Theortetically you could have a player score four real points by winning four games end up below a whole bunch of players who got 5 for free and never won anything. That's a lot of positions for one person.
No, that isn't possible, because if you never win any games for a few rounds, you're guaranteed to get a bye if it's always going to the lowest-place player who has not yet gotten a bye. Since the lower-placed players will be mostly matched against one another, every round roughly half of the players who have won 0 matches so far have to win a match.
If you're giving out a free win, may as well distribute them with complete randomness. If a really good player gets a bye, that can even be considered less intrusive since they probably would have gotten 5 points anyway. It may even hurt them if they were going to score more than 5.
That's ridiculous; at best that kind of argument would only apply to a single player who was much better than all the others.
No matter how you want to spin it, the fact is that, since a swiss tournament aims to match players of similar skill, by giving one of them a bye you're giving them a significant advantage relative to other players at approximately the same level.
It's clearly better if that advantage is given lower down in the ranks, since it affects the overall Grand Prix to a smaller extent.
Also, even if someone were to gain or lose a "lot of positions" due to byes - which, if done with some thought, shouldn't happen anyway - at the bottom of the scale they're only gaining or losing a single Grand Prix point, because the people at the bottom only get 1 or 2 Grand Prix points.
On the other hand, if a bye was to make the difference between 3rd and 4th, that's a 6 point difference.
Positions are irrelevant except in terms of how many points they're worth.
Also, even if someone were to gain or lose a "lot of positions" due to byes - which, if done with some thought, shouldn't happen anyway - at the bottom of the scale they're only gaining or losing a single Grand Prix point, because the people at the bottom only get 1 or 2 Grand Prix points.
On the other hand, if a bye was to make the difference between 3rd and 4th, that's a 6 point difference.
Positions are irrelevant except in terms of how many points they're worth.
Right, what I'm saying is that the 5 backgammon points are worth maybe one, or less than one, grand prix position near the top of the rankings. At the bottom of the rankings, 5 backgammon points, is worth more than one position.
Also, I'm lazy and you people complain about everything! It's really not going to matter significantly.
Right, what I'm saying is that the 5 backgammon points are worth maybe one, or less than one, grand prix position near the top of the rankings. At the bottom of the rankings, 5 backgammon points, is worth more than one position.
Also, I'm lazy and you people complain about everything! It's really not going to matter significantly.
That's irrelevant! The point that you've now missed twice is that one position at the top is worth lots and lots of positions at the bottom, and GP points and not positions are the appropriate measure of distortion. For example, the difference between 1st and 2nd is the same as the difference between 10th and 23rd.
Also, I don't think your point is correct anyway. A Swiss tournament narrows down both the top and bottom ranks by forcing them to play against one another; the resulting shape is kind of like a bell curve. Consequently, in terms of rankings, the greatest difference is, in fact, in the middle. In terms of points, this is skewed upwards somewhat. Moreover, because the middle is where most of the players are concentrated, that's also where byes are most likely to end up.
Finally, the backgammon points aren't the major issue with byes because players are ranked first by the number of matches won. Since you need 5 points to have a win, and a bye also counts as a win, everyone who has X wins has to have gotten a minimum of 5X points, regardless of byes. Even if a bye was worth 0 backgammon points (but was still a match win), it would still mean that someone with X-1 real wins and a bye beat everyone who got X-1 real wins and no bye.
Also, I'm lazy and you people complain about everything! It's really not going to matter significantly.
Suggestion: do it right the first time, so you don't have to waste your time losing arguments.
It would be trivial to rearrange the pairings, they've only been out for 3 hours and so you wouldn't cause any real trouble by doing so.
Also,
Can you win the argument? If yes, win the argument, and be awesome. If you can not win the argument, it's probably because you are wrong. Change your mind.
Alternatively, award byes as a coinflip - 50% chance of win, 50% chance of loss. It's not as good as the above, but you wouldn't have to change the pairings.
That said, that kind of thing would probably piss people off more, as would awarding a half-win or a zero-point win (those are pretty much the same, except if you can get lots of points somehow).
All in all, you really should award byes to the bottom. You don't have to do it this round, but you should do it in future rounds.
That said, that kind of thing would probably piss people off more, as would awarding a half-win or a zero-point win (those are pretty much the same, except if you can get lots of points somehow).
All in all, you really should award byes to the bottom. You don't have to do it this round, but you should do it in future rounds.
