Poll: Game vs. Rounds Scoring at Nats

[B Salot]

John,

That sounds easy enough. But I dislike showing the poll results to a voter who hasn't voted yet. Can you get around that shortcoming?

Bill Salot

[Alex_Moiseyev]

I selected "Other". My choice - "BY BALLOT" I also voted only for Master Division because never played in other Divsions and don't have a rights to dictate them my opinion.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

That sounds like a good option, Alex. Have we done it in previous tournaments?

Not in ACF National's. I beleive in QT on Barbados in 2004 they used this system. In addition, as far as I know, Dr. Beckwith personally also is in favor of counting by ballots - he can correct me if I am wrong.

John, there is no such object as game in 3-moves. 2 games comes together and cannot be splitted. There is ballot - mini-match which consists of 2 games. This is scientific checkers, anything else has nothing to do with science, but more like gambling and lottery

[liam stephens]

A GUIDE TO THE LOTTERY

The 2 points per game system is the one that operates in Britain and Ireland and most other countries. In the USA in the masters section a points per round system is used.
( They have 4 game rounds in the 3 move tys. The first 3 move opening is drawn from the full list of 156 openings, and the 2nd Opening from the reduced 86 in number hard deck)

The points per game system is the most popular with the players especially the weaker players, as it gives them credit for drawing the strong side of a critical 3 move opening against a stronger player. Even a duffer can draw the strong side of the Skullcracker by continually running off the piece!!!!
In scoring by rounds that anomaly is eliminated. The points per round (or ballot) is a much superior system and was in fact the system adopted in the UK when the Swiss Style tys were first introduced.
It was only some years later that the change to points per game was adopted.
As stated above, the points per game system is popular with the majority of players and is unlikely to be replaced. However, it allows many undesirable features to proliferate.

Lottery element:

With the advent of 2 and 3 move restriction and the introduction of the ballot card, enter the lottery element. This can be seen in several ways.

Luck of the opening drawn.

Luck of the draw of opponent
This becomes a major factor, where there is no repairing.
How many tys does one see where the winner is decided on the outcome of the last round or 2 rounds where the leading players have already met each other and also the other top players, and are left to play the stragglers. A lot depends on the opening drawn, and the relative strength of the players.

Leapfrogging effect.

Of course no system is perfect and scoring by rounds would not entirely eliminate the lottery element, but would significantly reduce it to a more acceptable level.

The only other alternative would be to go back to knockout competitions which I believe nobody wants.

Incidentally the points per game system has very deleterious effects on the calculation of the ratings.

[Ingo_Zachos]

The Italians use a quite sophisticated sytem:

1.They play a round robin system, with only one game against each opponent.

-> reduces the factor of "lucky draw"

2. They use a deck reduced by the most one-sided openings.

-> reduces the "luck of ballot" so that one-game rounds are possible.

3. They use one balloted opening for all games in one round. Not a single encounter between two players in a round.

->equals the "luck of ballot". No one can say he was unlucky with the openings.

so that all have equal chances, which the system we played in Beijing for example, did not do at all.
Some had 8 one-sided openings, others 9 GAYP openings and that is reflected in the final score!
Some even had GAYP against stronger opponents and ballots with chances for both sides against weaker opponents.
These setbacks are reduced in the italian system.

4. They do not allow the players to stand up during the first 10 moves/20 plies.

-> eliminates the possibility of cheating by copying the moves of another master.
Should also reduce the notion to play rest games, as a "no risk" strategy does not produce enough wins to win the tournament.

All in all this is I think, a good approach.

Plus it :
-reduces the work of the referee (has to do only one ballot per round)
- makes the round schedule planable: does always allow breaks for a meal and does nor allow a win by dragging on a game aginst a tired and sick opponent, as it was the case in Beijing, which I think was outright unfair.

The last point was the most obvious problem in Beijing. On two days I did not even have the time to eat as the games were too long ( I played from 9 am to 10 pm on one day!), and no breaks were even scheduled!
( I should have informed the Checker Players Union!)
If you use a fixed time limit, say 40 moves in one hour, and then 30 minutes for the Rest of the game, a game and a round can not last longer then 3 hours.
That makes 3 rounds a day possible, without playing for more then 10 hours, and in 5 days 15 rounds could be possible, allowing for a round robin with 16 players per group.

Greetinx from snow-covered Europe,

Ingo Zachos

[liam stephens]

Ingo Zachos wrote:

They use one balloted opening for all games in one round.

with only one game against each opponent.

Playing only one side of a 3 mover is a ridiculous idea. Whole point of ballotted openings is that you play both sides. Also, why exclude the many critical openings when players have spent years studying them and preparing cooks ?

They do not allow the players to stand up during the first 10 moves/20 plies.

What difference would this make ?
You have only to glance across to the next table beside you to see what moves are being played by other competitors.
The situation you describe would require all tables (or boards) to be screened from one another.

[liam stephens]

John Acker wrote:

.......GAYP, which seems to be the only style that European tournament directors favor anyway.

Not supported by the statistics. 3 move Tournaments predominate.

British Open, English Open, Scottish Open, Irish Open, Northern Ireland Open, Kildare Open, Home Internationals and the Danish Open are all 3 Move.

Only the Welsh Open, British & Irish Freestyle, German Open, Czech Open and a few other local events are GAYP.

[Ingo_Zachos]

IMO, opening variety is a good thing in a tournament-- we already have the I-D booklets and other mailplay publications to test out the same opening in multiple games, not to mention the OCD and other databases. Besides, a tournament book of only five or six openings would be rather dull!

And more generally, playing only one-side of a 3-mover defeats the purpose, regardless of how many other players are in the same situation. ...

