3-move drawing program?

[Travis Weddle]

Ingo, what you are asking for can be easily created. It could even be done in an excel spreadsheet format. I'd be happy to help if this is something you'd really want to do.

I just fear this automation of opening selection could create drama. Someone could tamper with it to 'stack the deck' so to speak in a certain players favor, omit openings, etc.

[Ingo_Zachos]

Ingo, what you are asking for can be easily created. It could even be done in an excel spreadsheet format. I'd be happy to help if this is something you'd really want to do.

I just fear this automation of opening selection could create drama. Someone could tamper with it to 'stack the deck' so to speak in a certain players favor, omit openings, etc.

Great idea, Travis!

I did not think of an Excel solution, but it might actually be that easy.
Your help would be very much appreciated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the question of reliability, I can assure you I would first make test runs with fictive natches and tournaments, and then test it in minor events.
You are right that it must be solidly working before we can use it say for the Qualifier or the WMSG or the US Nationals or the Irish Open.

I just wanted to know if there is any software solution right now and what it can do.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the case of possible manipulations:

Any card deck can be manipulated as easy as skipping a card, forge a card or simply use an old 142 card deck to assure you won`t get any new opening. Not to talk of hand-manipulations etc.
No solution is immune against trickery, no matter if it is software or a card deck. The best guarantee is to publish the games or at least the openings that were drawn, so that anyone can see if the method used is fair or was manipulated in the given event (public supervision).

Once again: my intention is not to manipulate the random charakter of the drawing. I also think that the current card deck works in providing a random opening for one drawing in one round. And it creates equal opening difficulties in a match as long as you play both sides of the opening.

Unfortunately it does not create equal opening difficulties for all players in a swiss system or round robin tournament. It just secures equal opening difficulty when the number of rounds is a very high number, as it just randomizes the allocation of opening diffulty. It was argued that over the years the effect peters out for an indiviudual, but that does not mean it could not decide a tournament.

After there is a solution to do the same thing as the current card deck, one might then dream of finding a method to further minimize the allocation of opening difficulties over one tournament with 5-15 rounds, say by not allowing the same opening for the same player again (still enough openings left for a random choice), or by creating classes of opening difficulties for the openings, so that each player gets at least a share of openings with low difficulty and a share of openings with high difficulty. Or by successive accumulation of a measure for opening difficulties, and a process to pick an opening that levels the opening difficulty for a player that is above or below a certain indicator, given that this is not the case for his opponent. Still the opening choice must be random among that openings that serve this purpose.

I just thought this would be a progress in 3-move, if, and I repeat: if it can be made proplerly.
Can be that it turns out that one algorithm does not produce the results as expected, so it takes time to develope, but it is worth a try.

Of course, for this solution there must be further tests to see if it works, before it can be used in important events.


Seems like that there is no solution currently, so that for 2012 and 2013 we still have to rely on the card deck. But I belive we have to advance at least to "digitalize" the process.

BTW: the hard deck was created to seperate a class of especially difficult openings, so it seems my "additional" idea to improve upon the card deck is not new.

Greetinx from grey and cloudy old Europe,

Ingo Zachos

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Ingo, the famous Russian joke says: "It is always better to be healthy and wealthy, than sick and poor !"

There is no question that having such drawing software in hands will be better than not having it.

So ... I think we can close topic - nothing really to discuss. If such software exists - WCDF should buy it, if not - WCDF should pay programmer for development.

If WCDF don't have money - collect a "special fee" from players in 2012 and use these money to pay programmer. It shouldn't be too expansive and $1,000-$1,500 maybe enough ... just extra 50-60 EURO from each player.

WCDF also can collect some fees for electronic board(s).

Alex

[Eric Strange]

HAHA, that would be an extremely easy thing to program. I would not pay more than 50 dollars for something like that, and even that would be excessive.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

HAHA, that would be an extremely easy thing to program.

Thats what I am mostly afraid In my eyes development should take 10 hrs coding and 6 hrs unit and system testing. In total 16 hours, $50-$75 per hr cost.

$50 - sign bonus when programmer agrees to accept your offer.

[Eric Strange]

Maybe in certain languages. in C++ it would probably require quite a bit of coding. In VB or web based language it would probably only take 2-3 hours to make and an additional hour debugging. Not a huge project.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

I am sorry Eric, but you just defined here "coder" work - without analysing, design etc. For coding it's true - you just need 3-4 hours, but for more serious intellectual work you have to triple all your estimates. This is the difference between Master (Division) and others.

Thinking is most important and very costly component which can't be ignore.

[Eric Strange]

You select how many openings need to be drawn... 8 people would be 4 openings.... it gives you 4 random openings.... you could even have option to select difficulty level for each round. So everyone gets the same type of difficulty per round on their opening. This is not intellectual work. It is a simple beginner level coding project.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

It is a simple beginner level coding project.

Everyone see it on their level.

But we went too far. For the time now WCDF should put announcement and offer: $50, $500 or $5,000 and go from there. Someone (usually business analyst) should write specification for coder. And we also need QA team (WCDF members or volunteers) for testing.

Ingo, WCDF is ready to spend $50 on this ? If yes, Eric got a paid job.

Alex

[Eric Strange]

I don't really see that is being relevant... Just create the program to have functionality for all three, once you have it written for one, adding the other two options are extremely simple. This would make it a well rounded program, that could be used in any situation.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Well and what happened if unexperienced referee select a wrong option ... and pick openings ... who will be blamed ?

And what happened if there will be an error in program ... who will be responsible ... or we allow "opps" ?

[Eric Strange]

We can play the what if game all day...

[liam stephens]

There appears to be some rather woolly thinking going on.
As mentioned above the 3 move ballots are included in the deck on the basis that they are sound for a Draw (given best play) not on whether they are strong or weak, any imbalance in that regard being countered by the fact of having to play both sides of the opening.

But it now seems to be proposed that if someone sitting at the next table draws the Single Corner, then a computer program should ensure that one is spared the horrors of the Octopus or Skullcracker.
The logical outcome of this line of thinking is that we should revert to the 2 move deck or, following it to its inevitable conclusion, - GAYP.
Perhaps it would be best to reserve the 156 openings deck and hard deck for master/grandmaster tournaments and match play.

For the rest, the 2 move restriction and GAYP would suffice. (there is no shortage of wins even in the GAYP tournaments)
How often do we see games where the players mishandle 1st position, not to mention the likes of Bowen twins/triplets or McCulloch’s position.
Certainly for youth and beginners it makes no sense forcing them into 3 move play before they have learned the basics.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Returning back to Ingo original question.

1) Such program doesn't exist today.
2) WCDF can order software and pay for development/testing/ implementation.

Does someone oppose #1 or #2 ?

[George Hay]

Liam, thank you for your common sense post!

Mr. Alex, I have no objection to the WCDF obtaining the 3 move program. Though I'm not sure about the "special fees."
The same for the electronic board(s). I just hope the electronic board(s) can handle regular checkers notation (1 through 32).

--George Hay, avid duffer