Life In 19x19

Bantari wrote:Not to appear too flippant, but I like Mike's tongue-in-cheek suggestion - why not just draw straws?

With respect to the tiebreak being in any way connected to the strength, skill, or performance of the players - drawing straws is about as meaningful or as meaningless as what the OP proposes. The bonus of drawing straws is that it does not influence the strategy and/and tactics of preceding games.

If we really want to have a *meaningful* tiebreaker - I see no other way than to make them play games until a winner emerges. This might be inconvenient for the organizers, but such is the nature of this game.

Everything else is uncivilized.

        Winning propability 
Rounds  A       B       C
0       1       0       0
1       1/2     1/2     0
2       1/2     1/4     1/4
3       1/2     1/4     1/4
4       3/8     3/8     1/4
5       6/16    5/16    5/16
6       6/16    5/16    5/16
7       11/32   11/32   10/32
8       22/64   21/64   21/64

Matti wrote:How many rounds do you find good enough?

Bantari wrote: Your argument seems to evolve around the fact that a situation is possible when a lot of rounds might still not produce clear winner. I grant that this is possible. But the system you propose has exactly the same weakness. Lets say each player has exactly the same number of "points" at the end. What then? (A beats B by 3.5, B beats C by 3.5, and C beats A by 3.5 - its possible. You can include more players, and it is still possible that the final points fall in a way which will not produce a proper winner.) You'll be down to drawing straws as well.

Bantari wrote:

Matti wrote:How many rounds do you find good enough?

I don't really care, to be honest - we can certainly agree on some number. Will probably be based on the resources we have (time, location, etc) and the input from organizers.

So lets say - up to 3 rounds then we draw straws. Or solve tsume-go puzzles. The former is as meaningful as what you propose and the latter is more so. Both have the advantage of not affecting the prior games.

So why not try something actually meaningful first? Lets give it a try (say 3 rounds) and if it fails, we do random pick.

Matti wrote:I had thought about this problem. If players tie on the number of points the player who has played his games earlier is considered having done better, because the others already know to what result to aim at.

Bill Spight wrote:

Matti wrote:I had thought about this problem. If players tie on the number of points the player who has played his games earlier is considered having done better, because the others already know to what result to aim at.

Why? After each game let the players turn in the result to the TD, but it remains confidential until the end. Any player who reveals the score to anyone before the TD does at the end is disqualified.

Matti wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

Matti wrote:I had thought about this problem. If players tie on the number of points the player who has played his games earlier is considered having done better, because the others already know to what result to aim at.

Why? After each game let the players turn in the result to the TD, but it remains confidential until the end. Any player who reveals the score to anyone before the TD does at the end is disqualified.

Players know their results from their previous games anyway. Suppose A beats B by 3.5 and B decides that a win against C by 3.5 is good enough and manges to get it. Next C decides that 3.5 against A is good enough and manages it. Then we have the scenario presented before.

Bill Spight wrote:

Matti wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:
Why? After each game let the players turn in the result to the TD, but it remains confidential until the end. Any player who reveals the score to anyone before the TD does at the end is disqualified.

Players know their results from their previous games anyway. Suppose A beats B by 3.5 and B decides that a win against C by 3.5 is good enough and manges to get it. Next C decides that 3.5 against A is good enough and manages it. Then we have the scenario presented before.

You want something foolproof?

Bill Spight wrote:

Matti wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:
Why? After each game let the players turn in the result to the TD, but it remains confidential until the end. Any player who reveals the score to anyone before the TD does at the end is disqualified.

Players know their results from their previous games anyway. Suppose A beats B by 3.5 and B decides that a win against C by 3.5 is good enough and manges to get it. Next C decides that 3.5 against A is good enough and manages it. Then we have the scenario presented before.

You want something foolproof?

Matti wrote:Don't you think my suggestion is good enough: If players tie on the number of points, the player who has played his games earlier is considered having done better?

Waylon wrote:

Matti wrote: How do you compare handicap and komi, for example 2 stones handicap vs. 20 points komi?

Results from pro games and bot games suggest that the advantage for the first move is close to 7 points. 2 handicap stones should be approximately equal to 21 points of komi.

The sorted list of possible handicaps for the auction is probably not the game-theoretic truth. I don't see this as a major problem, as long as the list is created by reasonably competent players and made public in the tournament conditions, to which all participants agree.

Matti wrote:If the players are tied by wins after the round robin, two more games will be played. The pairing will be made by ordering the players and the two last play a game ad the winner plays against the first. The ordering will be made by points added from player's games. If points are tied, the tied players are ordered by the time of their free round, a later free round being better.

Bill Spight wrote:

Matti wrote:If the players are tied by wins after the round robin, two more games will be played. The pairing will be made by ordering the players and the two last play a game ad the winner plays against the first. The ordering will be made by points added from player's games. If points are tied, the tied players are ordered by the time of their free round, a later free round being better.

Well, as I said, I have not been following this discussion. I thought that if the tie-break games did not produce a clear winner, the point total of those three games would be used to break that tie. A three way tie is still possible that way, but unlikely.

ez4u wrote:

Waylon wrote:

Matti wrote: How do you compare handicap and komi, for example 2 stones handicap vs. 20 points komi?

Results from pro games and bot games suggest that the advantage for the first move is close to 7 points. 2 handicap stones should be approximately equal to 21 points of komi.

The sorted list of possible handicaps for the auction is probably not the game-theoretic truth. I don't see this as a major problem, as long as the list is created by reasonably competent players and made public in the tournament conditions, to which all participants agree.

I think that Waylon's auction idea is the most interesting. After a little fooling around with katago, it seems that the range of alternatives can be quite short. Simply declare that the player with the bye in game one will take black in game two. The auction is for how much komi black will give. Under Chinese rules black should be willing to give 9.5 but reluctant to give 11.5 points (37% winrate versus 28%). Under Japanese rules the choices would be a little more nuanced with 10.5 also in the mix.