Seeding Proceedings

[Desert Dave]

I am going to propose a new, and perhaps controversial idea.

If it is not advisable, we will know soon enough. Very few, if any, will post to this thread, yes?

Rationales:

1) A tournament that would include many of the players on this board would, IMHO, require some sorting process so that you don't end up with the 16 best players on one side of the bracket. Incidentally, I would be willing to participate in any such tourney, provided there is one rule: NO public accusations of cheating. This would be handled in private e-mail ONLY.

2) Any potential match-ups would be easier to consider and undertake if we had some idea of how the other person rates themselves.

This may not work, or may be locked, I don't know.

***But, there is one HARD & FAST rule: You can only rate yourself, and one or at maxium two others who are EQUAL TO or HIGHER RATED THAN YOU ARE.

Guidelines:

1) If you do not like this idea of comparative game playing, please do not post.

2) NO flaming or criticism of any other, of ANY kind.

3) Keep your explanations/comments about yourself or another to 3 LINES or less.

4) Be HONEST as you can, please, no SANDBAGGING! If you do under-rate yourself too much, and several others rate you very highly, then we will know. If you are good, say so straight out.

Now, keep in mind that all is relative, and just because you played one game that you did quite well in, or conversely, quite poorly in, due to poor research or too much distraction or whatever, DOESN'T necessarily prove much of anything.

We are after GENERAL skill, so to make a tournament balanced and to help find opponents.

And, remember this: you are rating against the best players in the world (... or at least, the most INTERESTED) and so to be rated, say -- middling on this board, is akin to being rated top 5% in a general game-playing forum, yes?

And besides, many just play the game for fun, and don't really care where they stand.

______________________________________

Now, assume there is a tournament board, with 16 participants. Where do you and 1 or 2 (ONLY!) opponents rank on that board?

I will start.

Immer Etwas - rated #9. A little too impulsive and inclined to risk much without sufficient gain. Otherwise, fairly determined.

Opponent: Bill Macon - rated #1. It's hard for me to imagine, after 40+ yrs of playing WW2 games, anyone who could be better.

Anyone else?

[Jim Boggs]

IMMER,

I think this is a great idea. Couple of questions.

1. Is there any way the games could be played with a neutral third party moderator? Is this technically feasible?

2. Would the players be willing to post on a turn-by-turn basis to the forum as zappsweden and terif have done with their classic battle?

3. Maybe it would be wise to have a random drawing for the first tournament to establish pairings as I am afraid the self-seeding might in fact lead to either sandbagging by the good players or over-the-top confidence by some not so great players and skew the actual seedings from the start.

4. If this tournament could be put together in such a way as to guarantee fair play, I might know someone willing to put up $500, say, for the winner. (I don't know if this is legal, I would think it would be okay though).

Anyway, I get excited just thinking about it.

GOOD POST!

[pzgndr]

Gee thanks. Now I've got this darn bulls-eye on my back! Down, Rambo, down! :eek:

Does anyone recall the specifics of the old Avalon Hill AREA ratings? Maybe we could resurrect that system and either Hubert or Otto could maintain a listing.

I'd like to remind folks that we should settle on whatever tournament scenario and rules offer the best play balance prior to going at it like killing snakes. My Campaign mods may satisfy that requirement, with or without some additional tweaking. I'm still looking for more feedback, or for someone else to offer something better.

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

1) A tournament that would include many of the players on this board would, IMHO, require some sorting process so that you don't end up with the 16 best players on one side of the bracket.

I would agree to that statement

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

Incidentally, I would be willing to participate in any such tourney, provided there is one rule: NO public accusations of cheating. This would be handled in private e-mail ONLY.

YES No distractions from the game they are childish and as far as i can see baseless.

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

2) Any potential match-ups would be easier to consider and undertake if we had some idea of how the other person rates themselves.

I don't think this would work

Maybe start a seperate thread nominate a judge that has been in this game since it's inception, Is a Top notch player, And has the time to do the ratings himself. That could be a basis to start with and it would of course be adjusted by the tournements outcome.

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

3) Keep your explanations/comments about yourself or another to 3 LINES or less.

I unfortuanately have not been here long enough even to give a rough estimate of my standing in the comunity

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

Immer Etwas - rated #9. A little too impulsive and inclined to risk much without sufficient gain. Otherwise, fairly determined.

See you rate yourself #9 but there is not even a list of players? I don't even have a clue how many there are? 10? 20? 100? 1000? .....

:confused:

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by Jim Boggs:

1. Is there any way the games could be played with a neutral third party moderator? Is this technically feasible?

Wow I think that's asking alot.

Originally posted by Jim Boggs:

2. Would the players be willing to post on a turn-by-turn basis to the forum as zappsweden and terif have done with their classic battle?

