So I thought I would post this here first so I can get some organisational detail sorted out before posting on the main RF board.
Would it be possible to use xfcc play for all games?
Is there a way where the games could be shown live, both on here and at ficgs. I know this would require some work between the two boards, but was wondering if it is technically possible?
The playing format would look something like:
1) Time control 30 moves initial plus 1 day increment
2) All individual matches are two games
3) Players are to play in rating order. - RF now does have some kind of rating system, at least for WBCCC participants. I think more of their players have also come over to here, so have ratings here.
4) We possibly could use xfcc play, which would allow conditionals to be used, but might mean all the games are played and shown at RF. - Might be possible to have them shown here somehow 'live'.
So, time to get some interest. Who would be willing to participate?
Rybka Forum Vs. FICGS is officially over on a tie! The second match can begin, and I suggest the name:
FICGS Vs. Rybka Forum
Since it's the come back match.
I suggest you ask Dadi by private message if we could use XfccPlay.
And I hope we don't have as many time forfeits as we had, 75% of the decided games were on the clock!
> And I hope we don't have as many time forfeits as we had, 75% of the decided games were on the clock!
What you need is a shorter time control. Just look at how many games are decided on the board in WBCCC!
> What you need is a shorter time control. Just look at how many games are decided on the board in WBCCC!
The time control will be 30 moves initial time plus 1 day increment per move from move one till end of the game.
I see the irony but it works!
Also, this was the time control that caused so many time forfeits at FICGS:
20 days, increment : 20 days / 10 moves
Reading the discussion again, it seems this was as close as we could get to forum time controls, and now I see this is way slower than WBCCC time controls.
> Time control 30 moves initial plus 1 hour increment!
Huh?? Is there a word or two missing there?
I think for a more normal correspondence event, the 1 day increment is required. I am also weary that not all ficgs players are keen on the WBCCC style of event and so this should be run with differences, one being the time control which can be a cause of conflict.
So to increase the chances of quite a few ficgs players participating, I think the 30 days initial, plus 1 day increment is required.
A time control I would not mind experimenting with is: 30 days initial and only when 1 player gets to zero time does the increment start for both players. So something like: 30 days initial, followed by 3 days per move. This time control can cause issues though because of players believing they have won when one of the players gets to zero initial time and then both players start getting the increment.
The second player would still keep their bank of initial time, so if they had 10 days left of initial time, they would be starting the second time control with 10 days plus 3 days per move.
> Huh?? Is there a word or two missing there?
I just copied your statement from first post:
>1) Time control 30 moves initial plus 1 day increment
And changed day for hour.
Okay, I see 1 hour increment is too extreme, I'd still wonder about what the FICGS players would think about 60 moves initial plus 1 hour increment (slow blitz? I don't know, it still seems like plenty of time to play but I don't know if it's still too fast for them.)
>30 days initial and only when 1 player gets to zero time does the increment start for both players. So something like: 30 days initial, followed by 3 days per move.
That's interesting, what I dislike about big increment time controls is that players seem to drag forever the game in the opening moves, and they don't care about playing faster because they are guaranteed to have enough time for later stages of the game no matter what. What if the increment didn't start until later in the game? Say, 30 days initial, and the 1 day increment only starts after move 20 or move 30? Would this lead to slower or faster time controls than your proposal of increment starting only after a player runs out of time?
>This time control can cause issues though because of players believing they have won when one of the players gets to zero initial time and then both players start getting the increment.
I think this could be easily solved and have the same effect, if, for example, the game had 33 days of initial time, and the 3 day increment starts only after a player has 3 days or less on the clock.
To avoid games too long, we could also limit the time the players can accumulate on the clock after the increment starts, like, say, a player can't accumulate more than two weeks of clock time of the incremental time (after the original time runs out, the max time a player can have on the clock would be 14 days).
I like the Bronstein system and the Byoyomi system more.
There is a very sophisticated time control system at the Arimaa website.
But it may be to complicated for the typical chess player.
The following is copied from http://arimaa.com/arimaa/
The Arimaa time controls were chosen to achieve the following:
1. Keep the game moving, by not allowing a player to
take forever to make a move and bore the spectators.
2. Allow a lot of flexibility in specifying the time controls.
3. Allow for a fixed upper limit on the total game time
for practical reasons.
4. Attempt to prevent a player from losing the game due
to time while imposing these time limits.
5. Preserve the quality of the game while imposing
these time limits.
6. Allow for the most common time controls used in Chess.
Thus the Arimaa time controls support all the common
time controls used in Chess and more.
