Page 3 of 3
Re: The pie rule
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:58 am
by Mef
Jedo wrote:jts wrote:
I think we can see how unsatisfying the pie rule is by thinking about how its application would work in a game like tennis. Good tennis players spend years perfecting their serve: learning to place it precisely, getting power and spin, and thinking about how the game will develop from the initial serve. Likewise, they spend a lot of time practicing returning serves, and getting good at that. The game of tennis is built around the player with first-move advantage trying to use that advantage to the hilt, and the other player trying to resist it, and the kinetic ballet that develops from that interaction.
So then if someone comes to me and tells me that playing sets has disadvantages, and he has a way to stop time immediately after the serve so that the second player can decide whether he would rather return the serve or let his opponent return it, and that henceforth tennis will be about having the most mediocre serve possible, so that neither player has any advantage... what do you think I would say about that? What would you say? What would serious tennis players say?
This is an interesting comparison. The one problem I see with it is that tennis solves the problem of the first move advantage by playing a series of games. In go that isn't in option (in an amateur tournament or casual play), so some other solution must be found. I tend to agree that komi is the best one.
Ah, I must have missed jts's post when I read the thread the first time -- I'm not convinced the comparison is so apt.
Tennis actually
does have a pie-rule that is often used - rallying for serve. Instead of freezing time, they simply agree that first serve is determined by an initial provision point is not valid until there have been some number (usually about four) of shots in play. The winner of that point then gets to serve.
Re: The pie rule
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:39 am
by jts
Mef wrote:Tennis actually does have a pie-rule that is often used - rallying for serve. Instead of freezing time, they simply agree that first serve is determined by an initial provision point is not valid until there have been some number (usually about four) of shots in play. The winner of that point then gets to serve.
How... is that like a pie rule? I see rallying for serve as far closer to flipping your racket than "you slice, I choose".
Re: The pie rule
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:42 am
by hyperpape
I don't know if this is what Mef was thinking, but it's not really like a pie rule, but it's similar in balancing by taking away the overpowering serve on that point, and then allocating the advantage of first serve based on the results of that "even" exchange.
Re: The pie rule
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:44 am
by Mef
jts wrote:Mef wrote:Tennis actually does have a pie-rule that is often used - rallying for serve. Instead of freezing time, they simply agree that first serve is determined by an initial provision point is not valid until there have been some number (usually about four) of shots in play. The winner of that point then gets to serve.
How... is that like a pie rule? I see rallying for serve as far closer to flipping your racket than "you slice, I choose".
Perhaps not the exact pie rule - but it is similar to the "play for an equal position after 3 moves" method that has been proposed. If prior to the Nth shot one player feels the other has obtained an undue advantage, they can nullify the point by simply letting the ball pass. There is therefore no advantage to serving on the initial point.
Re: The pie rule
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:48 am
by HermanHiddema
jts wrote:Mef wrote:Tennis actually does have a pie-rule that is often used - rallying for serve. Instead of freezing time, they simply agree that first serve is determined by an initial provision point is not valid until there have been some number (usually about four) of shots in play. The winner of that point then gets to serve.
How... is that like a pie rule? I see rallying for serve as far closer to flipping your racket than "you slice, I choose".
Well, since either player can chose to simply not hit the ball, that means that on the third shot, the player must try to hit the ball in such a way that:
1. It is not too hard, because then his opponent will just let it go.
2. It is not too easy, because then his opponent may be able to finish him off easily.
So the player tries to make a shot that is deliberately not the best shot he can make, but just good enough.
(And, of course, if the player feels unable to make a shot of just the right difficulty, because the shot he is receiving is too hard, he could just let it go...)
Re: The pie rule
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:25 am
by jts
Mef wrote:Perhaps not the exact pie rule - but it is similar to the "play for an equal position after 3 moves" method that has been proposed. If prior to the Nth shot one player feels the other has obtained an undue advantage, they can nullify the point by simply letting the ball pass. There is therefore no advantage to serving on the initial point.
Oh, I see what you mean. Sure - I guess you could use the four shots rule on every point, but my hypothetical scenario has a certain histrionic quality that yours lacks.
Re: The pie rule
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:47 pm
by palapiku
Despite all the arguments against the pie rule, I think it would work out very well in practice. The pros would work out pie-rule fuseki and everyone else would follow their lead, i.e. we would be in basically the same situation we're in right now.
Note that something like this already happened when komi was introduced. The existing opening had to change to accommodate the change in strategy. The pros figured out a new set of joseki and fuseki, and everyone else followed their lead.
And, sure it's conceptually ugly. But so is komi, we're just used to it. Hard to say which one is worse.
Re: The pie rule
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:27 pm
by karaklis
Another pie rule would be to negotiate the komi. Player A determines komi, and player B can choose the color to play with.
Re: The pie rule
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:12 am
by shapenaji
karaklis wrote:Another pie rule would be to negotiate the komi. Player A determines komi, and player B can choose the color to play with.
This makes a lot more sense to me
Re: The pie rule
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:42 am
by uPWarrior
karaklis wrote:Another pie rule would be to negotiate the komi. Player A determines komi, and player B can choose the color to play with.
That would be awful, as selecting the color would be a lot more advantageous.
I might believe 6.5 komi to be standardly fair, yet I might rather give 8 and take black, given my play style.
Incremental bidding could work out better: one player proposes to pay X so that the other takes white, and if he refuses, he needs to propose more so the other takes white, and so on.
Re: The pie rule
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:46 am
by HermanHiddema
How about: Both players write down a hidden bid, the player with the higher bid takes black, and gives the bid as komi (if the bids are equal, use nigiri to choose color).
Re: The pie rule
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:15 am
by Bill Spight
HermanHiddema wrote:How about: Both players write down a hidden bid, the player with the higher bid takes black, and gives the bid as komi (if the bids are equal, use nigiri to choose color).
How about komi as the average of the two bids, rounded up to the nearest half point?
If the komi lies between two (honest) bids, then each player thinks that they have the advantage.
