Re: Gaming activity
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:34 pm
Thank you, Hagbard, for these insights. Very interesting! Good to know our community is active and growing!
Discussions on the Viking board game Hnefatafl
This is a very interesting statistic. I would prefer this method of tiebreaker (opponents playing two additional games), opposed to tiebreakers like game length or pieces captured. Or as I previously suggested, if players split games in consecutive rounds, each winning a game as black and a game as white, then I think the third round tiebreaker should only be one game to decide the winner. Which player plays which color should be decided randomly, either by a coin flip or a hat pull, by the umpire. In the event of a tie in the fifth game, players would switch colors and continue playing until a winner is found.Hagbard wrote:
So the outcome (tie or winner) of a two games match of Copenhagen with two equally strong players is like flipping a coin.
If a winner must be found, as fx. in the world championship tournament, a series of matches until one wins will most likely not be long:
The probability of one tie is 52%.
The probability of two ties in a row is 52% * 52% = 27%.
The probability of three ties in a row is 52% * 52% * 52% = 14%.
This is an interesting view! Perhaps part of the explanation, why the Copenhagen Hnefatafl (game balance +1.51) functions so well?That's not as balanced as chess. But real game balance is very diffucult in an asymmetric game, and given that the asymmetry is part of the charm of this particular game ... that kind of game balance is really good enough.
I think if a variant of hnefatafl or any tafl game is too balanced, it does begin to lose some of its charm.
Casshern wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:13 amThis is a very interesting statistic. I would prefer this method of tiebreaker (opponents playing two additional games), opposed to tiebreakers like game length or pieces captured.
If players split games in two consecutive rounds (the round robin round and the addition tiebreaker round, no previous rounds), winning all games as either black or white, then perhaps we could use tiebreakers of game length or pieces captured to determine a winner. Although I am opposed to such tiebreakers, I understand this is the real world and players can potentially continue to split games. So, such tiebreakers could at least be a means to find a winner. Anyways, the need for an extra tiebreaker round has been rare to this point.
I think for sure we should not go past a third round to determine a tournament champion. Depending on the players playing pace, the games could potentially last for months.
I just prefer playing games not having to worry about game length, pieces captured, or if you lost a game to a weak or strong opponent.
After several unlikely events this year, perhaps we should prepare for the eventuality that the players will tie the playoff on both points and rating?
We should consider comparing number of pieces taken (adding white and black pieces from the round as a whole for both players). This would most likely solve the issue.
Now where there are only two players left, who naturally are very equal in strength, I fear a bit that they will continue to tie round after round, but we'll see. As we know, Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky had to play 21 games on Iceland in 1972, before the duel was determined...
I think you're on to something regarding more criteria to avoid rematch. Besides captured pieces there's also such a thing as game length.
I would look for numbers, which indicate elegant play. A player who fx. goes right in and wins in few moves, perhaps even without capturing any pieces, is a tafl genious (or else his opponent made a giant blunder).
[... counting ...]
So, short game length as a criterion seems to give a reasonable result.
(Number of captured pieces is open to cheating by drawing out the game so as to capture as many pieces as possible. Short game length cannot be cheated; the effective and elegant player wins the fastest.)
I like your idea of awarding for game economy, an excellent decider.
Or else we could find ourselves waiting for 21 games like Fischer/Spassky.
I suppose we could let them play forever, until one of them gets better at playing white?
It is an interesting conundrum though. Two players who have advanced equally as black above the rest, locked in a final until one discovers a new tactic for white.
(This I wrote because the 3rd round games were very interesting and high quality).Hagbard
It was very lucky and the right thing that a Round 3 was
allowed instead of stopping the top final with a game length rule, which it
could've been if it was invented before the tournament.