The time control used for Arimaa is specified as:
where M is the number of minutes:seconds per move; required
R is the number of minutes:seconds in reserve; required
P is the percent of unused move time that gets
added to the reserve; optional defaults to 100
L is the number of minutes:seconds to limit the reserve;
0 means no limit; optional; defaults to 0
G is the number of hours:minutes after which time
the game is halted and the winner is determined
by score. G can also be specified as the maximum
number of moves by ending with 't'; 0 means no
limit; optional; defaults to 0
T is the number of minutes:seconds within which
a player must make the move; 0 means no limit;
optional; defaults to 0
On each turn a player gets a fixed amount of time per
move (M) and there may be some amount of time left
in the reserve (R).
If a player does not complete the move within the move
time (M) then the time in reserve (R) is used. If there is
no more time remaining in reserve and the player has
not completed the move then the player automatically loses.
Even if there is time left in the move or reserve, but the player
has not made the move within the maximum time allowed
for moves (T) then the player automatically loses.
If a player completes the move in less than the
time allowed for the move (M), then a percentage (P) of the
remaining time is added to the players reserve. The
result is rounded to the nearest second. This parameter
is optional and if not specified, it is assumed to be 100%.
An upper limit (L) can be given for the reserve so that
the reserve does not exceed L when more time is added to
the reserve. If the initial reserve already exceeds this
limit then more time is not added to the reserve until it
falls below this limit. The upper limit for the reserve is
optional and if not given or set to 0 then it implies that
there is no limit on how much time can be added to the reserve.
For practical reasons a total game time (G) may be
set. If the game is not finished within this allotted time
then the game is halted and the winner is determined by
scoring the game. This parameter is optional and if
not given (or set to 0) it means there is no limit on the
game time. Also instead of an upper limit for the total
game time, an upper limit for the total number of turns each
player can make may be specified by adding the letter 't'
after the number. After both players have taken this many
turns and the game is not finished the winner is determined
by scoring the game.
Xfccplay is a playing client where players can make their moves and they are transmitted live to the Rybka Forum sub forum where these games will be shown live. Hopefully it will be possible to also show them on ficgs live.
I certainly do want the second match to be very different to the first. To start with, that no games end with time outs.
Time control: 30 days initial plus 1 day increment.
Format: Each player plays two games against a single opponent
Number of players for each team: As many players as we can get for both teams
Board Order: By rating for those who have ratings on the site they are playing for. Others can be placed at captain’s discretion.
> Others can be placed at captain’s discretion.
Last match we had no captain. We ordered unrated players alphabetically (by surname if available, otherwise by handle) and it worked. To avoid any strategy of player sorting in the Boards I suggest we just go with alphabetical order of unrated players again.
Also, I hope to see you playing Garvin , last time both organizers at each side did play.
> Also, I hope to see you playing Garvin , last time both organizers at each side did play.
I will be playing, representing ficgs.
How RF wants to handle their unrated players is up to you but this time with some players having ratings, you might want to put an unrated player on a high board if you think that is their standard of play in the team.
> I will be playing, representing ficgs.
Ohh, since you'llbe ont he other side, does the Rybka Forum have a representative? Otherwise I propose myself
>does the Rybka Forum have a representative? Otherwise I propose myself
ok with me
and please,dont tell me 'not' just because you want me play
edited:i thought it was only a 4 player match,that is why offered you to play instead of me
> Format: Each player plays two games against a single opponent
What about playing two different opponents with each color like in the WBCCC? That would allow players to play twice the different opponents, and would avoid the case where weak player is paired against stronger player, the stronger gets 2 points without much effort (basically, all the benefits we're getting in WBCCC by Double Swiss.)
(saying this because I was notified about this post)
Then click, or right click and away you go.
> Is the games of ficgs the corr games played by engines?
Almost all the games, especially those by the higher rated players are computer assisted. Ficgs is primarily a freestyle/centaur site, with only a few tournaments that are advertised as human only. Some players may choose to play human only, but it is marketed and promoted as a centaur site.
I still think we can go ahead with using xfccplay, just that the half of the games that are played using xfccplay will have conditionals, and the ones played at ficgs will not.
While it is an issue, it is not a big issue, or a showstopper.
Everyone will still be playing two games against the same opponent. One here with xfccplay and one at ficgs.
I will give a couple of days for feedback. If there is no discussion, I will formalise details and then we will move on to official collection of entries, getting players familiar with xfccplay and then on to the games proper.
> Everyone will still be playing two games against the same opponent.
Who at Rybka Forum agreed to that? Back when I thought you were representing Rybka Forum, I thought you agreed to that with FICGS, and it was fine. However, now that it seems you are a representative of the FICGS side, I'd like to challenge the match conditions.
Have you communicated to FICGS about the possibility of having 2 games against different opponents instead of against one as in the WBCCC?
Or at least, that's how things went on the previous match.
about players playing 2 games against the same opponent,or playing against 2 different opponents,i dont get the point;if one player is a weak player,will play weak,dont mind against the player will help...but that point isnt a trouble for me:if the major part of our team want your rules (2 games against different opponents),i will give my vote to that rule,if the major part of the players of our team wants to play 2 games against the same player,i will give my vote to that option
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill