![]() |
![]() |
#131 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 227
|
![]()
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#132 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 952
|
![]()
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#133 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chatteris, UK
Posts: 918
|
![]() Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#134 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 952
|
![]()
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#135 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chatteris, UK
Posts: 918
|
![]() Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#136 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 227
|
![]()
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#137 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chatteris, UK
Posts: 918
|
![]() Quote:
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 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#138 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 227
|
![]()
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
![]()
__________________
KGS 6k |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#139 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 952
|
![]()
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#140 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 227
|
![]()
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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.