This would be great and I think It Would Deserve A ENTIRELY NEW Forum. One without comments are debates nothing but Games and Moves.

Originally posted by Jim Boggs:

4. If this tournament could be put together in such a way as to guarantee fair play, I might know someone willing to put up $500, say, for the winner. (I don't know if this is legal, I would think it would be okay though).

Yes it is legal in the U.s. anyway. I have been in Money tournements my entire adult life (I'm Pool Player)

Not only that it would give those that feel they are Competative but don't join out of time constraints or whatever reason, That little Extra "OK it's justified".

Originally posted by Jim Boggs:

Anyway, I get excited just thinking about it.

Me Too

[ January 10, 2003, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Hueristic ]

[Jim Boggs]

BILL:

If I recall the AREA rating by Avalon Hill was used in their Play by Mail feature (remember using the stock market for your die results).

Each player rated himself A,B,C,D based on his own perception of his abilities. I don't think there was any scientific method used to establish the rating, other than if you rated yourself an A and got squashed in your first game, you could re-rate yourself.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

What I know about ladders ratings and such can be summed up as bugger all.

But has anyone yet thought of checkingout any sites that do feature this sort of thing yet?

This site is one I know of that might be able assist in setting something up for the SC mob.

http://www.theblitz.org/index.php

Like I said, I know squat about how to make the tournament work right, but a quick email to these guys (or others like them) might be the fastest way to get the bestest answers

[Hueristic]

BTW if this Pans out I would probally be willing to Crack down and Write a Turn Saver so that any Cheaters Could be found out . But I'm rather lazy and if it all turns out to be nothing but hot-air I will wait till it's all setup to proceed on that.

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

Gee thanks. Now I've got this darn bulls-eye on my back! Down, Rambo, down! :eek:

Hmm u have a very low number too Hmmm

<Scratches head> Hmmm been around since Beta? Hmmm

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1b:

What I know about ladders ratings and such can be summed up as bugger all.

Me Niether. Someone had mentioned A Tennis type Rateing System. I do know that system is nice because even if you don't play for awhile you gradually fall down the list. That would be nice for instance in a year from now the old #1 seed reappeared after "War Iraq The sequel" He would still be on the ladder somewhere.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Jim Boggs:

1. Is there any way the games could be played with a neutral third party moderator? Is this technically feasible?

2. Would the players be willing to post on a turn-by-turn basis to the forum as zappsweden and terif have done with their classic battle?

3. Maybe it would be wise to have a random drawing for the first tournament to establish pairings as I am afraid the self-seeding might in fact lead to either sandbagging by the good players or over-the-top confidence by some not so great players and skew the actual seedings from the start.

4. If this tournament could be put together in such a way as to guarantee fair play, I might know someone willing to put up $500, say, for the winner. (I don't know if this is legal, I would think it would be okay though).

1) This I'm not sure of, someone more familiar with technical issues will have to help out here.

2) Why not? But, perhaps a separate forum/thread would work best, depends on what the moderators would recommend.

3) I thought about this, and agree with your premise that it would be nigh impossible to establish truly accurate ratings. However, my guess is that MOST players would be fairly straight with their ratings, since they wouldn't care to be annihilated in the first round.

As for sand-bagging, you would find that the bell curve would be normal, in that just as many players would over-rate, as under-rate, so in a large enough tournament it would mostly equalize competition.

Mainly, I wanted to get the process started since we have probably have many months before SC2 is announced (... Please!) and features debated.

4) I'm not clear on monetary prizes either, and would defer to those in the know. I sure wouldn't mind it!

Heuristic: The parameters were 16 participants on the board. When I rated myself #9, I am honestly saying that I would be in the middle of that particular pack, with every good intention of moving on up!

Bill: Sorry, I didn't intend to place any bulls eye, but my personal opinion is that you would have to be in upper seeding level.

True enough, a general A,B,C,D sytem sounds good. Just as in computer rankings of college football teams, this general rating could rise or fall depending on tournament performances.

[82ndReady]

Strangly enough I was about to Post that I have an idea for a Head-2-Head Compeition web site where a third party based on set rules that would determine Ratings and Experience of each SC player! I was going to ask for help in the programming area and also that I would host this on my machine since i can dedicate hard drive space and an IP to it....well here goes ..can anybody or is anyone willing to help here????

heres what I have so far as rules and the idea, it's open to more ideas or imporvement of course!

Player Information

Name

SC Forum Name

Email

Playable IP Address

Time Zone

Can you Host? yes ( ) No ( )

Rating SC player 1 – 10 (This is per Side(Axis or Allied)

0 = New Sign up

10 =Expert (40+ Wins, Losses will reduce your overall rating)

Experience per member 0 – 100+ (To achieve 100+ one must play 100 games complete!)

There will be 2 ways to gain Head-to-Head play;

Automatic choice by Head-2-Head Board.

Challenge posted by member for another member to compete in Head-2-Head SC Play.

Example

Member #A

Allied Rating 4

Axis Rating 5

Overall Experience 36

Member #B

Allied Rating 1

Axis Rating 7

Overall Experience 32

Head-2-Head competition - Auto Challenge

(Auto challenge will determine player side and Rating based on player availability)

Member #A (AXIS) Member #B(ALLIED)

(Member #B was determined to have played an excessive amount of AXIS games and will require ALLIED game time!)

Head-2-Head competition – Manual

Manual challenger would pick sides and send email to opponent regardless of Rating or availability!

Regardless of the type of challenge it will hold on system for no more than 24 hours or until new challenge has been presented before the 24 hour time period has ended and accepted.

To determine wins Head-2-Head play must be achieved and completed. Reporting is achieved by both players of Head-2-Head challenge . If one side records outcome and other does not then game is forfeited. Each reported completed win or loss .25 will be appllied to player Allied or Axis rating.

[ January 10, 2003, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: 82ndReady ]

[pzgndr]

Jim, AREA didn't have anything to do with PBEM rules. As I recall, everyone started at .500 and that number got adjusted based on victory or loss. The adjustment was weighted somehow based on how good the two players were. I never got into it, but the system seemed to work well for the many years it was maintained.

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

With money on the line you are going to multiply the accusations of cheating, code manipulating, save tampering, etc that occured in the last tournament.

You really would need a third party moderator for this. Someone impartial and not involved in the tournament.

But how to do it, I currently don't know. I could suggest a system if everyone lived in the same local area, but alas we do not.

D'oh.

[Jim Boggs]

IMMER:

Sometimes it pays to work at a Brewery with a discretionary promo budget. I will personally guarantee the availablity of a $500 first prize to the winner of the First Immer Etwas SC Tournament of Champions.

The one and only condition is that there has to be a way to guarantee both fairness and play balance. (Maybe that's two conditions?)

Anyway, Battlefront has my e-mail address (ha ha)

and if this thing goes, they may contact me to arrange the transfer of funds.

Immer-you may have to have a few preliminary rounds just to get down to 16 players.

I LOVE THIS GAME

Bill-You are probably correct, senility is a terrible thing, but I do remember that the AH General would have an opponents wanted section to Play by (Regular) Mail, and they had some sort of Alphabetic code so you wouldn't end up playing Rambo in your first game. Anyway I can rummage through my old war games closet tonight, I think that I can turn up something on the AREA system, unless it was a Play by E-mail which I have no experience with.

[ January 10, 2003, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: Jim Boggs ]

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Konstatin V. Kotelnikov:

You really would need a third party moderator for this. Someone impartial and not involved in the tournament.

But how to do it, I currently don't know.

Seems like you truly would need that 3rd party moderator, for the kinds of reasons that you have stated. 82ndReady has some really good ideas about it already, so perhaps he is the one to organize the project?

My feeling is that this idea CAN work, and I would be willing to spend personal time to help out... please realize that I may not be the best choice, since my knowledge of computer workings is not very good... in fact, is highly suspect, so, perhaps there are enough computer whizzes to get it set up. Otherwise, I would do what I could with what spare knowledge I possess.

[Desert Dave]

Jim,

You are being quite gracious about this, but I'm not so sure that my specific name on the tournament would greatly recommend it. :eek:

After all, many, many others have been playing around with this idea for some time, so the credit belongs with them as much or more than with me.

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by 82ndReady:

Strangly enough I was about to Post that I have an idea for a Head-2-Head Compeition web site where a third party based on set rules that would determine Ratings and Experience of each SC player!

Wow looks like you put alot of thought into it. Maybe you should talk to Otto and Work Hand in hand. As he has Proclaimed to be the Host of the next Tourney. Maybe We can have "Cups". for instance differnet Sites for diffenet topurneys at different time of the year. Each site useing a diffent Mod/Scenerio. We would probally see different Winners for different Mods Sort of like Diffenert Courses In Tennis.

[82ndReady]

Thanks Immer Etwas , I would be happy to!

I have posted my ideas on this subject in this thread,but does anybody have anything else to add or have something new in mind?

Also im calling out to the VBScript programmers or JVScript programmers who understand what is needed here and are willing to take on this project?

This is great, we need something like this for SC....

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by Konstatin V. Kotelnikov:

But how to do it, I currently don't know.

It's called a "Turn Saver"

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Originally posted by Hueristic:

It's called a "Turn Saver"

I saw that, but How does it work? And how does in guarantee no cheating?

[Jim Boggs]

To: Mr. Bill Macon

Here's a surprise, you were absolutely correct about AREA. I dug up an old manual that desribes a rating system called Ultra which mentions the AREA rating sytem as you describe it. They provide a chart with a vertical column called Rating Difference that is in increments of 100 and ranges from 600+ to -600. Horizontally is a Victory Level chart containing 5 categories of victory (Stalemate, Pyrrhic, Marginal, Tactical, and Decisive). By matching the difference rating to the level of victory you receive or lose points from your overall rating. For example, if Rambo beat me with a decisive victory (Rating Difference +600) he would gain and I would lose 0.98 points. If I had beaten him decisively, again with him having a +600 rating, I would gain and he would lose 31.02 points.

Obviously these are the two extreme examples but I know you get the idea. If everyone started evenly the victory levels would be:

Stalemate 0.00

Pyrrhic 1.60

Marginal 4.80

Tactical 11.20

Decisive 16.00

In addition the scenarios are weighted with a multiplier with a range of 1-4. For example given the above scenario at the hardest scenario rating the points earned would be multiplied by 4.

I suppose this could work, but I believe it would take a couple of preliminary rounds to establish seedings if everyone starts at the same level and let their level of victory determine their initial ranking. If this thing works out perhaps Battlefront would be agreeable to maintaining

everyone's current ranking.

Oh well I leave the math to you, I've read your discourse with Hubert on probability and such and you are way above my plane.

Anyway, thanks for not using the term "dumb donkey" in your reply, as it was certainly applicable. This board is worth fighting for.

[JerseyJohn]

Immer -- Jim, Heuristic, 82nd, Bill, Konstantin, Les . . ..

Great Idea, Great Thread. I've had extensive experience playing in chess Tournaments and some experience in organizing and running them. I say this so when I say the following it won't seem as though I'm pulling it out of nowhere.

Standards sound great but most people, when competing, don't stick to them. When I was playing [chess] the tactics I had most trouble contering had nothing to do with the pieces on the board. It was cigarette smoke in my face, loud foot tapping, extensive caughing fits while my clock was running, one guy kicking me under the table till I assured him I'd show how it was really done when I caught him outside -- well, you get the picture. Away from competition all these people were perfectly civilized. Hell, they were chess geeks, downright boring drones!

Having said that I have to add the disclaimer that many players never resorted to such nonsense, but all too many did.

The above remarks are in relations to tournaments that were played live, in an open meeting place, with a tournament director and assistants right on the spot. Yet there was still cheating (not changing positions, which is impossible among good players who keep everything memorized, but other forms of cheating) and all manner of manipulation for designed not so much for the sake of winning but for the purpose of getting the other guy to lose.

You won't have the advantage of running things on the spot and live, etc., so you'll have to largely rely on an honor system.

Tournaments are comparatively easy to organize but very hard to control, especially under these conditions.

An alternative would be some sort of match system. Players have individual matches of two games and results are kept track of so there can be ratings. Over the course of time a certain level rating entitles a person to be included in the annual championship. I don't recommend a cash prize gracious though Jim's off is. Do it for bragging rights, that way nobody goes to idiotic extremes. Cheating and uncalled for behavior results in explusion from the rated membership. That way there's something earned at stake and participants will behave in a mannerly fashion.

I'm sure this all sounds very Victorian Era, and it is, but crawl before you walk and walk before you run. The first thing I recommend to fledgling chessplayers is they study master games beginning in the early 19th century. They rarely take my advice and years later I invariably see they never learned the early lessons and will never master the mature skills.

Allow me to conclude that I am not a tournament player in anything these days but if you'd like a non-player to help in the organization of these things, I volunteer to bring my stodgy and prudish approach to the project and hopefully it would be tolerable to others.

[ January 10, 2003, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Jim Boggs]

dadgum it JJ

You are of course absolutely correct. If there is no way to eliminate cheating than the monetary prize is too big a temptation. So here's another thought. Use the money to invest in printing a turn-by-turn screen shot replay of the final match with the two players commenting on thir thoughts and actions. This could be a worthy reward for the winner and I would be willing to buy a copy if Battlefront decided to market it as a Strategy Guide. I can see it now Bill (sorry for the target)Macon vs Rambo in the finals with a turn-by-turn replay with screen shots. To quote a famous intellectual from the 80"s "That would RULE!"

After following zappsweden and terif's excellent thread, my pulse quickened and Immer's idea of a seeded playoff seemed like an excellent plan.

At this point I will leave it up to the powers in charge.

[ January 11, 2003, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: Jim Boggs ]

[JerseyJohn]

Jim

Sounds good and I second the motion. A strategy guide by actual play-rated commentators would be a great idea. :cool: