This is a tricky situation. The hardest thing being predicting *who*, out of the lower scores (and zeros) will not be participating in this round due to lack of interest or just bailing on the GP.
If Scott Seeds, does that mean we have to WAIT before we can play rounds 2, 3 and 4 of Back Gammon? Wait for the bracket to complete?
GIven none of us are "seeded at Backgammon" anyway, I would be 100% happy to be matched against 4 other random entrants who I know want to play.
Then just go hard over one week and play all my games.
I think a level of coordination is required. Swiss rounds are timed and so should these, I believe. The whole "barge it" strategy has a downside of what if no one else can fit into that schedule?
Personally, I'm big on the whole winner plays winner, loser plays loser thing since it's a core conceit of Swiss tournament. Plus it keeps a reasonable level of interest going knowing that the record you are playing is just as vested in the outcome as you.
This format as it is gives me an advantage, since everyone here knows who I am. I will be able to much more easily find people to play at reasonable times and largely have my "pick of the litter."
Granted, I'm pretty busy and may not actually be able to schedule enough games in the timespan, but we'll see how that plays out.
If four or five people who scored zero in the first round and plan to bail on the Grande Prix want to collude with me, we will "play and I will maximize my score.
I'll hang out with you on Skype/Hangout for the duration of the games, and give you $10 each.
If four or five people who scored zero in the first round and plan to bail on the Grande Prix want to collude with me, we will "play and I will maximize my score.
I'll hang out with you on Skype/Hangout for the duration of the games, and give you $10 each.
I suppose I'm down for seeding. I figure I can learn the rules pretty quickly and may or may not do well at this game. Also it sounds like there's sort of a bluffing game and being new to the game can sometimes be an advantage. Also I found a few articles that have suggested poker players are pretty good at backgammon and I'm pretty good at poker.
Otherwise the only sensible course is to immediately, at the start of each game, double up to 64 points.
You're not thinking large enough. 64 is not the limit. There is no limit on doubling.
Timo, let's you and I play the first round. I think we can coordinate and rack up a few billion points by doubling every round and then taking turns winning. Nothing else will matter. Guaranteed first or second place.
I also lack passion for this. I get that backgammon is a totally serious game, but my only experience with it is playing it with my grandmother on very boring summer days in a cabin in Minnesota when I couldn't fish or wander around in the forest.
Come to think of it my grandmother also played rummy with me regularly. Hrm... maybe she would have been a gamer if she had been born a lot later.
Why not do it by wins rather than overall points? Assign a point value based on the number of wins out of 20 a person accumulates. It would prevent the sort of exploit that Rym is talking about.
Ok, so I have decided that the scoring will now be zero-sum.
Here's how it works. Everyone starts with 100 backgammon points. Each match you do not play is -25 points. If you don't play at all, you will have 0 points at the end of four rounds.
If you play a game with someone, and they win 4 points, you lose 4 points. Those points come from the loser to the winner. If at any time a player is at or below 0 points, they are immediately out of the entire backgammon round. If I take someone's last point in the second game of our match, we don't play the remaining games. They go home, I keep playing. They can come back for the third grand prix round.
If two players collude to double constantly, it eventually stops mattering. The most points you can possibly earn is 100% of your opponent's remaining points. Doubling way up only has an effect of making that particular game "all in." The loser being disqualified, the winning player getting all of their points.
We will still wait to hear from more players if we will continue with self-seeding or scheduled seeding. If I have to seed everybody, the first round will be based on championship points from Canabalt. Remaining rounds will be solely seeded based on remaining Backgammon points.
Otherwise the only sensible course is to immediately, at the start of each game, double up to 64 points.
You're not thinking large enough. 64 is not the limit. There is no limit on doubling.
Timo, let's you and I play the first round. I think we can coordinate and rack up a few billion points by doubling every round and then taking turns winning. Nothing else will matter. Guaranteed first or second place.
No one else will have the patience to do it. ;^)
I think Rym and I just played our games 2-2 with each of the games going for 2^10^100 points.
Here's another rule we need. The not-quite Chinese badminton rule.
In the olympics the badminton teams lost rounds of a tournament on purpose to get better seeding in future rounds. They were still doing what was best in order to win the gold medal.
I am instituting a rule that each participant must always be acting in their own self interest of winning the entire grand prix. If losing at something helps you get ahead in the grand prix overall, then go for it.
However, let's say one player is in the grand prix, but does not want to win. They want Timo to win. If they intentionally forfeit all of their 100 points to Timo to help him win, that is considered not playing in good faith. If we allow this behavior, then we will not be able to include any direct multiplayer games of any kind. If you don't want to win the grand prix, then we'll just disqualify you and remove you from the list.
If I play Rym in my first round, are 25 of my 100 points up for grabs? Ie. if i lose all 5 matches or don't "show up" then I lose 25 in both situations.
Following on from that logic, If I win 3-2 does that mean that I gain 15 of Ryms points while losing 10 of my own, leaving me at 105 and Rym at 95?
In your above example, how would you win or lose 4 points?
If I play Rym in my first round, are 25 of my 100 points up for grabs? Ie. if i lose all 5 matches or don't "show up" then I lose 25 in both situations.
Following on from that logic, If I win 3-2 does that mean that I gain 15 of Ryms points while losing 10 of my own, leaving me at 105 and Rym at 95?
In your above example, how would you win or lose 4 points?
If you don't play at all you lose 25.
If you do play Rym, all 100 of your points and all 100 of his points are up for grabs. The number of points that is gained/lost in each game is determined by the doubling cube and by gammon/backgammon if any.
There are three different ways a game can end up being worth four points.
Two doubles and a normal win. A resign on the third double. One double with a gammon win.
If I play Rym in my first round, are 25 of my 100 points up for grabs? Ie. if i lose all 5 matches or don't "show up" then I lose 25 in both situations.
Following on from that logic, If I win 3-2 does that mean that I gain 15 of Ryms points while losing 10 of my own, leaving me at 105 and Rym at 95?
In your above example, how would you win or lose 4 points?
The -25 points comes only from unplayed matches. You are supposed to play games against four different opponents so if you only play against three, in the end you get -25 points from that one unplayed match.
And when you play, winner of the round gets x points and loser looses the same x points.
Oh god. I've played backgammon before and this all new to me.
Are you 100% sure you don't just want to focus on the GAME and leave this high level 'gammon meta for another day, another tourney?
I'll go with whatever the final decision is, but i REALLY just want to play 5 matches against an opponent and I either win or lose each of those matches.
Anyone who hasn't played before is probably going to be baffled/frustrated at the doubling cube.
Oh god. I've played backgammon before and this all new to me.
Are you 100% sure you don't just want to focus on the GAME and leave this high level 'gammon meta for another day, another tourney?
I'll go with whatever the final decision is, but i REALLY just want to play 5 matches against an opponent and I either win or lose each of those matches.
Anyone who hasn't played before is probably going to be baffled/frustrated at the doubling cube.
That's like playing poker without betting. This is to see who is the best at gaming. If you can't figure out the doubling cube, which is rather simple, then you don't deserve to win. We're here to separate the pros from the shmos.
It would be great if you could do a new post with all of the current rules in order and in one run. I don't mind having my matches set for me. The more complex the match scoring, the more I want it all sorted for me.
It would be great if you could do a new post with all of the current rules in order and in one run. I don't mind having my matches set for me. The more complex the match scoring, the more I want it all sorted for me.
Well, I have not played backgammon before. I guess I have my work cut out for me if I want to keep a high spot.
Also, while I approve of seeding, I have to strongly disapprove of seeding based on Canabalt scores. I think Canabalt performance is very weakly correlated with backgammon performance, and so I think a strong random component in the seeding of the first round would be a more sensible idea.
If two players collude to double constantly, it eventually stops mattering. The most points you can possibly earn is 100% of your opponent's remaining points. Doubling way up only has an effect of making that particular game "all in." The loser being disqualified, the winning player getting all of their points.
More specifically, I expect you can earn at most an amount equal to all of your opponent's points or all of your own, whichever of the two is lower (i.e. the way that being "all in" normally works).
Also, I'm guessing that computer-aided play is forbidden, since otherwise there probably wouldn't be much point to the competition. Unfortunately, this isn't something you can easily prevent in online play; I guess the honor system will have to do the job.
What if no one responds to my request for games? I foresee a situation where someone may be forced into incomplete games. Perhaps refusal to play with me on the grounds I'm the current Grand Prix leader?
That's entirely possible. Maybe you should have not just claimed to be very good at Backgammon? Also, if people have a hard time finding opponents, and you are the only one available, they have a strong incentive to play you. It is still better than playing nobody. You get five points just for playing somebody, even if you lose completely. Players who are very good also have a strong incentive to play you, lest they risk having you play against a scrub. I don't think it will be an actual problem.
It is definitely an actual problem because Dromaro can, in fact, be denied games altogether if no one plays with him.
For example, consider a Grand Prix with 6 players, one of whom is very good. The other 5 players can choose never to play with the top player, as they can each play 4 rounds against the other 4 players while never playing with the #1 seed.
I guess you could make it so that you have to play exactly one game each period over 4 fixed periods. This would more or less work, although it's a little strange if there ends up being an odd number of people due to people dropping out. Presumably, being left unpartnered would count as playing a game with your score remaining the same, though I suspect some people would be much more likely to be left unpartnered than others.
On the whole, it seems best if the match-ups are chosen according to some kind of fair algorithm.
Comments
Personally, I'm big on the whole winner plays winner, loser plays loser thing since it's a core conceit of Swiss tournament. Plus it keeps a reasonable level of interest going knowing that the record you are playing is just as vested in the outcome as you.
