WOMBAT'S Triple Celebration BACKGAMMON OPEN

PRIZE TOURNAMENT!
The winner will receive a t-shirt of his/her choice from the BrainKing Store.

http://brainking.com/en/Tournaments?trg=13518&trnst=0

Fencer: Yes, that is a good solution to be used by those who create tournaments. But it doesn't address the point I'm making, which perhaps I can clarify with a hypothetical situation.

Suppose there is a single-elimination chess tournament which uses normal games. Suppose it's a prize tournament, with a one-year Rook membership at stake. Player A is playing against player B in a semifinal round, and A's rating is slightly higher than B's. Their game reaches a position in which a draw is likely, and A becomes worried, because a draw would eliminate him from the tournament.

Now suppose that at the same time, A is also playing a game of chess against player C. This is just a regular game, not part of any tournament. Suppose A and C have both played well, and have reached a very interesting middlegame position in which any result is possible. Maybe A has a slight advantage.

But then A realizes that if C wins, it will cause A's rating to drop below B's, which would mean that in the event of a draw in the game between A and B, A would advance to the final round of the tournament. A considers the possibilities, and decides that he'll gladly give up a few ratings points to have a better chance at winning a valuable prize. He therefore begins to play poorly in his game against C. Maybe he even resigns prematurely.

Some might say that C should be pleased by this; after all, he won! But if C is like me, he will be upset, because a win isn't worth much if the opponent was trying to lose. C doesn't play games for such meaningless wins; he plays for the experience of trying always to find the best move, the best strategy, against a strong opponent who is doing the same. And C feels that he has been deprived of what could have been an excellent game, simply because the structure of a tournament (in which C was not participating!) gave A an incentive to throw away a game.

In my view, it's best if the rules of a tournament or other competition never give players an incentive to lose. Therefore I would prefer that the higher-rated player advance in the case of a draw.

Granted, situations like the one I've described probably will not occur very often, so I'm not inclined to worry about this much more. But I wanted to make this concern clear so that it could be considered for whatever it's worth.

KotDB: The solution is to play tournaments with multi-win matches. 1-win match is almost equivalent to a normal game but draws are not counted to the result.

Fencer: Agreed, but the point is that if the lower-rated player has the advantage in a tournament game, this creates an incentive for players to intentionally lose non-tournament games in order to improve their chances in the tournament.

KotDB: Generally said, when you play in an elimination tournament, you should play to win, not to draw. Yes, it requires a more risky way of playing but that's just an attribute of this system.

KotDB: But that would be harder to keep track of, harder to verify, & harder to code. ;-)

Fencer: In light of Andre Faria's comment, I think it would be better to use the value from the start of the game. Otherwise there may be a strong incentive for players to lose games.

Thad: The BKR value at the moment of accepting the draw is always used.

Just thinking here. If the lower seated player is to advance in the case of a draw, what happens if Al & Bob are playing a tournament match and Al is higher at the start, but then Al loses a regular game to Carl and his rating goes down to below what Bob's is. Al's was higher at the start of the match, but Bob's was higher at the end. So who advances?

Sorry, I don't have a good solution to this, just thought it should be brought up.

Single Elimination Backgammon #2

6 players still needed - Tourney starts 1 day 19 hours from now.

*added* but I will start it earlier when it fills up.

Very fast 4 players elimination tournament here

Coudy for winning the tournament Backgammon & Hyper 2100+ First 8 (Hyper Backgammon)

furbster: If it would be in a final, I could even lose a game on purpose, just to put my BKR lower, so I could win that tournament... :(

It seems to be that this is not a solution... Imagine a prize tourney being dependent of player's BKR...

furbster: Do not let them play against eachother in the first round. The player who beats the strongest player in the first round wins.

rabbitoid: but what happens if the ratings are so close or even the same eg, 1501 : 1502

rabbitoid: Yes, that's a good idea.

I played last month such a tournament and indeed if a low rated player draws a higher rated player, then the latter on losts. In the first rounds the rating differences were big, but the semi-final was close. (I was knocked out in the quarter final)

Thad: This isn't a problem that only occurs at single elimination unless you play 2 game matches in a normal tournament. By the way, if a game is too unfair (which Chess is certainly not) I wouldn't play it ;-)

rabbitoid: That still leaves a problem in games line Pente where P1 enjoys a strong advantage. For average players, this doesn't really matter, but just as in Chess where strong play on both sides results in a draw, strong play by both sides will produce a win for P1.

