Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kirian]

I love how I never check in to this subforum.  Probably would be best to PM me once things get started.

I'll be PMing everyone tonight to make sure they're still in.  If you're in, though, I'd strongly recommend you look at your unread posts from time to time.

[jsh357]

I swear I hit a slump every time one of these tournaments is starting.  (I haven't won a game in days)

[shraeye]

And I haven't played a game in weeks!  I'm going to be very very rusty.

[itchiko]

In if it's not too late. (not always sure with those time zone thingy).

[spiritbears]

I must unfortunately bow out.  Thanks.

[gman314]

I'm in. Albeit near the last minute, but in nonetheless.

EDIT: I only have base.

[Kirian]

Hrm.  The forum needs a copy/paste ability for sending PMs!

[Kirian]

READ THIS

I have just sent PMs to all who signed up for the tournament.  You must reply as confirmation so I know you're still around!  Reply by tomorrow, Friday 12 April at 23:59 EDT.

Pairings will be posted Saturday.

[Kirian]

Oh right.

If you DIDN'T get a PM but expected to... well, go ahead and PM me.

[Kirian]

Small note:  I'm actually dropping out of the tournament myself.  Running the tournament actually takes less time per week than scheduling a block of time to play a best-of-5, once everything's set up, and a few deadlines that I had thought were looser suddenly... aren't.

[D Bo]

That's too bad, but thanks for still organizing the tourney!

[andwilk]

Have any decisions been made on how first player advantage will be handled in GokoDom?

If your original suggestion is used, how will some of the "edge case" match results be handled? (for example: 6-0 match "win" all as first player.  Is this match judged to be a tie since neither player met the second player wins condition?)

Reason I ask is that I've played at least 2 or 3 IsoDom matches in the past where the first player won all 7 games and I'm curious how this will be handled now.

[Kirian]

Have any decisions been made on how first player advantage will be handled in GokoDom?

If your original suggestion is used, how will some of the "edge case" match results be handled? (for example: 6-0 match "win" all as first player.  Is this match judged to be a tie since neither player met the second player wins condition?)

Reason I ask is that I've played at least 2 or 3 IsoDom matches in the past where the first player won all 7 games and I'm curious how this will be handled now.

Yeah... I really don't see any impressively satisfactory solutions.  My original idea leaves too many edge cases open.  Forcing people to resign and restart messes with ratings (though one can argue those are already messy enough).  Ignoring the problem, well, just makes individual matches less likely to be valid.

My priority, though, is tournament integrity, not people's ratings.  So, we're going to go with restarts as the default, with some specific rules:

Turn Order

To maintain tournament integrity, games will be played as normally encountered on Iso; the loser of the previous game should go first in the next game.  This will require resignation and restart of some games.  Robz has pointed out the obvious solution, which is:

Use the "Unrated" setting.

This is the default.

Now, if you feel, for some reason, that you really don't trust your opponent not to have created a ton of pre-made sets--which seems unlikely--you may play on the Pro setting, using the following guidelines:

(1) The first time a game must be restarted, the winner of the previous game will resign, and both players will record their rating change.
(2) The next time a game must be restarted, the other player will resign, and both players will record the rating change from that game, then add together the rating changes (one of which will be negative or zero).  The player who has a net positive rating change will be next to resign.
(3) After each game, repeat the process; the player who has had a net positive rating gain will resign.

If both players agree beforehand, you may alternately do one of the following:

(a) Rather than keeping track of ratings, simply alternate resignations (recommended anyway for players with ratings with ~1000 of each other, as that's what will probably happen anyway).
(b) Ignore turn order during the match.  Use this option at your own peril.

[Robz888]

Why doesn't everyone just play casual for the tournament, so as not to influence the pro rating?

[Kirian]

That, I suppose, could also work... duh.

[Robz888]

Why doesn't everyone just play casual for the tournament, so as not to influence the pro rating?

Random sets would need to be generated

Does casual mode not generate random sets?

Even if it doesn't do so automatically, I think that's an easier problem to get around. Just use dominiondeck.com, or something.

[Kirian]

Why doesn't everyone just play casual for the tournament, so as not to influence the pro rating?

Random sets would need to be generated

Does casual mode not generate random sets?

Even if it doesn't do so automatically, I think that's an easier problem to get around. Just use dominiondeck.com, or something.

It does generate random sets, though a certain amount of trust is required.  I'm going to assume we can trust people here on the forum, but if you really, truly feel you can't, the other option remains open.

[Kirian]

Meanwhile

Seven people have not responded to their PMs.  I've sent you each a new PM; please respond if you still intend to play.  If you don't, I'll pair you with one another for the first round, and if those games are unplayed, it'll be easy to drop people.

[florrat]

Turn Order

To maintain tournament integrity, games will be played as normally encountered on Iso; the loser of the previous game should go first in the next game.  This will require resignation and restart of some games.  Robz has pointed out the obvious solution, which is:

Use the "Unrated" setting.

Some questions:
Who starts if the last game was draw? The player who didn't start the last game?
And who starts the first game? Randomly (chosen by Goko), or specified by the pairing?

And a suggestion: how about only restarting the game if the current starting player already has been starting player too often in that match before. Say, a player who has already been starting player twice cannot be starting player again (unless the other player has also been starting player for at least two times). This entails that the players have to keep track of how much time they have been starting player in the current match, but that isn't a problem, I guess... And the advantage is you have to restart games way less than in your option.

[Polk5440]

Kirian, I like the unrated solution.

But I am still a little confused.

Does this means the "you need to win one game from second seat" rule stands? You are just adding the additional constraint of loser goes first? (I hope this is the case because I really like the idea of calling the match a tie if each win is from the first seat.)

Edit: I like it because of the analogy with tennis. You must win a "break" to win outright.

[Kirian]

Who starts if the last game was draw? The player who didn't start the last game?

If the game is tied, the same player should start the next game.

And who starts the first game? Randomly (chosen by Goko), or specified by the pairing?

Random, yes.

And a suggestion: how about only restarting the game if the current starting player already has been starting player too often in that match before.

No; this gives a situation where player A wins from seat 1, then wins again from seat 1, putting player B at a severe disadvantage.

Does this means the "you need to win one game from second seat" rule stands? You are just adding the additional constraint of loser goes first? (I hope this is the case because I really like the idea of calling the match a tie if each win is from the first seat.)

Edit: I like it because of the analogy with tennis. You must win a "break" to win outright.

While I do like the idea thanks to the tennis analogy, I'm loath to do it if it's not being used for seat position, because it introduces a number of edge cases... what if the players go 2-2-2, but because of seat switching, neither won a game from the first seat, but player A was in the first seat for both ties?

I've discussed the tennis thing before (though I'm not going to hunt for the link right now), but a consensus "best idea" was never reached.  Perhaps we can reach one before the next GokoDom.

[Rabid]

I think after a tie start player should switch.
With the existing rules a 4, 2 starting player split is possible over the 6 games.
(p1 WLDWLW)

Also would it be a good idea to play game 6 if the score if 3-2 in favour of the starting player from game 1?
If start player has won all games then a chance at a 3-3 draw seems like a good thing to me.
Main reason to avoid draws is a knock out format.
But swiss can cope with draws quite well.

[Robz888]

If a game is tied, the OPPOSITE player should start the next game, yes?

[Polk5440]

Would it be a good idea to play game 6 if the score if 3-2 in favour of the starting player from game 1?
If start player has won all games then a chance at a 3-3 draw seems like a good thing to me.
Main reason to avoid draws is a knock out format.
But swiss can cope with draws quite well.

I completely agree with this. I think that is the issue -- having a system where this case follows from the rules, and the strange edge cases that follow because of ties make sense.

Maybe it makes sense to just rule on this one case (which is most likely to happen) and make a decision on what to do about ties (ignore them, count as half pt?) and leave it at that? Even the 2012 Championship rules were vague, just being first to 4 wins, ignoring ties, loser goes first -- if I remember correctly.

----------

But, just to be clear, this is how I would now interpret the rules with the second seat win condition:

• Game win = 1 point for winner
• Game tie = 0.5 point for each player
• Track total win points AND points won from second seat for each player
• First game: random player goes first (Goko decides)
• Second game and after: loser of previous game goes first, or in the case of a tie same/opposite (TBD) player goes first
• MATCH WIN CONDITION: At least 3 win points AND has strictly more points won from the second seat than the other player
• 6 games maximum. If match win condition is not satisfied by either player after 6 games, then the match is a tie.

This gives Rabid's case of 3-2 goes to game 6 if first player always wins, and if first player wins again in game 6, match is a tie. 3-2 also goes to game 6 if each player won one game from second seat. 3-1 matches always end after 4 games.

2-2-1 matches always go to the sixth game (if draws are 0.5 points). And you would then have cases like this one (from player A's perspective): DWLWL (A goes first first game, and first again after the draw) and if A wins 6th game, match is a draw (because A has 3.5 points, but fewer second seat win points than B), but if B wins or draws, B wins the match. If B draws, this would be similar to Kirian's case: 2-2-2 with B winning both draws from the second seat, and B wins the match. 

[Kirian]

Would it be a good idea to play game 6 if the score if 3-2 in favour of the starting player from game 1?
If start player has won all games then a chance at a 3-3 draw seems like a good thing to me.
Main reason to avoid draws is a knock out format.
But swiss can cope with draws quite well.

I completely agree with this. I think that is the issue -- having a system where this case follows from the rules, and the strange edge cases that follow because of ties make sense.

Maybe it makes sense to just rule on this one case (which is most likely to happen) and make a decision on what to do about ties (ignore them, count as half pt?) and leave it at that? Even the 2012 Championship rules were vague, just being first to 4 wins, ignoring ties, loser goes first -- if I remember correctly.

----------

But, just to be clear, this is how I would now interpret the rules with the second seat win condition:

• Game win = 1 point for winner
• Game tie = 0.5 point for each player
• Track total win points AND points won from second seat for each player
• First game: random player goes first (Goko decides)
• Second game and after: loser of previous game goes first, or in the case of a tie same/opposite (TBD) player goes first
• MATCH WIN CONDITION: At least 3 win points AND has strictly more points won from the second seat than the other player
• 6 games maximum. If match win condition is not satisfied by either player after 6 games, then the match is a tie.

This gives Rabid's case of 3-2 goes to game 6 if first player always wins, and if first player wins again in game 6, match is a tie. 3-2 also goes to game 6 if each player won one game from second seat. 3-1 matches always end after 4 games.

2-2-1 matches always go to the sixth game (if draws are 0.5 points). And you would then have cases like this one (from player A's perspective): DWLWL (A goes first first game, and first again after the draw) and if A wins 6th game, match is a draw (because A has 3.5 points, but fewer second seat win points than B), but if B wins or draws, B wins the match. If B draws, this would be similar to Kirian's case: 2-2-2 with B winning both draws from the second seat, and B wins the match. 

Man, with all of that I'm tempted to say, "Eh, just play six games, and we'll adjudicate who won the match."  I will consider it for next time around, though.

I do think Robz's base idea has merit, and is simple enough to follow for this time.  I'll set up a thread for discussion for next "season."  We need something both fair and relatively simple.