Granted, I'm pretty busy and may not actually be able to schedule enough games in the timespan, but we'll see how that plays out.
If four or five people who scored zero in the first round and plan to bail on the Grande Prix want to collude with me, we will "play and I will maximize my score.
I'll hang out with you on Skype/Hangout for the duration of the games, and give you $10 each.
Timo, let's you and I play the first round. I think we can coordinate and rack up a few billion points by doubling every round and then taking turns winning. Nothing else will matter. Guaranteed first or second place.
No one else will have the patience to do it. ;^)
Come to think of it my grandmother also played rummy with me regularly. Hrm... maybe she would have been a gamer if she had been born a lot later.
Quick, someone suggest a fix for this, what is the best way to fairly score a 4 round tournament?
Ie. Ignoring the Backgammon scores, and assigning our OWN, fair, scoring system for this round of the GP.
I feel like we need one?
I like the "wins" idea. Points for a win.
And forget about the doubling cube. That's for pro's. We just want to PLAY Backgammon, not the meta of Backgammon.
Anyway, Scott is GM, he can read our input and make a snap decision soon.
I just want to play Backgammon and if I win I expect to get more points that my opponent. Next round, go!
Here's how it works. Everyone starts with 100 backgammon points. Each match you do not play is -25 points. If you don't play at all, you will have 0 points at the end of four rounds.
If you play a game with someone, and they win 4 points, you lose 4 points. Those points come from the loser to the winner. If at any time a player is at or below 0 points, they are immediately out of the entire backgammon round. If I take someone's last point in the second game of our match, we don't play the remaining games. They go home, I keep playing. They can come back for the third grand prix round.
If two players collude to double constantly, it eventually stops mattering. The most points you can possibly earn is 100% of your opponent's remaining points. Doubling way up only has an effect of making that particular game "all in." The loser being disqualified, the winning player getting all of their points.
We will still wait to hear from more players if we will continue with self-seeding or scheduled seeding. If I have to seed everybody, the first round will be based on championship points from Canabalt. Remaining rounds will be solely seeded based on remaining Backgammon points.
EDIT: nice Ninja Scott!
In the olympics the badminton teams lost rounds of a tournament on purpose to get better seeding in future rounds. They were still doing what was best in order to win the gold medal.
I am instituting a rule that each participant must always be acting in their own self interest of winning the entire grand prix. If losing at something helps you get ahead in the grand prix overall, then go for it.
However, let's say one player is in the grand prix, but does not want to win. They want Timo to win. If they intentionally forfeit all of their 100 points to Timo to help him win, that is considered not playing in good faith. If we allow this behavior, then we will not be able to include any direct multiplayer games of any kind. If you don't want to win the grand prix, then we'll just disqualify you and remove you from the list.
If I play Rym in my first round, are 25 of my 100 points up for grabs? Ie. if i lose all 5 matches or don't "show up" then I lose 25 in both situations.
Following on from that logic, If I win 3-2 does that mean that I gain 15 of Ryms points while losing 10 of my own, leaving me at 105 and Rym at 95?
In your above example, how would you win or lose 4 points?
If you do play Rym, all 100 of your points and all 100 of his points are up for grabs. The number of points that is gained/lost in each game is determined by the doubling cube and by gammon/backgammon if any.
There are three different ways a game can end up being worth four points.
Two doubles and a normal win.
A resign on the third double.
One double with a gammon win.
And when you play, winner of the round gets x points and loser looses the same x points.
Are you 100% sure you don't just want to focus on the GAME and leave this high level 'gammon meta for another day, another tourney?
I'll go with whatever the final decision is, but i REALLY just want to play 5 matches against an opponent and I either win or lose each of those matches.
Anyone who hasn't played before is probably going to be baffled/frustrated at the doubling cube.
Also, while I approve of seeding, I have to strongly disapprove of seeding based on Canabalt scores. I think Canabalt performance is very weakly correlated with backgammon performance, and so I think a strong random component in the seeding of the first round would be a more sensible idea.
Also, I'm guessing that computer-aided play is forbidden, since otherwise there probably wouldn't be much point to the competition. Unfortunately, this isn't something you can easily prevent in online play; I guess the honor system will have to do the job.
Ie More likely to play?
For example, consider a Grand Prix with 6 players, one of whom is very good. The other 5 players can choose never to play with the top player, as they can each play 4 rounds against the other 4 players while never playing with the #1 seed.
I guess you could make it so that you have to play exactly one game each period over 4 fixed periods. This would more or less work, although it's a little strange if there ends up being an odd number of people due to people dropping out. Presumably, being left unpartnered would count as playing a game with your score remaining the same, though I suspect some people would be much more likely to be left unpartnered than others.
On the whole, it seems best if the match-ups are chosen according to some kind of fair algorithm.