Page 13 of 35

Re: Mafia Go #1: Discussing Move 4

Posted: Fri May 14, 2010 12:27 pm
by fwiffo
We've been doing it run-off style, so the folks with the unpopular moves should change their vote.

Re: Mafia Go #1: Discussing Move 4

Posted: Fri May 14, 2010 12:31 pm
by Kirby
OK, I switch to G7.

It is not stable under this ruleset

Posted: Fri May 14, 2010 7:27 pm
by Joaz Banbeck
I'm coming to the sad realization that mafia go as we are playing it is not stable if played rationally. As soon as one team realizes that it has substantially less than 50% chance of winning, the rational play is for the members of that team to make deliberately horrible moves for the opponent. By doing so, they raise their chances back to 50%.
The winning team will of course cluster around some not-so-horrible move. There are then two possibilities: If the teams have the same number of players, then the gamesmaster will decide by coin flip or some similar mechanism, and there is a 50% chance of winning that.
If the teams have not been balanced numerically, there is a 50% chance that the losing team has more players, and can win by sheer voting strength.

Either way, the team that is losing can restore their chances of winning to 50%.

This situation, BTW, is not purely theoretical. It may occur very soon in this game as people start analyzing what happens if black plays G7 and white extends from one stone and then black ataris the other. Unless I have mis-read something, white is screwed. The only rational strategy for white at that point is to nominate 1,1 or similar horrible play for the black move. ( My analysis of the board position could be wrong, but nonetheless, at some point there will be a position that everybody realizes that one side has lost )

Re: It is not stable under this ruleset

Posted: Fri May 14, 2010 7:31 pm
by Kirby
Joaz Banbeck wrote:I'm coming to the sad realization that mafia go as we are playing it is not stable if played rationally. As soon as one team realizes that it has substantially less than 50% chance of winning, the rational play is for the members of that team to make deliberately horrible moves for the opponent. By doing so, they raise their chances back to 50%.
The winning team will of course cluster around some not-so-horrible move. There are then two possibilities: If the teams have the same number of players, then the gamesmaster will decide by coin flip or some similar mechanism, and there is a 50% chance of winning that.
If the teams have not been balanced numerically, there is a 50% chance that the losing team has more players, and can win by sheer voting strength.

Either way, the team that is losing can restore their chances of winning to 50%.

This situation, BTW, is not purely theoretical. It may occur very soon in this game as people start analyzing what happens if black plays G7 and white extends from one stone and then black ataris the other. Unless I have mis-read something, white is screwed. The only rational strategy for white at that point is to nominate 1,1 or similar horrible play for the black move. ( My analysis of the board position could be wrong, but nonetheless, at some point there will be a position that everybody realizes that one side has lost )


You must be saying this because you're on the white team ;)

In all seriousness, though, I'm for having more clear rules, and some way to pick up the pace. Nobody's even been thrown off, yet.

Re: It is not stable under this ruleset

Posted: Fri May 14, 2010 9:37 pm
by Joaz Banbeck
Kirby wrote:You must be saying this because you're on the white team ;)


No, this is impartial. I'm sort of neutral about my affiliation now. I mean, what is the point of being in favor of one side or the other when know that the game is unstable, and indeed, unplayable?

Re: It is not stable under this ruleset

Posted: Sat May 15, 2010 3:02 am
by topazg
Joaz Banbeck wrote:This situation, BTW, is not purely theoretical. It may occur very soon in this game as people start analyzing what happens if black plays G7 and white extends from one stone and then black ataris the other. Unless I have mis-read something, white is screwed. The only rational strategy for white at that point is to nominate 1,1 or similar horrible play for the black move. ( My analysis of the board position could be wrong, but nonetheless, at some point there will be a position that everybody realizes that one side has lost )


G7 is a fun complicated move, but it isn't that much of a killer - just lots of room for things to go wrong for White. I nominated it because everyone loves a complicated fight. I'm not going to give away what White should do, but for the time being at least I'm going to be genuinely nominating the moves I would play to keep things fun and fighty and, in my mind at least, roughly even.

Re: It is not stable under this ruleset

Posted: Sat May 15, 2010 8:40 am
by Kirby
Joaz Banbeck wrote:
Kirby wrote:You must be saying this because you're on the white team ;)


No, this is impartial. I'm sort of neutral about my affiliation now. I mean, what is the point of being in favor of one side or the other when know that the game is unstable, and indeed, unplayable?


I knew what you meant. I was just teasing you ;)

Re: Mafia Go #1: Discussing Move 4

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 7:40 am
by Phelan
I was expecting you guys to pick a move at the end of the two days, and carry on with the next, but it seems you haven't, so it falls to me:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc Final Vote
$$ -------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . , . . b a . . |
$$ | . . . c 2 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . d 1 4 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . , . . . , . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ -------------------[/go]


a (G7): topazg, Marcus, prokofiev, Joaz Banbeck, Kirby
b (F7): Chew Terr
c (D6): Jordus,
d (D5): fwiffo, daniel_the_smith, MountainGo
Not voting:
On symmetries: I'm not consolidating them, no. It is up to the players to pick symmetrical moves or not.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc Move 5
$$ -------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . , . . . 5 . . |
$$ | . . . . 2 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . 1 4 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . , . . . , . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ -------------------[/go]


What now?

Next move will be the most voted in two days, or the first to reach more than 75% of votes(With 10, that's 8 votes).

Re: Mafia Go #1: Discussing Move 4

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 7:44 am
by daniel_the_smith
F4 & G5 (and symmetries) seem like the only reasonable moves. I vote for F4.

Re: Mafia Go #1: Discussing Move 4

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 8:22 am
by Marcus
This is such an interesting position ... I have to think about what I want White to do.

My biggest thought as White is that :b5: doesn't really put direct pressure on either White stone. I'm tempted to call for C3 and leave the area for a moment ... is that even reasonable?

I have to consider the possibilities before I actually vote ...

:D

Re: Mafia Go #1: Discussing Move 4

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 8:29 am
by Jordus
D4...

*edit* d5....

Re: Mafia Go #1: Discussing Move 4

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 8:30 am
by fwiffo
F4

Re: Mafia Go #1: Discussing Move 4

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 8:32 am
by Marcus
Ok, upon closer inspection, tenuki is stupid. :D

I vote for F4.

Re: Mafia Go #1: Discussing Move 4

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 8:48 am
by daniel_the_smith
Is d5 a reasonable move at 9k or is Jordus on the black team? :twisted:

Re: Mafia Go #1: Discussing Move 4

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 8:56 am
by Chew Terr
daniel_the_smith wrote:Is d5 a reasonable move at 9k or is Jordus on the black team? :twisted:


D5 is a reasonable 9k first instinct at least. I really need to cull unnecessary ataris from my repertoire. However, F4's better, so it's got my vote.