Clearly, the solution is that whoever is assigned the bye must instead play Scott.
I just thought of somthing. The Swiss tournament bye rules are contrained by the fact that rounds are concurrent and time is limited. Since we have completely asynchronous play and enough time between rounds it is entirely possible for e.g. the round 1 bye player to play the round 2 bye player, etc.
This way everyone gets to play exactly the same number of games and the only minute downside is that bye games do not immediately count towards standings half of the time. And we need an even number of rounds.
Edit: Actually, there's even a way for the bye games to count immediately: Beginning of odd round select two random player to receive byes 1 and 2 for the odd and following even round respectively. Make them play "bye"-game during odd round. Apply result from bye game only to player 1 for odd round. In even round apply result of game to player 2.
I completely agree. We can leave rounds 1 and 2 as they are, and do this for rounds 3+4 and 5+6.
The only caveat I have is that for the "bye" game you should still choose players who are close or equal in score, as is the norm in swiss tournaments.
So, do this: At the beginning of rounds 3 and 5, select one player at random who has not yet received a bye. Then choose an opponent who is equal or close in score and also doesn't have a bye - those two will be the ones to play the bye game. From there, allocate the rest of the matchups in the usual manner.
I agree. Getting a bye is all but eqivilent to paying someone who is shitty at the game.
Not quite, unless we're talking really shitty. More importantly, though, because players with the same numbers of wins are usually matched against one another, players who have scores like 3 out of 4 rounds have a rather low chance of being matched against a shitty opponent - this would be a pretty big advantage compared to being matched against someone else who has won 3 out of 4.
Just play your matches and you're a better player you'll win.
Not true. There's a significant element of chance in backgammon, so while you have good odds of winning if you play better, it's far from guaranteed.
Well, I beat iruul 5-3. It was close for a while - I gammoned and forced him to drop a double, but then he did the same to me and followed it up with a doubled victory, taking it to 3-3. The 3-3 game was rather nerve-wracking, but I got a very lucky roll that capitalized on some calculated risk-taking, which sealed the deal for me for a gammon victory and 5-3.
On the whole, it was a relatively close game, and I think we both made great use of the doubling cube - few doubling opportunities were missed, and I don't think any of our doubles or takes were incorrect. I feel like this qualifies as a reasonably high-level game, and looking back on it I do feel like I played more consistenyl than iruul, although I'd be lying if I said the lucky rolls didn't help a lot.
Here's some thoughts I have on backgammon after that game:
1) There is undeniably a significant element of luck in backgammon, and it's enough that the eventual tournament winner may not necessarily be the best player. 2) That being said, there is actually a reasonable depth of skill in this game. The way it plays, backgammon is really more about consistency than about making "genius moves" - but in the end, both are types of skill, and consistently avoiding mistakes is genuinely difficult. Yes, it's usually fairly easy to avoid major blunders, but minor mistakes tend to add up and give your opponent an edge. 3) On the whole, I feel like the levels of luck and skill are similar to those in poker - there's a lot of variance in individual games, and still quite a lot in a 5-point match, and yet there is plenty of depth to plumb, which means that skill definitely shows through in the long run. 4) Unfortunately, because individual moves have little room for "genius", you rarely get much excitement from choosing a good move. However, there is also the excitement that comes from the chance element - my final game with iruul had me on edge.
One of my matches with 5ro4 ended in a nail-biter - the doubling cube was at two while we had even scores, and we at the point of racing to see who could finish bearing off first, where a lucky double would change the game entirely. 5ro4 won by I think three rolls.
Well, I used it pretty well in my game with iruul, but it's true that I forgot to mention it in my post. Still, even without the doubling cube there is a reasonable level of depth, as I stated above.
I guess the crucial difference with regards to doubling is that individual moves are mostly analysed with respect to directional heuristics, which are relatively straightforward in backgammon. Indeed, many moves are trivial because of those strong directional heuristics, but for moves where those heuristics clash against one another you need to go to a deeper level; such moves are relatively common, and that's where the minor blunders I mentioned previously arise.
On the other hand, for doubling you need positional heuristics, which are harder to work out. Also, the effect of a double tends to be quite big, since either the scoring is doubled or the game is instantly over. Consequently, although less frequent, it's harder to make the right decision on whether to double or on whether to take a double, and the impact can be quite large.
Comments
No matter how you want to spin it, the fact is that, since a swiss tournament aims to match players of similar skill, by giving one of them a bye you're giving them a significant advantage relative to other players at approximately the same level.
It's clearly better if that advantage is given lower down in the ranks, since it affects the overall Grand Prix to a smaller extent.
On the other hand, if a bye was to make the difference between 3rd and 4th, that's a 6 point difference.
Positions are irrelevant except in terms of how many points they're worth.
Also, I'm lazy and you people complain about everything! It's really not going to matter significantly.
Also, I don't think your point is correct anyway. A Swiss tournament narrows down both the top and bottom ranks by forcing them to play against one another; the resulting shape is kind of like a bell curve. Consequently, in terms of rankings, the greatest difference is, in fact, in the middle. In terms of points, this is skewed upwards somewhat. Moreover, because the middle is where most of the players are concentrated, that's also where byes are most likely to end up.
Finally, the backgammon points aren't the major issue with byes because players are ranked first by the number of matches won. Since you need 5 points to have a win, and a bye also counts as a win, everyone who has X wins has to have gotten a minimum of 5X points, regardless of byes. Even if a bye was worth 0 backgammon points (but was still a match win), it would still mean that someone with X-1 real wins and a bye beat everyone who got X-1 real wins and no bye. Suggestion: do it right the first time, so you don't have to waste your time losing arguments.
It would be trivial to rearrange the pairings, they've only been out for 3 hours and so you wouldn't cause any real trouble by doing so.
Also,
All in all, you really should award byes to the bottom. You don't have to do it this round, but you should do it in future rounds.
This way everyone gets to play exactly the same number of games and the only minute downside is that bye games do not immediately count towards standings half of the time. And we need an even number of rounds.
Edit: Actually, there's even a way for the bye games to count immediately: Beginning of odd round select two random player to receive byes 1 and 2 for the odd and following even round respectively. Make them play "bye"-game during odd round. Apply result from bye game only to player 1 for odd round. In even round apply result of game to player 2.
The only caveat I have is that for the "bye" game you should still choose players who are close or equal in score, as is the norm in swiss tournaments.
At the beginning of rounds 3 and 5, select one player at random who has not yet received a bye. Then choose an opponent who is equal or close in score and also doesn't have a bye - those two will be the ones to play the bye game. From there, allocate the rest of the matchups in the usual manner.
On the whole, it was a relatively close game, and I think we both made great use of the doubling cube - few doubling opportunities were missed, and I don't think any of our doubles or takes were incorrect. I feel like this qualifies as a reasonably high-level game, and looking back on it I do feel like I played more consistenyl than iruul, although I'd be lying if I said the lucky rolls didn't help a lot.
A record of the match can be found here:
http://pastebin.com/EbSWV8r1
1) There is undeniably a significant element of luck in backgammon, and it's enough that the eventual tournament winner may not necessarily be the best player.
2) That being said, there is actually a reasonable depth of skill in this game. The way it plays, backgammon is really more about consistency than about making "genius moves" - but in the end, both are types of skill, and consistently avoiding mistakes is genuinely difficult. Yes, it's usually fairly easy to avoid major blunders, but minor mistakes tend to add up and give your opponent an edge.
3) On the whole, I feel like the levels of luck and skill are similar to those in poker - there's a lot of variance in individual games, and still quite a lot in a 5-point match, and yet there is plenty of depth to plumb, which means that skill definitely shows through in the long run.
4) Unfortunately, because individual moves have little room for "genius", you rarely get much excitement from choosing a good move. However, there is also the excitement that comes from the chance element - my final game with iruul had me on edge.
I guess the crucial difference with regards to doubling is that individual moves are mostly analysed with respect to directional heuristics, which are relatively straightforward in backgammon. Indeed, many moves are trivial because of those strong directional heuristics, but for moves where those heuristics clash against one another you need to go to a deeper level; such moves are relatively common, and that's where the minor blunders I mentioned previously arise.
On the other hand, for doubling you need positional heuristics, which are harder to work out. Also, the effect of a double tends to be quite big, since either the scoring is doubled or the game is instantly over. Consequently, although less frequent, it's harder to make the right decision on whether to double or on whether to take a double, and the impact can be quite large.
Of course, it would've been no different if he rolled 65 that second turn, but I'm sure it feels worse to have "missed out" on the double.
BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, three doubles in a row! I was left with my last pip sitting ONE space away from victory.. !!
Had to laugh.
We are still playing out our matches