Page 4 of 9

Re: Hnefatafl Internet Championship

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 10:43 am
by Xerxes
Your last "Could be done this way ...", ie 2 each from 4 groups going to the final, makes sense to me Hagbard.

Re: Hnefatafl Internet Championship

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:51 pm
by Hagbard
Evaluation of the Championship Tournament 2016 Round 1.

Players in the small forum are discussing the 2016 Round 1. Here's a copy of the discussion:

2016-09-21 17:28:53 HELFRICH: 2016-09-21 17:25:28 HELFRICH: Regarding future tournament planning: May I suggest that some requirement be placed before entry into the championship tourney such as a minimum of 50 rated games played? This would help eliminate last minute fake profiles and false ratings, as well as discourage those not serious about competing. With the number of entries this year, it perhaps would have been a good policy to have five or six groups (max of six in any first round group). This could have spread out the number of "masters" of the game and allowed the best to compete in the final round (which is what the WTF may really be seeking). Also fewer numbers in groups would have enhanced or quickened round completion times. Additionally, the championship rounds should be the same game variant. With the number of anticipated "masters" playing in the Midgard grouping, it does not seem to be a very level playing field. This should not be perceived as a complaint but rather as a stated suggestions for next year.

2016-09-21 17:59:01 xerxes: @Helfrich: I agree that there needs to be some way of filtering out those who are not serious about entering or completing their games - a minimum number of completed games is a good idea - and perhaps an entry fee would help too ? Duplicate user names could be discouraged by an annual subscription (which would also cover Hagbard's costs in hosting the site. Any undisclosed double entries should result in both user names being deleted from the federation if found out. I disagree with your reference to 'the masters' of the game - unless by 'master' you mean 'master of Copenhagen' - the other forms are no less valid in my view. I'd prefer to see the World Championship being played over two or three variants, with the final group members playing each other over those two or three variants. Admittedly that would make it a lot longer, but we could start the preliminary rounds in January !

2016-09-21 18:09:24 HELFRICH: By 'masters' I was referring to the very high rated players as well as those designated by this very site as such.

2016-09-21 18:14:14 animals: I'm in general agreement with Helfrich. Assuming Copenhagen is the preferred format for the championship, it seems unfair that good Copenhagen rules players are unable to reach Asgarthr because they may be weaker in another format (the triathlon event provides a better test for players with a wider range of interest/ability). The various tournaments that are available through the year can encourage new and developing players, and the annual championship should be regarded as a serious competition that people enter with the intention of completing their games; and (if we are getting fake entries / false ratings) a minimum number of games may well improve the situation. Using Copenhagen for both rounds is likely to lengthen the whole competition, but (even though I tend to be a faster player) the championship tournament should take as long as it needs to for the best player to win (which unfortunately won't be me).

2016-09-21 18:27:25 animals: I'm also in agreement with Xerxes idea of a subscription; however, I'd like to see separate the current (Copenhagen) championship, and a separate championship involving a variety of formats. This could of course be extended to a series of tournaments held throughout the year, of which the current championship was just one part, with points being awarded for each individual tournament. In this way, there could be a champion for each format, as well as an overall champion.

2016-09-21 21:32:01 xerxes: I think Animals makes some good points re different a Copenhagen championship and the other formats. The World Tafl Federation facebook page describes it as being for the ‘promotion, development and enjoyment of tafl games: hnefatafl, tablut, brandubh etc.’. In my view that means we should not favour Copenhagen over any other particular format/variant. I’ve no problem with a ‘Copenhagen’ Championship – and an associated ‘Copenhagen Champion’ - but in my view we should not limit ourselves to that format for the World Championships. I accept that there are those good Copenhagen players who may be disadvantaged by having to qualify for Asgarthr by finishing in the top two of their Tawlbwrdd Bell 11x11 group, but I know of at least two players who are currently in the top 20 of the ratings who did not enter the World Championships because they do not like playing Copenhagen. The only way to ensure we have the top 8 ‘masters’ in Asgarthr group is to put them there to start with and leave the rest of us out of it. Looking at the top 20 in the ratings (as I type - I don’t have the numbers for the start of the tournament), and discounting those who did not enter and those that have completed fewer than 20 rated games, the current groups seem evenly balanced: Tunsberg has 2 of the top 8 and 3 of the top 10; Vinland has 2 of the top 5 and 3 of the top 12; Fornebei has 2 of the top 8 and 3 of the top 11; Heithabyr has 2 of the top 7 and 3 of the top 13. If we are going to end up with 8 in Asgathyr, then the qualifying groups have successfully seeded the top 8 into the qualifying positions. There are many formats of the game, each with their strengths, weaknesses, tactics, and specialists - we should be trying to get as many participants as we can into the competitions and that means including as many variants as is practical. (A long post - perhaps we should move this discussion to the large forum ?)

2016-09-21 23:52:03 altti: I like the multiple variant tournament (possibly beginning in Jan. and continuing until completed...) with Ard Ri, Seabattle 9x9, Seabattle 11x11, Tawlbwrdd 11x11(no throne) in their own tournament. Saami-Tablut, Tablut 11x11 in their own. Brandubh, Skalk9x9 or Old Hnefatafl 9x9, Copenhagen and Fetlar. in the final set. Or, alternatively, perhaps the site features one variant per month for competition? personally, as a multi-variant tourney line-up, I prefer; Ard-Ri, Tawlbrwdd 11x11(no throne), Saami-Tablut, Brandubh, Copenhagen.

Re: Hnefatafl Internet Championship

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:39 am
by crust
Interesting discussion... I have 4 points to make (just my personal reactions):

1: I think introducing a fee or subscription would be ghastly; I'd strongly prefer to keep both the site and the championship free, and open to all.

2: I don't like the idea of having entry requirements; I think the importance of including and welcoming beginners outweighs any inconvenience we suffer when some players drop out. Hagbard is good at weeding out fake or duplicate identities. Again: free and open to all.

3: We are trying for the first time this year a combined championship tournament, featuring both a historical variant and a modern variant. I think this well reflects some of the diversity of the tafl family of games, and we should at least give this a chance. I also hope for another "tafl triathlon" in the near future.

4: I'm pretty sure Hagbard knows what he's doing with the groupings. I hope no-one is unaware of the immense care he takes to balance the groups, as shown by Xerxes' analysis of the distribution of top 20 players. Not sure smaller groups would make any difference except to shorten the tournament a bit, which I don't think is necessary; no doubt this could change if, as we hope, the number of participants increases in future.

Re: Hnefatafl Internet Championship

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:02 am
by Tuireann
Hehe it was a heavily discussed point on PTO that a weak king qualifier would draw a lot of criticism and I'm certain my poor performance in the Copenhagen round won't help. Perhaps it would be better not to mix variant types as there are lots of players like myself who almost exclusively play weak king and can easily qualify but end up taking up valuable space in the final round of which I am aware I will be. Maybe an alternative format for the tournament besides grouped round robin or some type of league play would be better. I have seen the triathlon mentioned before but I don't know how it worked. Could someone englighten me?

I do not know who is supposedly using an alternate account or supposedly is entered twice but on PTO being able to invite for an unrated game more or less eliminates the point of an alternate account. Entering a tournament with an alternate account doesn't really help anyway since the group distribution places you with more higher rated players. And duplicate entries I did notice some were prevented.

And on the point of having players play a minimum number of rated games a lot of tafl players don't play online regularly, or even on this site. As much as a subscription here might increase my sites membership :lol: I think it would drive away more potential players than its worth.

Personally I care about having more people playing tafl more than I do about someone using cowardly tactics to manipulate the system. What good is a rating if it never plays anyone of consequence? I think of my rating as a way to gauge my own improvement and the only person I need to be better than is the player I was yesterday. Other players earn my respect on the tafl board not the leader board.

Re: Hnefatafl Internet Championship

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 8:37 am
by Hagbard
Helfrich wrote:This would help eliminate last minute fake profiles and false ratings, as well as discourage those not serious about competing.
Xerxes wrote:Any undisclosed double entries should result in both user names being deleted from the federation if found out.
Animals wrote:if we are getting fake entries / false ratings
I appreciate your concern and uncertainty about the authenticity of all World Champion Tournament players. But I can reassure you that the aliases were all checked before the tournament, and they're all ok:
  • No multiple aliases are playing from the same computer.
  • No multiple aliases are even playing from the same geographical location on Earth.
  • Aliases in the tournament don't also use other aliases on this website - with a couple of exceptions. But in the rare case that a player uses also other aliases on this website, the distribution to groups is based upon a true rating anyway.
  • New and unknown (to us) aliases are really new and unknown.
I'll add that new and unknown players are positioned in the groups in such a way, that it disturbs the groups and the tournament as little as possible, should they drop out.

Helfrich wrote:With the number of entries this year, it perhaps would have been a good policy to have five or six groups (max of six in any first round group).
The number of four Round 1 groups was chosen, so that the future World Champion will have a more manageable Final with only 7 opponents, 14 games.

Re: Hnefatafl Internet Championship

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:58 pm
by Xerxes
Tuireann - Ref the Triathlon - we had an online tournament in spring 2015 where the entrants played each other in three variants (I think it was Sea Battle, Copenhagen, and Sami, though can't remember the detail and it has dropped off the Tournaments web page). Each variant was played as a separate competition, though the second and third ones were only open to the original entrants. The scores for the individual variants were added together to give the final overall scores. It was a lot of fun, and would be a good basis for an overall Tafl champion. Treating the variants as separate rounds, with the second and third ones not starting until the previous rounds were finished, meant that we were not inundated with loads of games to play at once. I guess it would only work in that format if there not too many entrants, as 32 players all playing each other is too much I suspect !

Re: Hnefatafl Internet Championship

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 8:16 pm
by Tuireann
Sounds like fun but yeah that would make quite a lot of games. I was thinking maybe each leg of the triathlon could be broken down into groups that changed every leg so that everyone ended up playing everyone throughout the tournament but i imagine that would be quite a lot of work to balance the groups across each variant especially because different variants have different ratings and not everyone has an established rating in every variant. I like the idea that the points accumulate over the entire process so that nobody gets eliminated by any one variant.

Re: Hnefatafl Internet Championship

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:11 pm
by Xerxes
Tuireann - what is 'PTO' ?


Re: Hnefatafl Internet Championship

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:40 pm
by Tuireann
It's an abbreviation for another Tafl playing site I don't intend on advertising here...

Re: Hnefatafl Internet Championship

Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:11 am
by Sigurd
On the Championship Format:
I think the mixed format is a good idea. With the various milestones reached and Historical Hnefatafl formulated, something had to done with it.
As for it’s results so far, looking at each division:
Tunsberg - 2 of the top 3 rated players will be moving on, could include top rated player.
Fornebei - 2 of the top 3 rated players will be moving on, includes top rated player.
Heithabyr - 2 of the top 3 rated players will be moving on, could include top rated player.
Vinland - Top rated player and a newcomer moving on
This doesn’t strike me as anything to be concerned about.

Multi-format touranments / Biathlons / Triathons:
Good ideas, but some of ones mentioned sound like they could run longer than the world championship, and 3-4 months is long enough as it is.
It looks like a few more test tournaments are in the works, some of which might work for a multi-format tournament. That and my suggestions are mentioned here. ... p=706#p706