2 vs. 2, duelling++.

Marathon related contests and tournaments.

Post Apr 8th '09, 21:41

Iritscen wrote:Well, that's according to how you were defining "best of x", not according to how it works in sports, as I explained earlier. Essentially your suggestion is the same as my "rounds" suggestion. So really we're in agreement.

I just can't bear it no more. There are no different definitions here. An example to illustrate:

Czar Ryoko has fled and Irons and Wrkncacnter are contesting for the CLIQUE throne. As tradition wants it, they will play ten games of chess. The one who wins most, will be the new Czar. (TL's "definition" of "best out of x") It's only fair that both players play white five times. Assuming that they are emotionless CLIQUE bastards, we ignore the moral factor, so the order of the games doesnt matter. Lets say irons is white the first five games, Wrk the latter.

Do you agree that it's fair so far? I hope so, otherwise its hopeless.

They start playing, and turns out irons wins five times as the white player and the sixth time as the black player. Whatever the outcome of the last four games, irons will have won more games than Wrk, so irons will be the new Czar. Therefore, they quit.
And this is your "definition": you keep playing until one player has won more than half of the games. Both definitions are one and the same, only yours is less time consuming.

I hope this can help you understand that the only actual point here is Treellama's point and that there's no way of "agreeing" between the two of you.
Last edited by Drictelt on Apr 8th '09, 21:43, edited 1 time in total.
Eternal - Xmas I - Xmas II - Xmas III - Victory Dance IV - Winter I: The Venom - KTA III - Phoenix - somewhere in the heavens, waiting: The Syndicate
User avatar

Drictelt
Belgium

Post Apr 8th '09, 22:52

This example breaks down, because why would I want to play chess with myself.
User avatar

Wrkncacnter

Post Apr 8th '09, 23:57

Drictelt wrote:I just can't bear it no more. There are no different definitions here.

That's exactly what I said, in the very text of mine that you quoted. (Btw, "moral" != "morale.) But I'm not sure you understand why I said that Tl and I are in agreement. Once I realized that Tl was following a different definition, I pointed it out -- not for a petty reason like scoring points on technical correctness -- but because it really made a difference. Tl's differing definition of "best of x" has the match continuing for the full number of games, and thus guaranteeing (with an even number of total games and alternated hosting) that both sides shared the hosting advantage equally. Since this was essentially my goal all along in proposing the pairs-of-alternated-hosting approach, I shrugged and left this argument behind me.

But now you had to go and stir it up again with examples that prove my point. Between people that can't spell my handle right and people that clearly aren't paying attention to what I'm saying, I don't know why I'm bothering, but let me say it one more time, and maybe I can be even clearer about it. Listen carefully as Drictelt makes my point for me:
Drictelt wrote:Lets say irons is white the first five games, Wrk the latter. Do you agree that it's fair so far?

Assuming that the starting advantage for a white player is real (it's arguable, but let's say it's a fact), then you have let Irons play with more of an advantage than W'rk. How is that fair? Tell me. The burden of proof is on you, not me, to demonstrate how that's fair.

The only cogent point you make is that once one side has won most of the games, there's no need to continue. That's obvious; a certain outcome is known once one player has won most of the games. My issue was with how much of an advantage one side has over the other before that point is reached. Does everyone understand what I'm saying now?
User avatar

Iritscen

Post Apr 9th '09, 00:06

iretscent wrote:(Btw, "moral" != "morale.)


yeah god knows what moral means....
i thought that was a kind of mushroom.


and no, Irons has no advantage over wrk in that situation. if the deciding factor in why wrk lost his first five matches was that he played as black, then theres no issue, cause he would have won his five rounds as white. since this is not the case the only thing left to say is that he lost his first five rounds because he isnt as good as irons at chess.
this being the case the rightful winner of the match wins regardless of order of matches, and regardless of finishing all of the games in the match.
Last edited by acks45 on Apr 9th '09, 00:11, edited 1 time in total.
acks45
20 Minowere Dr. Fromidlov, Canada.

Post Apr 9th '09, 02:11

Iritscen wrote:My issue was with how much of an advantage one side has over the other before that point is reached. Does everyone understand what I'm saying now?


I have divined the solution: Insert foot into mouth.

So in essence you are complaining about the fact that some players are better than others, if I'm reading this correctly.
I'll also not assume you are intelligent and spell it out more plainly.

There are people in this world with gifts. Some can build, some can create laws, and some can use a SPNKR. And among these people, there are those that can do these things better than other people. Thats just how genetics and random chance works. Therefore you are battling with the unstoppable force that is Mother Nature, and you're going to lose, every time. Until you figure out what sequence of genes, or what environmental factors pre-determine good Netgame skills, go crawl back to your corner and leave nature the hell alone.
I have been wading in a long river and my feet are wet.
User avatar

L'howon
Somewhere outside the Citadel Of Antiquity

Post Apr 9th '09, 02:30

I haven't tasted my toes in a while.

It seems to me Treellama's been describing a ladder, while Iritscen has been describing a tourney. Ja?

moral
Thank the sun that went nova so that Earth could have iron and silicon.
User avatar

effigy

Post Apr 9th '09, 03:08

I was describing a tournament, which is what this thread was originally about.
User avatar

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Apr 9th '09, 03:57

god damnit no. This idea has always been about a ladder. you've been discussing the scoring of individual matches between two teams on the ladder. there is 100%<edit>90%</edit>votes on ladder style, and 0%<edit>10%</edit> votes on one time tourney.
Last edited by acks45 on Apr 9th '09, 03:59, edited 1 time in total.
acks45
20 Minowere Dr. Fromidlov, Canada.

Post Apr 9th '09, 04:11

I hope you guys realize it's not worth talking about since this will never happen.
User avatar

Wrkncacnter

Post Apr 9th '09, 04:35

i agree.
acks45
20 Minowere Dr. Fromidlov, Canada.

Post Apr 9th '09, 13:43

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the responses I've gotten here. Let's just say that even though I don't like the elitist attitude of some CLIQUE members, I have slowly been gaining a better understanding of why the CLIQUE has such disdain for the rest of the forum.

I'm also mad at myself for not knowing sooner that I was wasting valuable time here. I guess I'll mostly stick to just playing netgames from now on. Adios.
User avatar

Iritscen

Post Apr 9th '09, 13:46

ack45 wrote:yeah god knows what moral means....
i thought that was a kind of mushroom.


Nope, that's morel.

Anyway the thing that burns me the most in this topic is a criminal lack of understanding of tournament formats and ladder systems.

A ladder system is when you gain points for winning a game, and lose points for losing a game. You gain more points for winning against a higher-ranked player, and lose more points for losing to a lower-ranked player. The number of games played in a ladder system matters much less since it's more about your winning percentage than your actual number of victories. Generally speaking, ladders are a more useful system for online communities like this since no one has to commit to a tournament schedule, everyone can play any games on their own time and have it count. The chess community operates mostly on a ladder system with brief regular tournaments as events that you aren't obliged to participate in.

A tournament system is when everyone plays a fixed number of games, and people that lose are eliminated. There's no score here, only winning and losing. There is no ladder tournament. A whole "best of X" system is dumb when X is an even number of games, due to the threat of a tie. That's why you do best of 3, 5, 7, etc. You don't bother playing any further games since they don't matter to whoever wins the series. Hosting advantage (i.e. who hosts first, and therefore more in a full series) is something that you should factor in rather than try to omit: give hosting advantage to the higher-ranked team. That's how it's done in most professional sports. MLB and NHL postseasons are single-elimination tournaments with multiple-game series.

come on you guys
User avatar

RyokoTK
Saint Paul, MN

Post Apr 9th '09, 13:46

Iritscen wrote:I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the responses I've gotten here. Let's just say that even though I don't like the elitist attitude of some CLIQUE members, I have slowly been gaining a better understanding of why the CLIQUE has such disdain for the rest of the forum.


uh, because of clowns like you?
User avatar

RyokoTK
Saint Paul, MN

Post Apr 9th '09, 13:55

RyokoTK wrote:A whole "best of X" system is dumb when X is an even number of games, due to the threat of a tie.

Except when there's such a vast potential hosting advantage, in which case it is necessary to make the thing fair. I can forgive you for not reading this terrible thread, but, that was kinda the whole point of my suggesting it.

In sports, the home field advantage isn't much. In baseball you get to bat last, in football you get a little defensive help from the noise. In Marathon, host advantage can make the game unplayable for joiners. So, let there be ties. If you play best out of x where x is even, and you get a tie, it either means both teams were evenly matched, or the lag is just far too great to be able to determine a winner.

Iritscen, you're always welcome to participate, but you need to read people's responses, and think through what both they and you are saying. If frustration at not meeting that low standard comes off as "disdain", if that makes me seem "elitist", well, what else can I do? I guess I could ignore thoughtless replies, but, then I might be accused of ignoring community input.
Last edited by treellama on Apr 9th '09, 13:58, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Apr 9th '09, 15:19

I thought through their responses quite thoroughly, Tl. Their responses were missing each and every point I made, and so I finally threw up my hands in disgust. I could compile a lengthy list of the misunderstandings and rebut each of them, but I'm just not willing to take the time to re-explain everything. The only reason to do so, at this point, would be for egoistic purposes -- just to defend myself against the insults I've received -- and (with a bit of internal struggling) I've decided that I'm above that.

And, Ryoko? You're the clown for deciding to drop in and insult someone at random. I thought you were smart enough to have really left the forum, like I'm going to do now. I guess the CLIQUE can't stop themselves from coming back to wallow in the mire here even when they say they've moved on. But I've had enough of it, myself. Have fun laughing at me behind my back like schoolboys, I'll see you never.
User avatar

Iritscen

Post Apr 9th '09, 17:59

W wrote:This example breaks down, because why would I want to play chess with myself.
Because we want to know the name of the new Czar.

Treellama wrote:Iritscen, you're always welcome to participate, but you need to read people's responses, and think through what both they and you are saying. If frustration at not meeting that low standard comes off as "disdain", if that makes me seem "elitist", well, what else can I do? I guess I could ignore thoughtless replies, but, then I might be accused of ignoring community input.
I think you're right to some extent, but not entirely. When someone says something stupid, there are three things you can do: say he's saying something stupid, say why he's saying something stupid stupid, or ignoring him. You and other CLIQUE members (because as far as I know thats what you can recognize CLIQUE members at) sometimes yield to the temptation of the first option, which can work very obnoxious, as I've found out myself in the past. I do understand though that in this very case, the temptation is HUGE.

Iritscen wrote:but I'm just not willing to take the time to re-explain everything.

Then I will, because I think you shouldnt get upset for being wrong yourself.

Lets assume irons and Wrk play all ten matches; they don't stop when it's clear irons will win. The first five games irons is white, the latter five he's black. I means irons wins, W means Wrk wins, ?? means they swap color. A few examples of fair matches:

IIIII-WIIII
This is fair, because both players are white five times and irons wins more games than Wrk.
IIIII-WIIIW
This is fair, because both players are white five times and irons wins more games than Wrk.
IIIII-WIIWI
This is fair, because both players are white five times and irons wins more games than Wrk.
IIIII-WIIWW
This is fair, because both players are white five times and irons wins more games than Wrk.
IIIII-WIWII
This is fair, because both players are white five times and irons wins more games than Wrk.
IIIII-WIWIW
This is fair, because both players are white five times and irons wins more games than Wrk.
IIIII-WIWWI
This is fair, because both players are white five times and irons wins more games than Wrk.
IIIII-WIWWW
This is fair, because both players are white five times and irons wins more games than Wrk.

Conclusion: when the outcome after seven games is IIIII-WI, e.g. when irons has won more than half of the games, then it's clear irons would win. All above games are fair, so stopping after seven games would be fair too, even though irons has played as white five times and Wrk only two. If you are convinced this set of seven games is not fair, then you can play the last three games to make it fair, but the outcome will be the same.

If you do not understand this, ask anyone other than you for verification and he will admit that I am right. It's pure logic.
Last edited by Drictelt on Apr 9th '09, 18:02, edited 1 time in total.
Eternal - Xmas I - Xmas II - Xmas III - Victory Dance IV - Winter I: The Venom - KTA III - Phoenix - somewhere in the heavens, waiting: The Syndicate
User avatar

Drictelt
Belgium

Post Apr 9th '09, 18:26

Drictelt wrote:I think you're right to some extent, but not entirely. When someone says something stupid, there are three things you can do: say he's saying something stupid, say why he's saying something stupid stupid, or ignoring him.

I'll admit to being unsure how to do #2 without doing #1. Explaining why someone is wrong without calling them wrong requires more tact than I'm sometimes capable of, I guess. It's usually nothing personal, but I also admit to being defensive about unconstructive negative comments about the engine just because I spend so much time on it.

Thanks for the reminder!
User avatar

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Apr 9th '09, 18:38

It was not my intention to forbid #1, but to encourage #2. Off course #2 requires the other person to listen too, but it was just a general thought about the entire "CLIQUE problem".
Eternal - Xmas I - Xmas II - Xmas III - Victory Dance IV - Winter I: The Venom - KTA III - Phoenix - somewhere in the heavens, waiting: The Syndicate
User avatar

Drictelt
Belgium

Post Apr 9th '09, 20:56

Except when there's such a vast potential hosting advantage, in which case it is necessary to make the thing fair. I can forgive you for not reading this terrible thread, but, that was kinda the whole point of my suggesting it.


Claims of "vast hosting advantage," nine times out of ten, are johns. No johns.
User avatar

RyokoTK
Saint Paul, MN

Post Apr 10th '09, 05:37

It's official. There is no need for a ladder or a tournament. It's already obvious who the best players are.

4/4/09 9:17 PM Pfhortipfhy: Dade still show up?
4/4/09 9:17 PM [?bleating Lh: Who?
4/4/09 9:17 PM Pfhortipfhy: ...
4/4/09 9:17 PM Pfhortipfhy: Dade?
4/4/09 9:17 PM [?bleating Lh: Nope
4/4/09 9:17 PM Pfhortipfhy: Best player in history?
4/4/09 9:17 PM [?bleating Lh: I'm not on meta often anyways
4/4/09 9:17 PM Pfhortipfhy: The only guy that CryoS can't beat with any consistancy?

So to sum up. The best player is Dade followed closely by CryoS, and then a bunch of shitty players after that.
User avatar

Wrkncacnter

Post Apr 10th '09, 13:38

Drictelt wrote:It was not my intention to forbid #1, but to encourage #2. Off course #2 requires the other person to listen too, but it was just a general thought about the entire "CLIQUE problem".


It's not a problem, it's entertainment. long live idiots.
acks45
20 Minowere Dr. Fromidlov, Canada.

Previous

Return to Contests & Tournaments



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron