11-man ballot

[Pedro Saavedra]

I was writing Mecir, the Gold Token programmer, and we discussed 11-man ballot. I conclude he will need two things to program it in GT. First is an exact description. Second a compendium (preferably as an electronic file) of the allowable openings.

The reason for the second is that in 11-man ballot, if I recall correctly, an opening is not played if it results in an immediate loss of a man for one side. That is easy for a checker player to discern, but may not be so easy to program. The easier thing would be to have an electronic list and simply randomly select one opening. Is there such a list online?

[Alex_Moiseyev]

programmers may have one.

[EdTrice]

I was writing Mecir, the Gold Token programmer, and we discussed 11-man ballot. I conclude he will need two things to program it in GT. First is an exact description. Second a compendium (preferably as an electronic file) of the allowable openings.

The reason for the second is that in 11-man ballot, if I recall correctly, an opening is not played if it results in an immediate loss of a man for one side. That is easy for a checker player to discern, but may not be so easy to program. The easier thing would be to have an electronic list and simply randomly select one opening. Is there such a list online?

There are many 11-move permutations, but only 2500 positions (exactly) that are unique, the rest are transpositions. I think about 250 of the openings are losses, and many of these are NOT just immediate losses of material.

I don't think a deck for 11-man has ever been designed.

[tommyc]

Ill try n go "easy" but i just shows i was right not to accept 11 man ballot games into Mail play in the World play-off Ty. of 2003.

I withdrew from that comp.because of this.

[Ed Gilbert]

Murray Cash had a pdn file on his web server with a complete list of all 2500 unique 11-man ballots. I no longer have the link, but I have a copy of the file. I can email it to anyone that would like it.

Aside from the ones that immediately lose a man, I don't think anyone knows the loss/draw status of these openings. You cannot learn this by simply doing a search with a program. I can find the loss/draw status of a ballot by running the book generator program on it, but it takes between several days to several weeks to complete this on a single ballot using an 8-piece program. Using a 10-piece program it takes several hours to several days per ballot -- still a very long time for 2500 ballots.

-- Ed

[Patrick Parker]

...................

[Alex_Moiseyev]

When me and Elbert Lowder played 11-man ballot World Title Match in 2002, we had one rule written in contract:

if both players agree that opening loses - it has to be removed. After we randomly selected a ballot, each of us had 3-5 minutes for observation, and then we made decision.

One time we used this rule to remove an opening, because each of us was agreed about it's unsoundness. Unfortunately I didn't record this interesting fact and don't remember an exact opening. I think red removed man on 8, and opening was 12-16 24-20. But I don't remember which white man was removed - 21, 22 or 25. Probably all these three openings loses.

I would recommend GOLDEN TOKEN setup this procedure - "manual approval and/or removal opening".

An interesting fact is that Newell Bank played his 11-man ballot matches with the same rule, but one important difference - opening was removed if ONLY one player beleived it loses!

Sincerely,

Alex Moiseyev

[Pedro Saavedra]

Alex, your suggestion is a good one. My question is whether ACF has any official rule on the matter. One problem with the Banks rule is that a player could keep objecting until he got an opening he felt comfortable with (a transposition he could find in a book). Yours, on the other hand, could work as follows: White rejects or accepts. If white accepts, Black makes his move. If white rejects Black can reject or make his move. If both reject, a new ballot is drawn.

In a tournament, I can see a player figuring he needs a tied heat deciding to play a lost game on the ground that each player should win the strong side. This is less likely given that in turn-based we play all rounds simultaneously.

Is there a precise set of rules I can pass to Mecir?

[Patrick Parker]

..............

[EdTrice]

Aside from the ones that immediately lose a man, I don't think anyone knows the loss/draw status of these openings.

Marion Tinsley was quoted as having said about 10% of them are probably losses.

[Mary Strazicich]

i would say for goldtoken........just play every single opening
its kind of like mail play ......given time all the bad openings should become obvious even out of a selection of 2500
also the challenge can be to not lose the weak side your opponent did
this is fair if both players play the same positions

I tend to agree with you Patrick. Bad openings are also something new players need to learn and can do so when they are presented. In a tournament situation, if an opening is turned down, it would be reasonable for the database to then draw another opening. 10% is a huge number of bad openings to weed out. But another solution would be to have a team to submit suggested removals to, so players that turn down openings don't have half the deck removed simply because they themselves can't play them.

~~Mary

[Patrick Parker]

....................

[Mary Strazicich]

Thats a great idea! I don't know how practical it is from a programmers stand point though lol. Mecir is apt to roll his eyes and talk about walking on water. Will see what we can get him to do!

~~Mary

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Lets play them all. It may take months or years for committee to review all openings. I agree with Patrick - it would be fun. This is not a serious tournament play, so - everything in our hands!

Alex

[Pedro Saavedra]

I sent the GT programmer this set of instructions. I could also send the list of positions. I would appreciate the opinions as whether this set of rules would closely reproduce the current match rules.

============================================
Rules for 11-man ballot. The game is played like ordinary English checkers, except for the starting position. The position is determined by four numbers randomly selected. The first two go from 1 to 8 and the last two from 1 to 7.

First number:
1- remove red man on 5
2- remove red man on 6
3- remove red man on 7
4- remove red man on 8
5- remove red man on 9
6- remove red man on 10
7- remove red man on 11
8- remove red man on 12

Second number:
1- remove white man on 28
2- remove white man on 27
3- remove white man on 26
4- remove white man on 25
5- remove white man on 24
6- remove white man on 23
7- remove white man on 22
8- remove white man on 21

Third number:
1- red plays 9-13 (if piece on 9 was removed, red plays 6-9)
2- red plays 9-14 (if piece on 9 was removed, red plays 5-9)
3- red plays 10-14 (if piece on 10 was removed, red plays 7-10)
4- red plays 10-15 (if piece on 10 was removed, red plays 6-10)
5- red plays 11-15 (if piece on 11 was removed, red plays 8-11)
6- red plays 11-16 (if piece on 11 was removed, red plays 7-11)
7- red plays 12-16 (if piece on 12 was removed, red plays 8-12)

Fourth number
1- white plays 24-20 (if piece on 24 was removed, white plays 27-24)
2- white plays 24-19 (if piece on 24 was removed, white plays 28-24)
3- white plays 23-19 (if piece on 23 was removed, white plays 26-23)
4- white plays 23-18 (if piece on 23 was removed, white plays 27-23)
5- white plays 22-18 (if piece on 22 was removed, white plays 25-22)
6- white plays 22-17 (if piece on 22 was removed, white plays 26-22)
7- white plays 21-17 (if piece on 21 was removed, white plays 25-21)

White gets to decide first if he accepts or rejects the position. If he accepts it, red moves first and plays one game, then the colors are reversed as in restriction checkers. If white rejects it, then red can reject it in which case a new ballot is drawn, or he can accept it by making his first move and the game is played, and then the colors reversed as in restriction checkers. The rules of checkers or restriction checkers apply.

The last paragraph is a way of getting around a rule that says that a game is not played if the position is an obvious loss for one of the players. This most often happens if a player loses a piece at once. To avoid having to program the determination, the rule (introduced in the last world championship) that both players must agree that the game is a loss (i.e. must reject the position) makes sense.