44   Views: 87,480   Pages: 3   Last Post: Apr 28, 2002, 5:48 AM by: joeking

Search Forum

Back to Topic List Topics: [ Previous | Next ]
Replies: 44   Views: 87,480   Pages: 3   [ 1 2 3 | Next ]
mmammel

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.


regan

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.

dmitriking

Posts: 375
Registered: Dec 16, 2001
Age: 40
Re: DSG Tournament
Posted: Apr 11, 2002, 5:54 PM

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.

regan

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.

progambler

Posts: 79
Registered: Dec 16, 2001
From: Lenexa, KS
Age: 42
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.

dmitriking

Posts: 375
Registered: Dec 16, 2001
Age: 40
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.

sandsquish

Posts: 34
Registered: Dec 16, 2001
From: Denver
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.

progambler

Posts: 79
Registered: Dec 16, 2001
From: Lenexa, KS
Age: 42
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.

esmerelda

Posts: 5
Registered: Dec 16, 2001
seeding tourney
Posted: Apr 12, 2002, 5:19 AM

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.

progambler

Posts: 79
Registered: Dec 16, 2001
From: Lenexa, KS
Age: 42
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.

dmitriking

Posts: 375
Registered: Dec 16, 2001
Age: 40
Re: seeding tourney
Posted: Apr 12, 2002, 5:49 PM

--- 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.

joeking

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.

sandsquish

Posts: 34
Registered: Dec 16, 2001
From: Denver
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.

esmerelda

Posts: 5
Registered: Dec 16, 2001
honor system
Posted: Apr 13, 2002, 4:13 AM

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.

progambler

Posts: 79
Registered: Dec 16, 2001
From: Lenexa, KS
Age: 42
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.

Replies: 44   Views: 87,480   Pages: 3   [ 1 2 3 | Next ]
Back to Topic List
Topics: [ Previous | Next ]


Powered by Jive Software