International Internet Go Club Ladder

PageType: Path     Keywords: Online Go

Table of contents


Discussions, Ideas, and Issues

This is the page devoted to organizing an international team go ladder. Please feel free to insert ideas here, or under items in the lists below that you would like to discuss.

Concept

If I understand well, this is about country vs country. Now, if a country is bigger than another, chances are that the best three players will be stronger than the other country's team. Are we really interested in knowing that Korea, China, Japan or the US will come out as number one in this competition? And why would a country such as Tuvalu participate in such an event? Won't this decay into a political game rather than a mind sport? Wouldn't it be more interesting to take population count into account too?

Rules Discussion

These are the rules are adapted from the LGC tourney:

  • Teams: Each team will be comprised of three players.
  • Eligibility: Kyu level players only.

Thomas: From my point of view it´d be fair to impose a number of finished rated games (e.g. at least 25) at Dragon Go Server or Kiseido Go Server to be eligible here.

Ken: I think if we create the format of only even games, this will not be an issue. Not many people play at DGS, so that would limit the number of people who can play. They would have to play 25 of qualifying games just to be eligible for a team.

Thomas: I agree. We won´t impose a number of finished rated games.

  • Format: ???

Ken: I see two options here: Option 1: Each player plays all three members of the opposing team. This would make each ladder challenge very long (which may be a problem), but interesting. Each player would get to try his hand against each other player. There may be an issue of ties with this method, and figuring out ratings makes my head spin. We would need some suggestions for how to come up with a final team rating at the end of a nine game rating challenge. If the games are only even games, the players individual ratings do not matter at all. OR: Option 2: Each player plays one other member of the other team. Teams assign their players a postion (1, 2, or 3), and they play against the opposing team member in the same slot. Perhaps the strongest player should be in slot one, on down to slot three. The team that wins two out of three wins. Teams would have to agree on their own who should be in which slot.

Thomas: I´d prefer option 2.

Ken: I'm with you - let's do that.

  • Venues: Dragon Go Server or Kiseido Go Server.

How strongly do we feel about using KGS? I rarely get to play there. With the timezones it would make international play difficult. The ladder could get bogged down waiting for two KGS players to arrange a match. The turn-based format allows for timezone-shifted playing without burdening either player. We could make the time limit shorter or eliminate byo-yomi to keep the games from stretching on too long.

Thomas: I also agree. One venue (= DGS) is enough and easier to manage the Ladder. Re. to byo-yomi see also my proposals re. to time in section "Games on DGS" below.

  • Registration: Provide entry form info via email to Tournament Record Keeper.

Thomas: Are any applications running for the job as TRK or the below mentioned Tournament Administrator ?

Ken: I could probably do it. Maybe I could get Ed to help me.

Thomas: Of course, I´ll support this job, where ever possible.

  • Entry Form: Provide the following information to the Tournament Record Keeper:
  1. team name (in slot order if using option 2 above)
  2. team member names and the following for each team member:
  3. country of residence
  4. email
  5. rank (30kyu-1kyu only)
  6. user name for Kisedo Go Server (KGS) [eliminate?]
  7. user name for Dragon Go Server (DGS)
  8. preferred venue: KGS or DGS [eliminate?]
  • Invitation process: Higher ranked player shall invite opponent to game. Since not all players can play live, unless both players prefer KGS, games shall be played on DGS. After opponent accepts match, send link to game to Tournament Record Keeper.

Ken: we need to modify this per the Format given above.

  • Game Conditions: Games shall conform to the following conditions:
  • Games on KGS: Board size is 19x19. Weaker player plays Black. Manually set Handicap as per outlined below. White player shall pass until appropriate handicap is established. Komi shall remain at 6.5. Main time 20 Minutes. Canadian byo yomi time 10 minutes for 25 stones. Games shall be rated. KGS games may be adjourned and restarted when suitable to both players.

Ken: Eliminate the above?

Thomas: Yes.

  • Games on DGS: Board size is 19x19. Weaker player plays Black. Manually set Handicap as per outlined below. Komi shall remain at 6.5. Main time 60 Days. Canadian byo yomi time 10 days for 25 stones. Clocks shall run on weekends. Games shall be rated.

Ken: Even games with Nigiri?

Thomas: I´d agree on: all games even with nigiri. With reference to the time, I´d prefer 3 months per player as an alternative no byo-yomi.

  • Handicaps (to be discussed): All games are handicap. Higher ranked player will give one stone per each level of rank different, with a maximum of 9 stones. For example a 12kyu player would give a 16kyu player 4 stones, and a 25 kyu player 9 stones.

Thomas: There are similar discussions on other SL pages. Some proposals are quite comparable with my above mentioned idea. So, I´d like to update my proposal: Conventional handicap uses the rank difference (and the board size) to set the handicap. This handicap should be reduced by 4 to balance the usual, although on good faith based rating differences. The higher player takes white. Komi should be 0.5 for uneven games and 6.5 for even games. Open games (in order to pass up handicap compromises) may indeed avoid hassles with ranks, but doesn´t it actually distort the character of the game? From my point of view open games are unfair, especially in case of widely differing kyu-levels.

Ken: I go back and forth. I like the idea that handicaps allow a more even game. However, without a universally fair rating system, this becomes dificult to administer. Sandbagging is a big worry. Even games may not be overly fair for weaker players, but are much easier to administer. An honor system for establishing rank is possible - but there needs to be an above-board system for dealing with accusations of sandbagging. One idea would be to require participants to list two go servers (any type) and average the ranks at the two servers. Still not fool proof, but at least it provides some record of the games played by that person in the past.

Thomas: From my point of view there is no clear solution in sight. In Germany, there is no ranking system, anyone can give themselves any rank they wish. There is a very big disussion in the forum website of the German Go Society at present (about 800 comments and more than 17,000 views til 2005-11-26). It was summarized that 75% are contented with the German self scoring system, despite of some relevant deficiencies. Furthermore, it was suspected (without evidence) that no perfect ranking system (universally fair rating system) is available (see also EuropeanRanks). So, we also have to live with some shortcomings in this issue, maybe a long-term experienced supervisor can balance the pros and cons; but I´d fear that even sandbagging cannot consistently be impeded. Maybe an independent Tournament Record Keeper as mentioned above can provide law and order :-)

Thomas: Open games (without handicap): When a weak player meets a strong player, what will happen ? From my point of view s/he can accompany the opening moves of her/his opponent and then there is a polite chance to resign, the game´d be decided. The gentle reader may pardon my own unexperience, but I´m convinced that in these situations there´d be no way to turn the tide.

Ken: I see what you mean. I think since we are doing a ladder and not a tournament, it is obvious that stronger players should rise to the top. Let's start all teams at a 1500 ELO and let the team's rank determine where they fall on the ladder. That way, an individual rank is irrelevant. The team's overall performance in even games will put them where they should be.

Thomas: Although I´m still a fan of games with handicap, we´ve to reach a decision after our long considerations. I´ve to admit that your (Ken´s) emphasis "we are doing a ladder and not a tournament" is a conclusive argument. Maybe the decision for "no handicap" is mitigated by option 2 discussed in the section "Format" above.

To tie up loose ends: Handicap: none, all games even with nigiri. Weaker player plays Black.

  • Play: The Tournament Administrator will email Tournament participants contact information for all participants and further procedures for establishing tournament games.

Rather than email, maybe we will do set everything up here. It is easy. If it really takes off, we'll move it to a website of its own.

Thomas: I agree again. Let´s omit the email prodecure.

  • Results: As games are completed, results must be reported to the Tournament Organizers. A web page will be kept up to date with links to ongoing games and their results. Further details about this will be provided in the Tournament Procedures.
  • Winning: The player with the most wins, wins. In the event of a tie, then the player with the highest aggregate score wins. Therefore, resignation is discouraged.
  • Position on the ladder is determined by means of the ELO system.
  • A team may only challenge someone higher on the ladder than their team.
  • Initially, everyone starts with an ELO score of 1500. A team's position on the ladder is then determined by the outcome of games.
  • When a team joins the ladder for the first time, it may challenge anyone on the ladder it wants to.
  • After each match, the results of all ladder games will be entered onto a web page. This page will take the results of all games, store them, and crunch the numbers to determine ELO for both players.
  • All games will be even games. If white chooses to give a handicap, the rating change for the two players will not be weighted in any way by the handicap stones. A win is a win.

As you can see, there are lots of details to work out. So edit away. When you edit, use the ">" character first, type your name and add what you want to say below what you are talking about. See above for an example.

Final Rules

  • Teams: Each team will be comprised of three players.
  • Eligibility: 30.kyu - 1.kyu only.
  • Format: Each player plays one other member of the other team. Teams assign their players a postion (1, 2, or 3), and they play against the opposing team member in the same slot. The strongest player should be in slot one, weakest in slot three. The team that wins two out of three games wins. Team members determine on their own who should be in which slot.
  • Venue: Dragon Go Server www.dragongoserver.net
  • Entry Form: Provide the following information to the Tournament Record Keeper:
    • team name
    • team member names (in slot order)and the following for each team member:
      • country of residence
      • e-mail address
      • rank (30.kyu-1.kyu only)
      • user name for Dragon Go Server (DGS)
  • Invitation process: to be discussed
  • Games on DGS:
    • Board size: 19x19.
    • Handicap: none, all games even with nigiri. Weaker player plays Black.
    • Komi: 6.5
    • Time: Main time 90 days, no byo-yomi time.
    • Clocks shall run on weekends.
    • Games shall be rated.
  • Ladder Rules: A team may only challenge someone higher on the ladder than their team. When a team joins the ladder for the first time, it may challenge anyone on the ladder it wants to. After each match, the results of all ladder games will be entered onto a web page. This page will take the results of all games, store them, and crunch the numbers to determine ELO for both players.
  • Scoring: Position on the ladder is determined by means of the ELO system. Everyone starts with an ELO score of 1500.
  • Changing Team Members: to be discussed

This is a copy of the living page "International Internet Go Club Ladder" at Sensei's Library.
(OC) 2009 the Authors, published under the OpenContent License V1.0.
[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]
StartingPoints
ReferenceSection
About