Dear John, what is the purpose?
If you want to dominate luck and chance over skill and ability, the thing you have to create is unequal starting postions that are determined by chance.
3 move does that but it that really the purpose?

To me that seem like saying "We don't want equal chances, we just want create wins at all costs."
Anyway, I did not propose to abandon 3-move. I just wanted to give a more scientifc and practical approach that reduces chance of luck with balloted opponents or balloted openings a chance.
If all play the same openings and all play the same opponents, then luck is reduced.
It is simple, but that makes it work.

The alternative instead maximizes both factors and creates a uncertainty about the duration of a round if a round is played with two games (or even four games), which is a thing that often creates trouble with the schedule. I saw that in Beijing and I read on this forum that Alex sometines agreed a draw in the 4th game without play, as there was no time left for a game, which is indeed a situation that has to be avoided.

That is why you are looking for a way to handle it year after year.
But you will fail to find a solutiuon, as you maximize luck factors and that always creates Inefficient solutions.
And a greater number of games per round always creates problems with a schedule.

My proposal is

1.simple,
2. fair,
3. easy to plan,
4. offers luck only little chances.

So why not try a serious debate instead of labeling it with the killer-phrase "ridiclous"?
I dont want to deprive the players of their preparation, but the chances to score on preparation should be equal.

Another alternative could be to play in groups, but always round robin with 2 games per round.
But I will predict that this will cause problems with the schedule and it allows only small fields in each group.

Swiss System with two games of 3-move, especially with repairing offer chances for a lucky draw and does not give the same opening difficulty to each player Indeed, one game per round does also create unequal opening difficulties, as one side of a ballot may be weaker then another and you may get all the weak sides. That is why not all 156 3-movers can be balloted, as some are not offering equal chances. BTW if you use 156 openings with 2 games a round, you will minimize the advantage of the first player only between those two players, but not over the whole field of players and that is the catch in 3-move that was overlooked for many decades:

It gives some the "hard deck" ballots, and others "easy" GAYP ballots.
A weaker player that gets many GAYP will place better then a player of the same strenghts with hard deck openings and a good player that has more hard decks openings may have an advantage over another good player that got many GAYP ballots.
This may tell especially if the stronger with more hard deck ballots gets those against his weakers opponents and the other one gets the GAYP ballots against the weaker players.

Also a round with 2 games is unpredictable in its duration and causes chaos in the schedule.

Swiss System with four games of 3 move in a round create even more problems in the schedule and also does not offer equal chances regading the balloted opponets.
It however reduced the luck of balloted openings, as the greater the numer of ballots for each player, the more likely the luck factor is petered out.

So my approach indeed has its points and is more efficient then the alternatives.

Regading the point that not to stand up and "copy" the moves is not allowed:
You don't use the same ballot for the masters and the majors.
So just place a master game and a majors game on the same table and maybe also a minors
Problem solved!
Again a simple, but efficient approach as it is very simple.
Indeed I thought you would think of that solution at once as it is that trivial.

Greetinx from Dortmund at midnight,

Ingo Zachos

[Ingo_Zachos]

John,

of course I was only referring to luck in the sense of mathematical chance. I did not express this correctly. My mistake.

And I was not arguing 3 move vs. GAYP.
The topic is how to run a 3 move event and I was looking at several alternatives and still think that the Italian appoach is fair to the players and the schedule is easier to handle then in a Swiss System or Round Robin with 2or more games per round.

But I guess the idea of only one game per round is too "revolutionary" to many, which I think is sad.
I think it is a system worth considering.

Greetinx,

Ingo

P.S: It worked in Italy (Italian draughts also uses 3-move), so it has been tested, which is another point I did not mention.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

I think it is a system worth considering.

I don't see any single advantage of this system except time saving.

P.S: It worked in Italy

You mean they just ran event by using this system ? In this case we can say that any system which we are using now or used in the past is working

John, the main idea of any system - proper ranking. Why do we need changes: do you think existing system doesn't rank properly ?

[steve]

Liam Stephens was 100% correct on his post of scoring by rounds. Another advantage that i hate to bring up is cheatin-a player out of the running for a prize may throw 8 points to a friend- this was one of the arguments back in the 50's for the swiss system.Under the swiss system you have to lose in order to lose.

[tommyc]

John, the main idea of any system - proper ranking.....Alex says ...........
What he omitted was the dirty word "handicap" In my opinion until we have a proper ranking and a corresponding suitable handicap system to differentiate the ability (or ranking) of players (as in horse racing etc) we wont have a level playing field .
One has only to look at Bejing (where no common sense was used in the making of early round draws) it was a bit embarrasing to say the least how we conduct our affairs.You might argue thats the rules at present i.e an open draw,so maybe its time that rule was looked at and some sense applied.
But i reinteriate the true fair and honest way in my humble opinion is handicap v ranking.

[tommyc]

No ...........theyd run a mile if it was mentioned ,its strictly old school here.." Nothing ever happens, nothing happens at all, the needle returns to the start of the song and they all sing along like before". Its rather sad.........even numbered boards arent allowed.But some local (area) Tys do apply ratings occasionally ............then the big boys have to earn their corn,but that dont happen often so they just tough ride over the "common" (making the numbers up) player ,soon there may not be any.!!

Well good luck to yu John.............."data to determine seedings= handicap??

[Patrick Parker]

i voted for round.....i dont really like it but i think its better

sometimes you take medicine even if you dont like it

[neilwenberg]

I will play poorly in the Minor Class of the Nationals in 2010 and I want Game Scoring for the Minor Class. Neil H. Wenberg, former ND (3) and PA (1) state champ.