Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Freestyle should tighten rules to restore some credibility
- - By nuff (**) Date 2007-06-26 09:10
The “mouse-slip” in the Mission Control/Ultra-D game and then the subsequent “donation” of a 32 node cluster by Mission Control to Ultra-D leaves the freestyle looking like a village pumpkin. This sort of “business” could be worse if the 3 points for a win proposal is implemented. If the players form a team like the flyingfatman and then juggle with one nick that may be tolerated. How do the players who were knocked out by Mission Control/Ultra-D, feel if something untoward was going on? Do they get their money back? Do they stop Freestyle altogether? Quite an interesting conversation was going on in the chat and there seems to be more than meets the eye.
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2007-06-26 12:15
Well, to be honest, this IS "Freestyle" and as things stand hardware donations are an integral part of the game.  Moreover people trying to cut deals to get a share of the prize money is not unheard of either. 

It is not dishonest to shift your hardware around during the tournament; we had to do it ourselves after a quad went down.  And from one round to the next we might rearrange our setup for some specific purpose. 

Basically there are very few rules and as things stand I don't see how establishing unenforceable regulations would do anything except institutionalize a climate of paranoia and promote debilitating accusations of cheating.  Our team wasn't happy to face a 32-core with black two times (in addition to facing all three of the top centaurs aside from ourselves with black), or get black pieces five times despite finishing in the top five in qualifiers, but that's how it goes.  We kept buggering on and despite the bad breaks we're satisfied with the outcome.
Parent - - By Alkelele (****) Date 2007-06-26 13:21 Edited 2007-06-26 13:25

>(in addition to facing all three of the top centaurs aside from ourselves with black)


True, I didn't really notice it until the end of the tournament, but we were perhaps somewhat lucky to get white vs. both you, Rentner2, and Rajlich. We badly wanted to win one of those games -- they were like small match-points (like in tennis, when you have the chance to break and can serve the match home). I personally felt it like the tournament win gradually but surely slipped out of our hands, with King Vas taking over the lead as the most natural and certain thing in the world. It was depressing ;-)

Btw, the last round was a thrill, in particular your game vs. Rentner2. I don't know about the SB scores, but just seeing how you and Rentner2 fought it out until the very end, giving everything you had left after 3 long days under extreme time-pressure, well, it was nerve-wrecking. Our team was chatting on MSN, cheering for first a black win, then a draw, and suddenly you guys "did your thing" and turned things around out of seemingly nowhere. Rentner2 kept his cool and secured the draw in nice fashion, phew... And who says draws are boring?

I agree that establishing unenforceable regulations does not seem like a very promising idea. Two fairly reasonable ideas have been thrown around in the recent days:

1) A knock-out format (for the finals only).
2) Doing without finals, but with 12 rounds over 2 weekends instead (and people should feel free to leave after the first weekend).

I kind of like the second idea, though on the other hand, the finals have so far been very nice culminations of the tournaments (and swan-dives could still be a problem in such a format). A third and reasonable option is to proceed as usual, and then deal with problems as they come on a case by case basis.

I personally think I am about to reach the conclusion that there is no good way to deal with multiple nicks -- in other words, they should be considered fair game -- and then attempts should just be made to make sure that swan-dives are a less likely scenario.

At any rate, it would be very nice, if

a) the rules (seedings etc.) were made entirely clear before the event.
b) there was more transparency in the decision process of the organizers, so that decisions could be openly discussed.

As an example, I'm still quite annoyed by the introduction of a random seeding before the 4th and now 5th final -- I don't think any participants requested this, but many have expressed their dislike of this (and the big delay in the announcement of the final pairings), so why change something that everybody expected and found fair?
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2007-06-26 14:51
Hear, hear.  Now someone is talking sense.

The only rule-change I would strongly endorse (even if it adversely affected our team) is that multiple nicks should be clearly known to the tournament organizers beforehand and any games between same-owner nicks should immediately be declared draw without any moves being played.  This should be true in both qualifiers and finals.  With every 0.5 being so precious there should be no room for disgusting giveaways.  While multiple nicks are a benefit, they need a compensating disadvantage too, otherwise the hardware-rich will enter an unlimited number of entries and manipulate the tournament.  Anyone found to be playing multiple nicks without full and truthful disclosure to the TD should be disqualified and banned for one tournament for the first offense and indefinitely if they don't have the right attitude.

Re a knockout format...wouldn't THAT be nerve-wracking!  Can you just imagine us fighting to the death, one side obligated to actually lose a game?  Why, the losing side (that would be your side) might be traumatized so badly it could require hospitalization.  Don't you feel it is better to maintain your pristine reputation instead of having your team's matching polka-dot underwear exposed with a defeat?  (Seriously, Dagh, it would be a hell of a show...just remember, "age and treachery always defeat youth and skill.")

