Go Discussions  

Go Back   Go Discussions > GoDiscussions.com > Beginners

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 2010-04-08, 02:56 AM   #131
Aphelion
Senior Member
 
Aphelion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 227
Default

I don't really see that as a problem Shapenaji, you're not limited to intervene only when Violence does. If Violence were to try that maneuver, and Joaz can come up with a suitable reply, it would always be a net -1 pt for them. And remember you could always step in if Joaz does something sub optimal, basically giving Joaz a free chance to get 1 point / move. Of course, the same thing applies to the other team, which is how it should work.

Basically, it comes down to how many situations the high dan player can find a move that is 1 point better than middle brother. That can't really be every move...

I also just want to add that I REALLY like where this game is going.

You can remove these ads if you create an account.

__________________
KGS 6k
Aphelion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-08, 03:46 AM   #132
shapenaji
Senior Member
 
shapenaji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 952
Default

Aphelion: Erm, well actually it would be a net -2 points for them if Joaz finds a good move, but yes, regarding the hijacking, it is unlikely (though certainly not impossible in very complicated positions).

But really, why not just make the number of points ALWAYS 4 if I intervened? What is the logic behind giving the top player an incentive to override the middle player?


Also, what about the problem of forcing moves... as it stands, you've certainly crippled a large part of what I would bring to the game (there's no good way to set up aji when that move has an obvious response).
__________________
This signature is not self-referential
shapenaji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-08, 03:46 AM   #133
topazg
Senior Member
 
topazg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chatteris, UK
Posts: 918
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shapenaji View Post
Joaz:

Well, you're right about us getting into a constant fight (though for the second player to reach in and hurt their own side seems unreasonable, I'm not saying that the second player can't stop it, just that it wouldn't be in the team's best interests), I can step out and let you play Violence. However, the minute I step out, he steps out, leaving only the small net gain of him over you.

You're right then, that it can be stopped. However, consider HOW it would stop.

In order for us to gain by stopping the strong players alternating, I would need to wait until he makes a forcing move to step out (something with an obvious response, which is funny, since it basically removes most of the incentive to play forcing moves, which are a major part of a strong player's game). But it's not in my interest to ignore anything difficult.

So basically, you're going to create a very weird kind of game, where the strong players can't use setup moves.

EDIT: Also, I'm still not entirely clear on the logic for the override of the middle player being 1 additional point. I'm not really sure what your trying to create an incentive for. Why not just make it an additional 2 points, unless the high brother returns the move to the low brother's, in which case, it costs nothing extra.
Am I the only one that doesn't care about winning this game? I mean, I know that's the point of a game of Go, but the focus of this game seemed to be "BB corrects the big mistakes of the weaker player and explains so that they can learn from it", as opposed to cunning point sharing tactics to win the game with?

EDIT: That's the other reason I like my quota system - it seems to be geared more around only picking the really big correctable stuff!
__________________
KGS (topazg) 1d | EGF 1k | Creator and ex-maintainer of OGS
Active Go teacher for anyone up to 6 kyu

Last edited by topazg; 2010-04-08 at 04:01 AM.
topazg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-08, 04:00 AM   #134
shapenaji
Senior Member
 
shapenaji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 952
Default

topazg: no it's not about winning, I'm not trying my devilish best to crush you guys by any means necessary. I'm just talking about the game theory side, trying to determine optimal play, and if necessary, changing the rules to bring about just the sort of gameplay you're talking about.

I want to correct plays and explain. But when you put a value on a correction, you're necessarily creating a countermeasure to overuse by using the player's desire to win to override their zealous need to place a better move.

A quota does the same thing, but simply physically stops me from overusing the ability.

As soon as you start assigning hard values, you change a number of things:

1) hard-to-find Good moves with obvious answers are disincentivized. It may be a very nice move, and important for later fights, but it is going to hit the team that plays it, much more than moves with open-ended responses. I don't think that's fair.

2) Stronger players are going to be incentivized toward fighting, positional plays will, in general, not recoup a 4 point loss. (It's very easy to find a move in a fight worth more than 4 points than the next brother's, but much harder to find a positional move worth more)

3) because of 1) stronger players are going to have a very hard time making a bet by taking the move in the endgame. (most responses are proscribed, which guarantee's a 4 point loss on a move)
__________________
This signature is not self-referential
shapenaji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-08, 04:07 AM   #135
topazg
Senior Member
 
topazg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chatteris, UK
Posts: 918
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shapenaji View Post
A quota does the same thing, but simply physically stops me from overusing the ability.
Does it? Surely it's quite different...

A) You can't sit there simply trading blows with violence because your quota runs out quite quickly, and then you have to watch as we make a mess of the fight you created while they slowly build up again.

B) You can correct important endgame changes without having to worry about the changes not being worth 4 points.
__________________
KGS (topazg) 1d | EGF 1k | Creator and ex-maintainer of OGS
Active Go teacher for anyone up to 6 kyu

Last edited by topazg; 2010-04-08 at 04:09 AM.
topazg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-08, 04:10 AM   #136
Aphelion
Senior Member
 
Aphelion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 227
Default

How about say, a x amount of free interventions for every y amount of moves. Say, 5/25 for the middle brother and 3/25 for the big brother? For changes after that amount, we should should increase the cost of intervention, to say 4/6 for middle brother / big brother interventions. These should also be limited by some cap.

I also suggest a short, free conference every certain amount of moves. Maybe every 20 moves or so, the big brothers are allowed to send the younger brother a small message about the strategic status of the game? We could limit it to 20 words and 1 diagram, with each shown sequence being at most 5 moves long.
__________________
KGS 6k
Aphelion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-08, 04:16 AM   #137
topazg
Senior Member
 
topazg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chatteris, UK
Posts: 918
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aphelion View Post
How about say, a x amount of free interventions for every y amount of moves. Say, 5/25 for the middle brother and 3/25 for the big brother? For changes after that amount, we should should increase the cost of intervention, to say 4/6 for middle brother / big brother interventions. These should also be limited by some cap.

I also suggest a short, free conference every certain amount of moves. Maybe every 20 moves or so, the big brothers are allowed to send the younger brother a small message about the strategic status of the game? We could limit it to 20 words and 1 diagram, with each shown sequence being at most 5 moves long.
My original quota idea was as follows:

Top brother: 5 moves
Middle brother: 10 moves

For every 10 moves played by their team where they don't correct the move, they get one back up to that cap.

I still like it

The conference idea is a nice one - although it would need a lot of careful thought to make sure it isn't easy to give too much away!
__________________
KGS (topazg) 1d | EGF 1k | Creator and ex-maintainer of OGS
Active Go teacher for anyone up to 6 kyu
topazg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-08, 04:19 AM   #138
Aphelion
Senior Member
 
Aphelion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 227
Default

I also have a devilish idea where the other team's big brother counter parts could pay points to "intercept" that message - and trigger a bidding war to see which side was willing to pay enough to let that message get through . Alas, that could be too complicated...
__________________
KGS 6k
Aphelion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-08, 04:21 AM   #139
shapenaji
Senior Member
 
shapenaji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 952
Default

Last comment, as I'm worried I'm hijacking the purpose of the thread here.

If we were going to create a generalized system for future BB games, I'd do the following (it's my form of a quota):

suppose that based on the ranks (I'm still thinking about precisely how to set the fractions):

the bottom player should play 3/4 of the game
the middle player should play 3/16 of the game
the top player should play 1/16 of the game

now, players may intervene any time they like, the only condition is, that by the end of the game, their fraction of moves should be under these fractions. If they go over, they then start losing points.

So suppose by the end of the game, I've been particularly overzealous, and have played 1/4 of the moves, while the other team, remarkably, hits their fractions precisely. We have 185 points on the board. It is assumed that 1/4 of those points are mine. But ideally, I should have only had 1/16th of those points.

We then have 3*(185*1/16) points subtracted from our score to bring us in line.
__________________
This signature is not self-referential
shapenaji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-08, 04:28 AM   #140
Aphelion
Senior Member
 
Aphelion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 227
Default

I think that is overly cheap, as even if you played every move you would never pay more than 1 point per move. The best way would be a rolling quota as suggested by Topazg or me.

I agree we shouldn't hijack the thread, by the idea of designing a BB ruleset interests me a fair deal, I might start a new thread once I've put more thought into this.

Edit: nvm, I read that you meant 185 moves as opposed to points. But won't this be quite different under area or territory scoring? In fact, under area scoring, the weaker player could 'fill in' his as much of his own territory to reduce your percentage
__________________
KGS 6k
Aphelion is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Malkovich registration thread Joaz Banbeck General Go Chat 183 2010-04-16 04:40 PM
Survey on the Malkovich games. sol.ch Beginners 53 2010-03-30 04:51 AM
Malkovich Viewing Area shapenaji General Go Chat 0 2010-03-22 01:31 AM
My first finished game at OGS - a Malkovich approach karaklis Game Analysis 5 2009-09-08 01:17 PM
brother vs brother (11k) rebent Game Analysis 3 2009-03-03 08:51 AM

You can remove these ads if you create an account.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.