Dear all entrants,
Following donations from National12 and Mark Eldridge and money left over from 2011, I am pleased to announce that there will be $750US worth of prizes for 2012.
So now I am seeking feedback on how the entrants feel that the $750US should be split up?
Following donations from National12 and Mark Eldridge and money left over from 2011, I am pleased to announce that there will be $750US worth of prizes for 2012.
So now I am seeking feedback on how the entrants feel that the $750US should be split up?
Hi Garvin
i think you should ask to people that dont participate in the tournament how should be split up the money;if people that expect to be in the top of the tournament answer you,they will tell you that the high amount of money must go for the high prizes,and the people who doesnt expect to be in the top of the tournament,will answer that the prizes must divide more compensat,less money for the high people,and more money more the 'lower' people
so in general terms,i think is better that a person/s that doesnt play the tournament (but that are from the forum and are trusted persons here),are the most indicated persons to answer that question
i think you should ask to people that dont participate in the tournament how should be split up the money;if people that expect to be in the top of the tournament answer you,they will tell you that the high amount of money must go for the high prizes,and the people who doesnt expect to be in the top of the tournament,will answer that the prizes must divide more compensat,less money for the high people,and more money more the 'lower' people
so in general terms,i think is better that a person/s that doesnt play the tournament (but that are from the forum and are trusted persons here),are the most indicated persons to answer that question
Everyone can comment as much as they want and offer suggestions they think are appropriate. That is sometimes how ideas are thrashed out in this event. Then a lot of those suggestions and ideas maybe taken forward, or not at all, depending on the quality of the suggestions.
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
i prefer top 3 prizes or top 4 getting prize money for finishing lower than that is cake but thats my call on things.
Most events pay for top three gold silver and bronze.
Thats my take anyway gl guys
Most events pay for top three gold silver and bronze.
Thats my take anyway gl guys
![[sa]](/mwf/v12/flags/sa.png "Saudi Arabia")
This is a suggestion. Top 3 and 1 lottery pick out of 20 participants (except for the top3 winner) for the effort of joining the tour.
edit
edit
what a good idea the lottery pick from the rest top 3 prizes then one lottery prize i like that
![[es]](/mwf/v12/flags/es.png "Spain")
I also like this idea. As for the top 3, I would go 50% 30% 20%
ok,a suggestion:
prizes for the 10 first persons on the tournament
the winner will receive the 30 %,the second a 15 %,from the 3rd to the 5th a 10 %,and from the 5th to the 10th a 5 % of the total of the money
so the winner a 30 % --- 225 dollars
second a 15 % --------- 112,5 dollars
from 3 to 5, 10 % --------- 75 dollars
from 6 to 10, 5 % ---------- 37,5 dollars
p.s.the arbites (you Garvin) must decide a good system to break the ties before the tournament continues,to avoid fighting betweens players tied in the position
p.s.2 if 2 players ties in a position,prizes can be split adding the prizes and dividing by 2 (or by the number of players tied)
prizes for the 10 first persons on the tournament
the winner will receive the 30 %,the second a 15 %,from the 3rd to the 5th a 10 %,and from the 5th to the 10th a 5 % of the total of the money
so the winner a 30 % --- 225 dollars
second a 15 % --------- 112,5 dollars
from 3 to 5, 10 % --------- 75 dollars
from 6 to 10, 5 % ---------- 37,5 dollars
p.s.the arbites (you Garvin) must decide a good system to break the ties before the tournament continues,to avoid fighting betweens players tied in the position
p.s.2 if 2 players ties in a position,prizes can be split adding the prizes and dividing by 2 (or by the number of players tied)
Don't forget to deduct some money to pay for the winners trophy.
Hi Harvey
we dont need to deduct money to pay for the winners trophy,since ppipper (winner of the last tournament),said he will buy the trophy for the next winner of the tournament
we dont need to deduct money to pay for the winners trophy,since ppipper (winner of the last tournament),said he will buy the trophy for the next winner of the tournament
why you didnt participate in the WBCCC 2 Harvey?