Fencer: instead of a "no draw" rule, which impossible to impose in chess, why not fix that in case of a draw the lower rated player stays?

J.T. single elim.I

Luke Skywalker:
I would expect only one, or possibly two if a single-elimination tournament can be defined with two games between each pair of opponents.

But I've observed that the number of slots they tell you to need often has little or nothing to do with the number of slots you actually need. Caveat emptor.

i believe it will be unwise to make single elimination tourney for games boards(chess or checkers) because the possibilities to have draws are high especially on the final rounds unless is used the bkr :)

Luke Skywalker: Game slots are not used for single elimination tournaments. Because you'll never play more than 1 game at the same moment.

Lambik: I might change it.

how many game slots will pawns and knights need for this kind of tournament?

Fencer: With single elimination, it is not possible to "draw" a game. But how about games that could not be won? For example a chess game with not enough material (K+N+N against K for example) or what about the fifty moves rule? Some time ago I had a game with three times the same position, but no automatic draw. Is this doable?

The Sunshine Club has lots of new tournaments, and some Ponds, for anyone interested!


http://brainking.com/en/ShowFellowship?fid=41

Fencer: oh cool!

I didn't realize that they will start as filled! That is awesome!!!!

Luke Skywalker: Yes, this is a known issue. A side effect of new features :-)

I have 2 tourneys set up. Lets try them out!


Single Elimination Backgammon
(set up for 4 players each....)
# Backgammon
# Nackgammon
# Crowded Backgammon
# Hyper Backgammon

Single Elimination Backgammon #2
16 players needed

Luke Skywalker: very good point, in fact i've just been looking for it, adn i decided it'd been deleted since my lunchbreak.

this tourney
http://brainking.com/en/Tournaments?trg=13412&trnst=0
has already started, but not enough people have singed up for some of the games. When the tourn was still in the "signed" state, it stated a deadline of 29 days until those would be deleted.
2 problems:
- the deadline is not stated now
- the tourn is not listed in the "signed" category anymore, so people probably won't find it and won't know that they still can sign up for it.

http://brainking.com/en/Tournaments?trg=13452&trnst=0

Who wants a free membership?

Fencer: aha! you clever devil! (and excellent coder, i might add! ;)

plaintiger: It is currently disabled because I need to test it first. But I'll enable it soon (by uncommenting one line in the source code ).

question: how does one *start* a tournament with an entry fee? i don't see any options for it in the tournament setup pages. thanks...

Fencer: Oh, then I misunderstood this ;) By the way, it's nice to see the tournaments marked after joining.

Retep: It was just an example. Nobody says the prize must be always only 25%. The tournament I've just created has 40% prize for the winner.

Doesn't matter.

I agree with arpa, that's very "unpleasant"! This:

# The tournament will not be started until the first prize reaches at least a double of the entry fee. Players are informed about this status on the tournament page. #

means a prize tournament can't be started with less than 8 players.

Fencer: 1) tomorrow? i don't know this! wonderful!

2) oops ... i change that word in "unpleasant" ok?

arpa: Why don't you wait for tomorrow? The S-B is already fixed, it just needs to be uploaded.
Btw, I don't like the word "stealing".

see Help page

8.6.2) Prize tournaments with an entry fee

instead of .... The tournament will not be started until the first prize reaches at least a double of the entry fee.

8 players it's the same.

same page ....The tournament is defined with these prizes: 25% to the winner, 10% to the second place and 5% to the third place....

I think 60% "loss" is an stealing ... 20% are reasonable (50% 20% 10%).

NECESSARY REWIEW S-B CALCULATION (today are incorrect)!!! see(for example):

http://senseis.xmp.net/?SonnebornBerger

arpa: Huh?

at Dark Battleboats in the tourney Scarlets Springtime Follies".

Sider line 4 first 8 to sign, two games each, under 2000 rating.


http://brainking.com/en/Tournaments?trg=13388&tri=83887&trnst=0

Walter Montego: I am not working on it. But I plan to do so.