DragonTourney2005/Discussion
Discuss things here.
| Table of contents |
Tabulating results
axd: I don't mind if Degan manages the results of games on the main page, but everybody could do the update themselves (it is the responsibility of both players to check the results) to release the pressure (unless someone doesn't know too well how to handle SL)
Degan: Yes, you are right, I was not thinking too fully. Everybody should make updates.
axd: Can someone specify in which format results must be written in the table? I assume it will be something like
jigo (or 0?) / + / - / +resign / -resign
or a little bit more interesting:
B+40 / W-10 / B+ / W-
meaning: this player played Black and won / this player played White and lost / player played Black and wins by resign of opponent / player played White and resigned
Maybe provide an URL to a page on SL if such conventions are documented there
GoJaC: Of course, jigo is not possible... Some comments that were at the bottom of the page, and my thoughts below them:
hammarbach: How will we list results? On a separate table? Or on this table? My first thought would be changing the pipelink? from the game number to the winner's name, but that would mess up the formatting. The winner's number? Black/white?
GoJaC: I strongly suggest not changing the existing tables, it's just too much hassle to edit that amount of text. Create a new table for results...
Degan: I think once we transition to the links format we can display the results nicely... Does someone want to transition the information to the links format?
GoJaC: I will probably do it if it is not yet done at the end of next week.
GoJaC: Note that here I meant I would update the links in the table, not move it over to the main DragonTourney2005 page. I do think it should stay on a separate page. Having the links wastes a lot of "bandwidth", I prefer a quicker loading main page. If you want links, follow the link to the links page.
Walin: Maybe just use [Win ] on winners row and [Loss] on losers. Or [+n.5] and [-n.5] where the n.5 is the result of game.
Malweth: What about putting 1 for a win and 0 for a loss - since the actual result doesn't matter (and can be seen via the link). This will make scoring easy to tally up, and the actual result can still be seen by clicking on the game link.
hammarbach: I think Malweth's suggestion makes sense from the point of view of counting up results. It may not make sense at first glance, but go players are smart people. The big, important number will be the tally at the end of the row of the number of games won.
GoJaC: I agree with the above. A simple, small table which starts with blanks or ".", and is replaced with a "0" or a "1". Makes the table small and square, easy to verify, easy to edit, etc. I don't think B+14.5 detailed results are necessary, these can be obtained by clicking on the pipe-linked table? that will eventually be completed / brought up to date with the "plain text" one.
axd: can we agree on the small table+? Example:
123456789012 1 ..0.110.0..0 2 10..1010.0.0 3 0010...0.10. 4 00..0111110. ... 15 0..01.1.10.1
Degan: Sorry to say so axd, but I think the small table is terrible to read.
hammarbach: OK, Bildstein changed my 0 to a -R. Is that how we are listing results? I don't care; I just thought a consensus was building toward the ones and zeros idea.
trafalmadorian: do we encode the results in the pairing tables? I thought we would build new tables for the results, so we could keep references to the finished games. Well, i don't really mind.
good job! - whoever did it.
GoJaC: The results table is nice, and the addition of the "+" markers for players that are likely to go through is cute. I think we need a little more info than just that though, instead of just saying "4" for 4 wins, we should say "4/6" for "won 4 out of 6" or "4|2" for "won 4, lost 2" - it is also a very interesting statistic. In fact, you could also see who would go through to the next round based on who has lost the fewest number of games (minimum losses makes just as much sense as maximum wins given the assumption that all games will be completed...).
I will go ahead and implement the "4/6" stat unless there are disagreements or other ideas here in a day or three.
Tie Breakers
There is maybe not much time left to discuss if we need things like SOS, SODOS etc... (see also TieBreaker)
Degan: There is plenty of time to discuss this, and I'd rather read some opinion prior to this actually occurring. Please submit you thoughts as to the best method for Dragon Tourney 2005
Walin: We cannot use SOS as TieBreaker because it will be same for people with same score. SODOS on the other hand should work better. I'll update the results to include SODOS if needed.
Degan: The example for SODOS makes no sense. Juliet has three wins, and Alan only two, so there is no tie to break.
Walin: In that case they used McMahon Pairing and so Juliet started at being one point behind of Alan and then ended in tie at the end. I.e. it wasn't the wins that count, but their McMahon score at the end. In our case SODOS should work better as everyone starts at same level scorewise.
Formatting Game IDs
jfc: if the table was one (?) space wider we could specify games like this:
136305
jbrod: yes, but this would make entering the game ids to the above table even more annoying.
Bildstein: and columns would line up when we mix empty cells with
Degan: Please feel free to adjust the column width and add the great links. I had been testing formating and had improperly concluded that one could not add referenced links in formatted text.
dmwit: Check out DragonTourney2005/Links
Degan: Looks like it is off to a great start! This should replace the current once it gets caught-up.
jfc: I updated my games on this page and checked all the links to my games (they are fine).
Games Not Started Yet
Hikaru79: It's pretty clear that some players, for example, #10 in both pools, aren't going to be participating. Everyone else has pretty much filled their game charts while these two players are entirely blank. In this case, what happens? Can we remove them from the table? Do they have a deadline?
Bildstein: Ideally, we would be able to say that they lose after 30 days, and if they start within that timeframe then they just start with less than 30 days main time. But we can't do this. Still, it seems fair that we don't exclude them until at least 30 days have passed.
Malweth: It does seem as though #10 in pool 1 is on vacation. Remember that this is Summer (in the Northern Hemisphere) and a popular time for vacations.
trafalmadorian: i know seiei in pool 1 : i can tell you he is on vacation and eager to play when he will be back
hammarbach: seiei and I just started our game. I updated my row on the chart but not his/hers.
Degan: I will probably send a message to people who have not started some or all of their games by the end of July 2005 and ask them about the situation.
Vacations
Malweth: I will be on vacation (away on business, actually) Sept 9 - October 1st. I'll be playing moves if I am able to get computer access, but I don't know if that will be possible yet.
Malweth: My vacation is over... Visited Tokyo on my way home too, so watch out ;)
Comments on Tournament Experience
SirLyric: I just wanted to post to say that, despite being one of the weaker players, I am having a blast. Thanks so much for organizing this - really nice to have a set of games against a wide range of players, and to be able to follow others' games. I'd never have challenged most of these folks in other contexts.
Brilliant moments in DragonTourney2005
Round 1, Mef vs. Bildstein, move 57
hammarbach: I don't know if this bothers people or not, but I want to explain why I am so quick to resign in my games. I regard it as a courtesy in tournaments to resign once you decide you can no longer win. If I think it is close, I play it out. If the other guy is 15 stones stronger than me and has 3/4ths of the board, I quit wasting everybody's (including my own) time. In normal games, I'm more likely to play out an obviously hopeless game. I'll usually say that I am willing to resign and ask if my opponent would you like to play it out. Tournaments are different, as I'm sure most of you would agree.
Bildstein: I almost agree. But you must not take into consideration that your opponent is stronger than you. Resign only if you would be resigning against someone of the same strength as yourself.
hammarbach: In one day and four hours, had I not been a bone head and set up the game's time system incorrectly, I would win my game against Tjalveboy on account of time. However, since I didn't set the game up correctly, I guess the game is just going to be in limbo until s/he comes back or it times out two months hence. What is the opinion of the tournament officials on this matter? I mean, the rules of the tournament are clear (30 day time limit) even considering my gross incompetence. I just wanted to bring this to everyone's attention so nobody thinks I'm not updating my game results or something.
Androxylo Resign is polite and necessary: HowToResign
Dragon Tourney 2006?
Malweth: Is there a desire for this to become a yearly tournament, set up in a similar manner to the current tournament?+ Are there any special considerations that the 2005 tournament winner will have for the next year's tournament? etc.
Bildstein: Never too early to start thinking about it. For example, what lessons can we learn from the setup of the current tournament? What things do we want to change for next tournament. Here is the single most important thing that I think we should change: games should be played with handicap. Separate pools are a good idea - I think they should be small enough that we don't have to play too many games at once and also small enough that no games have to be played with more than 9 stones handicap. After that, I don't think there's any point having play-offs between rank groups.
SirLyric: Agreed that bands would be appropriate. (Man, am I getting routed, playing against 2ks! [1]) Perhaps something like we often see at RL tournaments - 15k and below, 7k to 14k, 1k to 6k, and 1d+ open section without handicap. Or fewer if the interest is lower. This may create appropriate-sized sections all on its own.
Hikaru79: The problem with handicap tournaments on DGS is that DGS' ranking system is a bit spotty -- because games take so long to finish, and a lot of people improve rapidly, it can take many games for your rank to catch up to your ability -- games which may take months to finish! And if we place a minimum number of games that an account has to have in order to enter, then we cut down our playing pool significantly. I think, considering the logistical difficulties of organising a handicap tournament in a medium where nobody is sure of their rank, it is better off left as it is.
GoJaC: If we decide to have a handicap tournament...: There is the general concern regarding unstable handicaps for people without enough games. I would suggest we can have a handicap tournament for people having completed more than e.g. 20 games allowed to enter directly, and people with fewer playing a preliminary round of even games, used to determine what rank they should enter at. This means the prelims should start early in the year and the handi tournament in the second half, for example. Of course, with a 2-month-long game you still have the problem of rapidly improving ranks. So what about handicap-1 for single digit kyus and handicap-2 for double? or handicap-3 for 30k-20k...
Bildstein: Even in RL, players official ranks are usually taken from a fair while before the tournament, and kyu grades tend to improve a lot between then and the tournament. But in real life or on Dragon, your games will have a lot more chance of being interesting if you play with the best handicap you can find. And maybe we can do even better than Dragon rating: maybe we can have people nominate what they think their real rank is relative to Dragon, and enter thusly.
I agree about restrictions on entering - it will be a real shame if people have to be turned away. Perhaps this is another reason to consider self-assessed entry ranks.
Malweth: I think self-assessed ranks are a good idea. It may also be an interesting idea to have the "top" group be a league that must be entered from the 2nd tier, similar to the way Japanese titles are played. A possibility: a league of 7 at the top, with lower tiers distributed evenly with a maximum of 10 people per tier. The top player from the 1st tier enters the league of 7, and the bottom player from the league is demoted to the 2nd tier. I wouldn't suggest having a title defender, though - that person can be re-entered into the league of 7.
GoJaC: This promotion and demotion happening each year? Or each "round"...? That feels a bit slow to be practical on DGS?
hammarbach: First, even though I am getting taken to school in nearly every game, as expected, I am having a good time. The games are moving on at a nice clip. But in the future, I would prefer a handicapped system. I feel like me playing a 2k in an even game is a waste of everyone's time. S/he could do the digital equivalent of throwing the stones over his/her shoulder and still beat me. And regarding handicapping, I agree that players should be allowed to sign up at the rank they feel is correct for them relative to the DGS system. Right now, if I am 28k on DGS, and I get struck by lightning, and by divine intervention achieve shodan, then I sign up as a 1 dan. I sink or swim as a 1 dan. AND there is a tournament official to adjudicate discrepancies. If I enter as a 1 dan, and it's clear that I just read the rules of go at lunch, then I ought to be disqualified. And the TO would handle that. Likewise, sandbagging could be handled the same way. There are probably enough smart people around here to be able to judge whether or not sandbagging is going on. But I hope we don't get bogged down by these details. I think we ought to keep things as simple as possible.
Malweth: I'm not sure if I agree with handicap play. I mean, this is a tournament and I feel that non-handicap games are as useful a learning experience as handicapped ones. IMHO, handicap tournaments are only useful as ratings events - invariably the winners of handicap tournaments are the ones who have the most disparity between their actual and stated ranks. The handicap tournament I play in IRL seems designed to best judge peoples' ranks for the AGA ratings database. It's hard to win the overall tournament unless your strength has improved greatly since the last time your rank was updated - in this case, people can only enter at a rank equal to or stronger than the one noted in the ratings database.
As further argument against, what would it be like if world championships were handicap games? Would a shodan pro get the same respect winning a tournament by playing a 8 HC game versus a 9d?
To answer the question of whether games should be handicapped or not, we must first answer the question: What is the purpose of this tournament?
hammarbach: Purpose? To become more attractive to girls/boys, of course. :) As far as the question of handicapping goes, I will participate in the tournament regardless. I see your point. However, I would find the game more interesting (and less of a bloodbath) if the range of ranks in each group were a little narrower. I'd just like a fighting chance. The higher kyu and dan ranks might not think this is a big deal, but down here in the twenties, we'd like to win a game from time to time. :)
Bildstein: The purpose is to have fun. On that, I'm sure everyone would agree. Here's my opinion on why a handicap tournament is more fun: For strong players, it's less fun when you games are decided after the first 40 moves, and it's more fun when you're fighting the whole way to the finish line. For weaker players (correct me if I'm wrong), it's not as much fun when you lose a game so convincingly that you can't even say where you went wrong. It can be exciting when you do better than you thought you would, but ultimately the result will always be the same - you will lose, and you won't know why. (I must admit I once lose an even game against someone 9 stones weaker than myself. That must have been fun :)
jfc: I disagree that handicapped is more fun (my opinion may be the minority though). I just don't like playing handicap go+. As for weaker players not knowing why they lost, I'm sending two of my victims commented game records+. In this regard the games can be viewed as teaching games. I'm not saying no handicap is best but rather that this is what I prefer.
Bildstein: I think people, myself included for sure, don't like handicaps because they don't know how to handle them. But if we all shy away from handicaps, how can we ever say anything about rank with any confidence? Surely ranks are defined in terms of handicaps. What I'm saying is that handicaps are a way of keeping us honest. And also, I'm convinced that handicap go has something to teach us - for example about how to use stones on the fourth line, and about how to use influence.
jfc: If I play someone frequently I don't mind using handicaps in the context of the kadoban system. In all the face to face tournaments I've played in there have been enough players so that I was always paired with someone close enough to my rating that we can, at worst, simply play with a reverse komi rather than the dreaded 2 stone handicap.
hammarbach: I think this experience has brought me around on the subject of handicap games. Whereas before, I was OK with them, now I am less inclined than ever to play anyone more than a couple stones above or below me. In this tournament, all but three or four of my games have been against people more than 9 stones better than I, and they have been predictably one-sided. It was a mistake for me to have joined this tournament at this stage in my 'career'. I'm just too inexperienced. I'm thinking that I need to sit out of tournaments like these until I am strong enough to compete.
jfc: I would say that you need to sit out of these tournaments if you do not enjoy them. I have, on at least one occasion, lost every game I played in a tournament. This would have been a disaster if losing upset me but most of the games I played were interesting so I was happy. I would suggest that you weaker players continue to participate. If you get crushed, ask your opponent if she will be so kind as to send you a commented game record pointing out some of your mistakes. Voila! free lesson.
Hicham: Why not use handicap -1 or -2? Or more if you like. This way you see more even games, but weaker players still have a chance against players that are much stronger. seems a reasonable compromise to me.
Round Two
jfc: Any estimate on when round 2 will start?
Will there just one or two brackets (e.g. stronger players in the top bracket competing for supremacy, weaker players in the lower bracket competing for fun)?
Bildstein: I don't think round 2 will have an official start time. I think people will start playing each other as they become sure that there is no way that they could lose round 1. In fact, there are probably people who could start playing round 2 games now, and I see no reason for them not to. It would probably get very boring if we all had to wait until all round 1 games were finished before round 2 could start.
I don't think that a lower bracket in round 2 could take off. I think too many people would give up for it to be a serious round of competition. Of course, everyone is free to play games against each other if they want to, and report the games here if they want.
IanDavis Just wondering if new people can join for Round 2 or not?
Walin: I think not, as Round 2 consists of top 7 players from both pools of Round 1.
[1] Bildstein: You're not doing too bad so far: 136154
Dragon Team Tournament
Would anyone be interested in a 3-man team tourney? Handicap-1, knockout swiss. ?
smach : yes it is a good idea :)
![[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]](images/stone-hello.png "Sensei's Library")