I am concentrating on my ICCF games. I got my Senior International Master title a couple of months ago. I also just finished 2nd in a semi final of the world championship and have qualified for the Candidates tournament starting later this year.
oh,nice reason
im also playing the semifinal of the world championship on the LSS server,and surely will go to the Final
im also playing the semifinal of the world championship on the LSS server,and surely will go to the Final
buena suerte!
you are wellcome Harvey
also,good luck to you!
also,good luck to you!
Are you talking about the 2011 Anniversary tour on LSS? I also qualified for semi-finals in that one along with Sebi. I just looked at where I am standing at the moment in that tour with approx. 400 players, #1, first place 1.5 ahead of second place ATM.
Hi Scott
No,i was talking about the 2014 World Championship Semi-Finals...is the tournament im playing
No,i was talking about the 2014 World Championship Semi-Finals...is the tournament im playing
Well done Harvey on a fantastic achievement.
![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
I also liked top 10 getting the money, I suggested these to go in the spirit of the first season:
1 - $250
2 - $125
3 - $100
4 - $75
5 - $50
6 - $40
7 - $40
8 - $30
9 - $25
10 - $15
(at least I think 3rd should be clearly separated from rest)
However, I've seen discussions in private, and it seems the majority wants prizes only shared between 4 people, see:
Prizes for 10 people: Uly, Barnard.
Prizes for 4 people: David Evans, natmaku, ppipper, + 2 private opinions.
So I extrapolate that the prize for 4 is going to win.
This is what was suggested over there:
1st: $300 US
2nd: $200 US
3rd: $150 US
4th: $100 US
Now, $100 is a big sum, it's what the WBCCC Champion of last season got, so I'd dislike very much if it was given to someone at random from the rest of players in a "lottery". I believe effort should be rewarded, not luck, probably it was luck that made 4th lose third spot anyway.
This lottery money is being taken out from 4th place, and I would really hate if the last place on tournament got it! I'd be okay if it the lottery ticket was minized and the 4th person was still getting their money, something like:
1st: $290 US
2nd: $190 US
3rd: $140 US
4th: $90 US
Lottery ticket: $40
(With prizes being more than twice as much as last season, I really think that 4th place should be included on the prizes.)
1 - $250
2 - $125
3 - $100
4 - $75
5 - $50
6 - $40
7 - $40
8 - $30
9 - $25
10 - $15
(at least I think 3rd should be clearly separated from rest)
However, I've seen discussions in private, and it seems the majority wants prizes only shared between 4 people, see:
Prizes for 10 people: Uly, Barnard.
Prizes for 4 people: David Evans, natmaku, ppipper, + 2 private opinions.
So I extrapolate that the prize for 4 is going to win.
This is what was suggested over there:
1st: $300 US
2nd: $200 US
3rd: $150 US
4th: $100 US
Now, $100 is a big sum, it's what the WBCCC Champion of last season got, so I'd dislike very much if it was given to someone at random from the rest of players in a "lottery". I believe effort should be rewarded, not luck, probably it was luck that made 4th lose third spot anyway.
This lottery money is being taken out from 4th place, and I would really hate if the last place on tournament got it! I'd be okay if it the lottery ticket was minized and the 4th person was still getting their money, something like:
1st: $290 US
2nd: $190 US
3rd: $140 US
4th: $90 US
Lottery ticket: $40
(With prizes being more than twice as much as last season, I really think that 4th place should be included on the prizes.)
well,at the end we found one option we agree
i think the prizes must be rewarded more equaly,thinking we play for fun,not for the money
i think the prizes must be rewarded more equaly,thinking we play for fun,not for the money
I have had this idea for a while, as soon as I found out that prize money might be an option. Instead of some kind of lottery system, perhaps it should go to the person who most 'busts' Nelson's book stats Not sure how this would be measured, but would certainly be interesting.
Not sure how this would be measured, but would certainly be interesting.
Okay, I'd support the "lottery" ticket given to some such achievement like that. Maybe Nelson can tell us what is the most impressive thing that a player could do, my guess would be reaching the highest Draw% game and then winning it, but I have no idea.
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
To me, the biggest achievement is, first, winning a game. If you didn't win you cannot qualify for a prize.
That narrows the field to decisive games only. And among those, there are three ways to be considered:
1. A novelty move in a position that has been seen at least 50 times before, or
2. A very rare move (played less than 1% of the time) in a position that has been seen at least 200 times before
These qualifications are not ranked 1-2; if you meet either or both objectives you are in the running. If nobody meets either objective, then...
3. A subjective decision has to be made as to which two moves from different games best captured the spirit of the above two, assuming there were at least two decisive games.
Obviously nobody has my book but me, so the players will have to trust their own instincts and books to figure odds of their move qualifying. Now, as for who wins the prize if multiple players qualify: being a relative chess ignoramus, I would be the worst person to make that call. Someone with chess knowledge should decide which move is the most brilliant/aesthetic/original/deep/praiseworthy. You guys can decide among yourselves who ought to make the decision.
For my part, I would need to greatly truncate my commentaries on positions so as to not give any direct or indirect clues. That's the disadvantage to all this. For example, I couldn't give draw-rates, as if I did someone might try to break free of an emerging drawn game using unorthodox play. And I couldn't say how many games were left in book, and I couldn't really comment once the game got down to under 500 games in book. Obviously that would reduce my presence. Some might celebrate that, but others might find it too unbearable.
That narrows the field to decisive games only. And among those, there are three ways to be considered:
1. A novelty move in a position that has been seen at least 50 times before, or
2. A very rare move (played less than 1% of the time) in a position that has been seen at least 200 times before
These qualifications are not ranked 1-2; if you meet either or both objectives you are in the running. If nobody meets either objective, then...
3. A subjective decision has to be made as to which two moves from different games best captured the spirit of the above two, assuming there were at least two decisive games.
Obviously nobody has my book but me, so the players will have to trust their own instincts and books to figure odds of their move qualifying. Now, as for who wins the prize if multiple players qualify: being a relative chess ignoramus, I would be the worst person to make that call. Someone with chess knowledge should decide which move is the most brilliant/aesthetic/original/deep/praiseworthy. You guys can decide among yourselves who ought to make the decision.
For my part, I would need to greatly truncate my commentaries on positions so as to not give any direct or indirect clues. That's the disadvantage to all this. For example, I couldn't give draw-rates, as if I did someone might try to break free of an emerging drawn game using unorthodox play. And I couldn't say how many games were left in book, and I couldn't really comment once the game got down to under 500 games in book. Obviously that would reduce my presence. Some might celebrate that, but others might find it too unbearable.
> For my part, I would need to greatly truncate my commentaries on positions so as to not give any direct or indirect clues. That's the disadvantage to all this.
Aw
I've been having a lot of fun following your commentary, and the most interesting thing is indeed draw rate, as that is what seems to have the most predictive power of all statistics (have yet to seen a game escaping from inside the draw event horizon), I'd surely miss that.
Draw-rates are an obscure topic but, as you note, are of much greater consequence than is generally appreciated. Once enough theory has been developed in one of these positions the only wins you see are time losses or hopeless mismatches. It is very rare for a statistically dead-drawn position to suddenly see the emergence of an original move that refutes established theory. Typically that requires intensive analysis that pans out.
Someone with chess knowledge should decide which move is the most brilliant/aesthetic/original/deep/praiseworthy. You guys can decide among yourselves who ought to make the decision.
(Nelson)
i nominate Kappatoo as being atm imo the strongest player on the forum.
(Nelson)
i nominate Kappatoo as being atm imo the strongest player on the forum.
I support Kappatoo as well. I think some extra prize for best game was being planned involving Kappatoo?
yes you are right.
Hey, as most of the prize money is coming from you, I think your opinion of how the money should be shared is important. I think the main questions is if 10 people or only 3-4 would receive it, and whether is better to ensure a prize for 4th place or giving it as a "lottery" in some other manner.
i leave this to Garvin.
Without doubt to Kapatoo. I played him and his chess knowledge is comparable to GM/IM level.
first to agree.
Lets see him enter 2013 then
One more thing...my book is currently up to date through late 2011. I haven't added 2012 games, a pretty substantial number and obviously containing the very latest theory. The reason I haven't included it is that I am going through an enormous project of readjudicating my entire database with the latest generation of engines--something that will take about six months to do, and I am halfway done now. There's not much point building a new book while all that mess is going on. I don't expect to have a current book until July. It would be a lot better if this prize idea were deferred until the second half of the year, as I wouldn't feel right being instrumental in prize monies when my data was not absolutely up to date.
> It would be a lot better if this prize idea were deferred until the second half of the year
The prize idea would only take effect after end of tournament.
Date 2012-04-11 01:52
Prizes for 4
Barnard, if I understand Uly's comments about points and suggestions made in a private sub-forum correctly, the private sub forum is the Rybka Forum moderators section, where what to do with the prize money has been discussed and a few ideas kicked around.
So please withdraw the cowards comment. And while we are at it, an anonymous handle poster is much less likely to start posting if they are being called a coward before they even start posting.
So please withdraw the cowards comment. And while we are at it, an anonymous handle poster is much less likely to start posting if they are being called a coward before they even start posting.
Garvin,im not Uly so i cant know how and what he thinks
so if he knows who voted in a private sub-forum,and that subforum you suggest is the moderators subforum,is something that you must speak with Uly,not with me,since im not moderator and cant know who spoke in that subforum or what were spoke
about the cowards comment,i dont think i must withdraw anything,because it was,and i clearly stated,a general comment about all the persons in general,like i pointed other times,in private by private messages or at public forum,so i i cant understand why you can think im speaking about the moderators,when i never mentioned moderators,or any person,and i clearly stated i was speaking in general
i thought,i think and i will continue thinking that i dont like coward persons...
i dont know why you can think im speaking or insinuating about moderators,since i never mentioned any person and i clearly stated that i was speaking in general
im sorry if we dont agree,but i am like i am,and you are like you are,and he/she is like he/she is,and so on...
but i agree that if i disturb you posting that i dont like coward persons(i dont know why i must disturb you,but you seem disturbed),i must respect you and try to moderate and dont post again,at least in the public part of the forum of the WBCCC 2,respecting the spirit of the chess
so only from the part of faulting to the spirit of the chess with my post,my apologises if i bothered you
so if he knows who voted in a private sub-forum,and that subforum you suggest is the moderators subforum,is something that you must speak with Uly,not with me,since im not moderator and cant know who spoke in that subforum or what were spoke
about the cowards comment,i dont think i must withdraw anything,because it was,and i clearly stated,a general comment about all the persons in general,like i pointed other times,in private by private messages or at public forum,so i i cant understand why you can think im speaking about the moderators,when i never mentioned moderators,or any person,and i clearly stated i was speaking in general
i thought,i think and i will continue thinking that i dont like coward persons...
i dont know why you can think im speaking or insinuating about moderators,since i never mentioned any person and i clearly stated that i was speaking in general
im sorry if we dont agree,but i am like i am,and you are like you are,and he/she is like he/she is,and so on...
but i agree that if i disturb you posting that i dont like coward persons(i dont know why i must disturb you,but you seem disturbed),i must respect you and try to moderate and dont post again,at least in the public part of the forum of the WBCCC 2,respecting the spirit of the chess
so only from the part of faulting to the spirit of the chess with my post,my apologises if i bothered you
Ok, first decision on this matter. From reading Nelson's comments on this matter, I think the idea of a prize for 'busting' Nelson's percentages should be abandoned. For most, his comments and statistics have proven informative, or at least interesting. I have not received one private message complaint abou the release of the statistics, so I want to see them continue in the form they currently are.
Also, as Nelson's observes, awarding a prize for this could be rather subjective, as in which is more important criteria. A concern I have is that Nelson's stats might say that a move refutes his book, but then someone else's book says that the move played is well within theirs. Unlikely, but I would rather avoid that situation.
So I think just a straight 1st to 4th prize structure seems most acceptable to most.
Also, as Nelson's observes, awarding a prize for this could be rather subjective, as in which is more important criteria. A concern I have is that Nelson's stats might say that a move refutes his book, but then someone else's book says that the move played is well within theirs. Unlikely, but I would rather avoid that situation.
So I think just a straight 1st to 4th prize structure seems most acceptable to most.
> So I think just a straight 1st to 4th prize structure seems most acceptable to most.
Yes, this was your original proposal:
1st: $300 US
2nd: $200 US
3rd: $150 US
4th: $100 US
And as NATIONAL12 will support it because he's leaving it up to you, I'll also support it.
You might have a structure exactly as you propose but with an additional "Brilliancy Prize" equivalent to a nominal sum, maybe $50? Subjectivity is completely unavoidable in such an award and must be embraced. All moves only represent a conveyance from one position of pieces to another. Judging one move as better than another must perforce involve judgment.
> You might have a structure exactly as you propose but with an additional "Brilliancy Prize" equivalent to a nominal sum, maybe $50?
Yes, NATIONAL12 is proposing that and willing to put those $50 as extra prize money
, with the condition of Kappatoo being the judge, based on his OTB skills.
Why not the over-all best game of the whole tournament? we can have the candidates based on best games in each round
Ok, since there has been no discussion on this item in the last couple of days, if there are no further comments before 2359 GMT Friday 20th April, then the prize structure will be:
1st: $300 US
2nd: $200 US
3rd: $150 US
4th: $100 US
and there will be a $50 US best game of the tournament prize, to be judged by Kappatoo.
Garvin Gray
WBCCC Arbiter
1st: $300 US
2nd: $200 US
3rd: $150 US
4th: $100 US
and there will be a $50 US best game of the tournament prize, to be judged by Kappatoo.
Garvin Gray
WBCCC Arbiter
........................,,-~*~,,
......................./:.:.:.:.:.|
......................|;.;.;.;.;./
......................|.;.;.;.;.|
............._,,,,,_.).;.;.;.;.|
.........,,-":.:.:.:."~-,;.;.;.|
........(_,,,,---,,_:.:.);.;.;..",,
......,-":.:.:.:.:.""-,,/;.;.;.;.;.",
.....(:.__,,,,,,,,,___);.;.;.;.;.;|
...../"":.:.:.:.:.:.:¯""\;.;.;.;.;.,"
....\",__,,,,,,,,,,,__/;;;;;;;;;/\
.....\.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.);;;;;;;;;/:\
.......\,,,,,---~~~~;;;;;;;;,"::::\
.........."""~~--,,,,,,,,,,-"::::::::::\
...................\::::::::::::::::::::::\
Like!
......................./:.:.:.:.:.|
......................|;.;.;.;.;./
......................|.;.;.;.;.|
............._,,,,,_.).;.;.;.;.|
.........,,-":.:.:.:."~-,;.;.;.|
........(_,,,,---,,_:.:.);.;.;..",,
......,-":.:.:.:.:.""-,,/;.;.;.;.;.",
.....(:.__,,,,,,,,,___);.;.;.;.;.;|
...../"":.:.:.:.:.:.:¯""\;.;.;.;.;.,"
....\",__,,,,,,,,,,,__/;;;;;;;;;/\
.....\.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.);;;;;;;;;/:\
.......\,,,,,---~~~~;;;;;;;;,"::::\
.........."""~~--,,,,,,,,,,-"::::::::::\
...................\::::::::::::::::::::::\
Like!
All discussions regarding potential coward postings have been moved here: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=24752 Feel free to continue your discussions there as it is off topic for this important topic.
who was writing about 'coward postings'?did you read any post of me mentioning that?
i clearly stated i was speaking in general terms and just about coward persons,not coward postings,so in essence,that post you recently wrote is totally wrong
ok,you want move the discussion,and as a moderator you can do it,i close my mouth.nothing more
i clearly stated i was speaking in general terms and just about coward persons,not coward postings,so in essence,that post you recently wrote is totally wrong
ok,you want move the discussion,and as a moderator you can do it,i close my mouth.nothing more
> who was writing about 'coward postings'? Did you read any post of me mentioning that?
Your post was the first that mentioned cowards. The conversation continued on for a few posts. Had it stopped then, I would have just left it, but since then there has been some more discussion. Considering that this is occurring in an important thread, and that the discussion is of a more general nature and is not really relating the topic of prizes anymore, I branched it. The thread has not been closed and nothing has been deleted from my end.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill