It is currently Mon May 05, 2025 1:25 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject:
Post #21 Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 3:15 am 
Honinbo
User avatar

Posts: 8859
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Liked others: 349
Was liked: 2076
GD Posts: 312
snorri wrote:
the discussion over where to draw the line for how fast blitz is would likely end in fisticuffs.
A general time setting:

Start_time + N_period * ( Byo_yomi / Moves_per_period ) + eXtras

They'd have to decide on the (range of) values for S, N, B, M, X.
Samples:

Popular on KGS: S 30 mins, N 3, B 30 secs, M 1. (1)
Popular on IGS: S 1 min, N infinite, B 10 mins, M 25. (2)
"Weekend" AGA tourneys: S 45 mins, N 3, B 30 secs, M 1. (3)
US Open: S 90 mins, N 3, B 30 secs, M 1. (4)
Popular KGS blitz: S 1 min, N 3, B 10 secs, M 1.



Personally...
(1)(2)(3) All blitz. :)
(4) The initial time of 90 minutes is nice, but the 30 sec byōyomi becomes blitz. :-|

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fast != slow
Post #22 Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 5:24 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 324
Liked others: 13
Was liked: 56
Rank: kgs 4k
It really makes a lot more sense for blitz to have its own rating. As it is, I wonder if it doesn't scare people off trying competitive blitz because they're going to damage their normal rating with it if they fail. There's a reason so many people keep a separate account for blitz games.

Of course, that also means there should be more blitz tournaments. As far as I know they're fairly rare. That might be the main reason a separate rating never happened.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re:
Post #23 Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 6:13 am 
Oza

Posts: 2180
Location: ʍoquıɐɹ ǝɥʇ ɹǝʌo 'ǝɹǝɥʍǝɯos
Liked others: 237
Was liked: 662
Rank: AGA 5d
GD Posts: 4312
Online playing schedule: Every tenth February 29th from 20:00-20:01 (if time permits)
EdLee wrote:
snorri wrote:
the discussion over where to draw the line for how fast blitz is would likely end in fisticuffs.
A general time setting:

Start_time + N_period * ( Byo_yomi / Moves_per_period ) + eXtras

They'd have to decide on the (range of) values for S, N, B, M, X.
Samples:

Popular on KGS: S 30 mins, N 3, B 30 secs, M 1. (1)
Popular on IGS: S 1 min, N infinite, B 10 mins, M 25. (2)
"Weekend" AGA tourneys: S 45 mins, N 3, B 30 secs, M 1. (3)
US Open: S 90 mins, N 3, B 30 secs, M 1. (4)
Popular KGS blitz: S 1 min, N 3, B 10 secs, M 1.



Personally...
(1)(2)(3) All blitz. :)
(4) The initial time of 90 minutes is nice, but the 30 sec byōyomi becomes blitz. :-|


You number show up immediately how hard it would be to reach consensus. To me, blitz is anything where the game can expect to end in less than 15 minutes. 15 minutes to one hour would be considered normal on a server. But for a game which contributed to any rating to which I gave much credence I would want the game to last at least 90 minutes and preferably longer.

This is one reason why I don't have much faith in online rankings except as a general guide.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fast != slow
Post #24 Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 10:59 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 866
Liked others: 318
Was liked: 345
I think it would be great if the AGA supported dual rankings and encouraged blitz tourneys or side events. I think the kids would love it, and it would help grow our game.

And I dont even like blitz.

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders


This post by wineandgolover was liked by 3 people: Bonobo, ez4u, RBerenguel
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re:
Post #25 Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:20 pm 
Gosei
User avatar

Posts: 1639
Location: Ponte Vedra
Liked others: 642
Was liked: 490
Universal go server handle: Bantari
EdLee wrote:
Bantari wrote:
probably be impossible (or at least - very hard) to actually qualify to any degree.
On the contrary, it's very easy (for me).

So, how do you quantify?
I know that you can easily see that you overlooked stuff and blundered here and there, but this is now what I am talking about.

Lets look at an example.

You play a 100 moves fast, and make 7 mistakes which you would not make in slower games. But how do you say that 3 of these mistakes were 3k level, one was 7k level, and the rest were 5k level? And how do you then calculate that this brings you down from 1k to 4k? How does the formula go? When you look at a mistake, how do you tell exactly what level this mistake is?

Also - as part of the equation - how do you account for your opponent making mistakes, and these in turn inducing your mistakes? Or maybe allowing (and even inducing) your brillant plays, which you would have had no chance to play in slower games?

So - how do you account for some possibly (much?) better moves which your intuition (or your opponent) allowed you to make when the brain was not involved in the decision making? I know for a fact that some of the moves I make in fast games can actually be better than the moves I would make in similar situations if i thought more.

All we can see from fast games is that "I blundered, overlooked atari, lost a group, and lost the game, would never have happened in a slower game" - but what does this really mean for your overall move level average? It seems to concentrate on the decisive blunder the most. But is that correct?

Is that also influenced by the difference in the way you approach the game? For example: intuitive vs calculated players? Or those relying on memorizing shapes vs memorizing sequences? Stuff like that...

I find it really interesting.

PS>
The monkey is really cool!

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject:
Post #26 Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 6:41 pm 
Honinbo
User avatar

Posts: 8859
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Liked others: 349
Was liked: 2076
GD Posts: 312
Bantari, as I said, it's just my feeling.
If you want some actual numbers, be my guest:
grab a bot -- the best current ones are around 4~6 stones from pro on 19x19 ? --
and do some statistical analyses to find out the relative levels
when you play it at different time settings.
The procedures are very simple; it's the logistics --
bot availability, human operators, time, etc. -- that take effort.
Enjoy and let us know your findings.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Re:
Post #27 Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 7:31 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3374
Bantari wrote:
You play a 100 moves fast, and make 7 mistakes which you would not make in slower games. But how do you say that 3 of these mistakes were 3k level, one was 7k level, and the rest were 5k level? And how do you then calculate that this brings you down from 1k to 4k? How does the formula go? When you look at a mistake, how do you tell exactly what level this mistake is?


One problem is that the average loss per move is quite small per stone difference in strength, so that a nine stone difference means a loss of around one point per move on average. So what about a move that loses 30 points?

Suppose that you or I make 7 4-5 kyu plays that we otherwise would not make. That would bring our play down by about 1/2 stone. OTOH, we could make a single play that loses that much and not even notice. :sad:

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Re:
Post #28 Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:19 pm 
Oza

Posts: 2356
Location: Ireland
Liked others: 662
Was liked: 442
Universal go server handle: Boidhre
Bantari wrote:
EdLee wrote:
Bantari wrote:
probably be impossible (or at least - very hard) to actually qualify to any degree.
On the contrary, it's very easy (for me).

So, how do you quantify?
I know that you can easily see that you overlooked stuff and blundered here and there, but this is now what I am talking about.

Lets look at an example.

You play a 100 moves fast, and make 7 mistakes which you would not make in slower games. But how do you say that 3 of these mistakes were 3k level, one was 7k level, and the rest were 5k level? And how do you then calculate that this brings you down from 1k to 4k? How does the formula go? When you look at a mistake, how do you tell exactly what level this mistake is?

Also - as part of the equation - how do you account for your opponent making mistakes, and these in turn inducing your mistakes? Or maybe allowing (and even inducing) your brillant plays, which you would have had no chance to play in slower games?

So - how do you account for some possibly (much?) better moves which your intuition (or your opponent) allowed you to make when the brain was not involved in the decision making? I know for a fact that some of the moves I make in fast games can actually be better than the moves I would make in similar situations if i thought more.

All we can see from fast games is that "I blundered, overlooked atari, lost a group, and lost the game, would never have happened in a slower game" - but what does this really mean for your overall move level average? It seems to concentrate on the decisive blunder the most. But is that correct?

Is that also influenced by the difference in the way you approach the game? For example: intuitive vs calculated players? Or those relying on memorizing shapes vs memorizing sequences? Stuff like that...

I find it really interesting.

PS>
The monkey is really cool!



Someone could play a bunch of games under blitz and slow time controls and then post them without the time stamps (I don't know if you can remove them from the file or would have to manually create a new sgf) and ask stronger players to identify which games are which. Could be interesting.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fast != slow
Post #29 Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:35 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 309
Liked others: 3
Was liked: 41
Rank: 5 dan
tiger314 wrote:
The European ratings deal with this by requiring sufficient thinking time for a tournament to be included with full coefficient of 1 (75 minutes sudden death or 60 minutes plus 15 minutes for 45/60 moves in Japanese/Canadian byoyomi). There is also a minimal requirement (30 minutes or 25 minutes plus 5 minutes for 45/60 moves in Japanese/Canadian byoyomi) for a tournament to be included at all, and then, it is only included with a coefficient of 0.5 (or 0.75 for slightly slower games).

When this system was prepared I considered also that it is possible to give the EGC main tournament a higher weight like 1,25, but the I thought not to make an exception for one tournament.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fast != slow
Post #30 Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 8:10 am 
Oza

Posts: 2264
Liked others: 1180
Was liked: 553
Based on Ed's feeling that he plays 2-4 stones weaker in blitz games, wouldn't that be more or less true for everyone else too? That's the primary reason for wanting separate ratings, correct?

But if everyone's rating drops a couple of stones, then the relative rating difference between each other would be relatively unchanged, and in any rating system, the only thing that matters would be this relative difference and the win/loss probabilities of that difference.

If the difference is unchanged, I see no need to have separate rating calculations.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fast != slow
Post #31 Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 8:25 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 1045
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 182
xed_over wrote:
Based on Ed's feeling that he plays 2-4 stones weaker in blitz games, wouldn't that be more or less true for everyone else too? That's the primary reason for wanting separate ratings, correct?


No, and that's the point.

Some people would play 2-4 stones weaker (in absolute terms) like Ed, others 3-5 weaker, and still others 1-2 weaker.

This, by the way, is why most of the stronger MCTS bots are using accounts with a relatively fast clock. If the hardware is powerful enough to get then over the hump (below a certain amount of playouts, MCTS becomes erratic) that optimizes their performance relative to humans. With longer clock settings they would play a bit stronger in absolute terms but "diminishing returns" sets in quickly. So in the range of time being considered, they gain less than humans given the additional time.

Out of these time ranges, could be quite different.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group