Personally I like the second idea better too, with two additions.  If there are people tied with the same score at the end of twelve rounds there should be a knockout tournament the following weekend (or whenever the players can agree) if there are two tied, or a double round-robin if there are three or four.  If five or more a single round-robin.  And seedings should definitely not be random.  And I totally agree, all the rules should be spelled out clearly and unambiguously well beforehand.
Parent - - By Lee Ma Hong (**) Date 2007-06-26 16:29
multiple nicks should be clearly known to the tournament organizers beforehand and any games between same-owner nicks should immediately be declared draw without any moves being played.

or the organizers can pair them to play in the first round if they don't agree to halve the point.
Parent - By David Evans (****) Date 2007-06-26 16:40
Yes i agree but suj had one nick and i had one who happened to lend me some hardware on the third day.

after we had played each other not before.

all team in final should be stated to organizers beforhand i agree to stop this who have they got behind the nicks rubbish
Parent - By Vasik Rajlich (Silver) Date 2007-06-27 14:12
A knockout does have certain advantages. It tends to leave a more clear winner. In the existing format, the top guys often draw with each other and win by scoring more points against the rest of the field. This is less satisfying for the winner (and less humiliating for the loser).

Vas
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2007-06-26 18:12
I agree that a longer Swiss would make for a better match although being a masochist, I would go for two weekends at 8 games per weekend for a total of 16 games rather than the 12 games you propose (and still less than the current 17 games).

I don't think any of the problems associated with multiple teams or agreements between teams can be solved in a reasonable manner.

I think the hardware situation will at some point be destabilizing. I didn't realize how underpowered I was with my 2 year old dual. I'm too much of a cheapskate to put a server farm in my house just for freestyle, but it seems like this may be where the competition is headed.

Regards,
Alan
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2007-06-26 19:21
If you look at it in terms of a cost-benefit analysis you will quit computer chess altogether, let alone Freestyle.  Freestyle is about as practical as buying a top-of-the-line Lamborghini for daily commuting.  It is about as practical as being married to Paris Hilton with a prenuptual agreement that stipulates that you get zero money from the Hilton estate but you must maintain her in the lifestyle to which she was accustomed before she was in the clink.
Parent - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2007-06-26 20:38
"If you look at it in terms of a cost-benefit analysis you will quit computer chess altogether, let alone Freestyle."

Obvious and true.

"Freestyle is about as practical as buying a top-of-the-line Lamborghini for daily commuting."

Not even close. A top-of-the-line Lamborghini attracts a fair number of very good looking gold diggers that aren't too particular about other things. Trust me on this one...

"It is about as practical as being married to Paris Hilton with a prenuptual agreement that stipulates that you get zero money from the Hilton estate but you must maintain her in the lifestyle to which she was accustomed before she was in the clink."

I don't understand the whole Paris Hilton thing, but my understanding is that she is actually a self made woman in that she didn't have a huge inheritance. You have to give her credit for achieving this with absolutely no brains or talent.

Regards,
Alan
Parent - - By David Evans (****) Date 2007-06-26 14:52
i have made it quite clear in my post in boards that suj lent me one his machines after the mission loss if u go and read the post.

I had a hard time in final losing a team member and only had a quad to work with maybe suj felt sorry for me and lent me some extra Ghz.

Anyway check the rentner2 Kloster game rentner resigned with 53 secs on the glock in a dread draw postion is anyone saying he maybe did this to get kloster in the top three i ask.

A mouse slip is a mouse slip ask vas he did one against ultra-d in last pal and missed the finals it can happen and it will continue to happen as long as i have hands.

I have one point maybe the players that make the final must make clear there team members before hand..

Ultra-d
Parent - - By nuff (**) Date 2007-06-26 16:09
Here are chat extracts :-

Cato the Younger (To all): Ultra-d is the same person as Mission
Control (Suj), He just used his 32-core machine with Ultra-D
against me in Round 8 to make it harder for me to get a point.
Just so you know... I played vs "Mission Control" twice and not
against the machine of Ultra-d.
Parent - - By David Evans (****) Date 2007-06-26 16:34
In round 8 i had access to a 32 machine via remote mission control stated this to cato in msn.

But was was not the same team same hardware is not same team.

thanks
Parent - - By Intagrand (*) Date 2007-06-27 15:19
I guess it was the message after the game from Ultra-d along the lines of "gg Anson, btw suj here." That led me to believe that Suj was behind the nick. I guess it doesn't really matter, but did you give Suj your login details so that he could login and play on his machine for you?
Parent - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2007-06-27 21:18
I think the more relevant question is if (and when) he sent Suj his book. Playing as a pure engine, the book and the engine settings completely define the system state.

Regards,
Alan
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2007-06-26 18:36
Yes, as you should be able to see from the other posts around, this is one in which Cato the Younger was mistaken :-)
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2007-06-26 19:14
Yes, we confess we were mistaken (Anson made the remark; he was rather upset at the time).  I have already tendered an apology to Suj, and on behalf of Anson I publicly do so for Ultra-d.  You were not the same player, and you guys were not really in cahoots, though you used the same machine!

Nonetheless...we would have played differently had we known we were facing a 32-core as black (again).  There is no telling if the final outcome would have changed; perhaps not, as we would have played more cautiously than we did.  But if we had lost that game (and we were not doing so well for most it because we were overconfident) it would have been quite a nasty trick and a classic example of "playing possum".  You kind of expect an opponent to play more or less consistently, not amping up power 4x or 8x between rounds.

But again, this is Freestyle.
Parent - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2007-06-26 21:14
Yes, I knew you had nothing malicious on your mind--I was just mentioning this because that quote has been used more and more lately.
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Freestyle should tighten rules to restore some credibility

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill