Slitherine

Routine draws have been a problem in chess for years, especially in later rounds. Even where tournament organisers have tried to prevent it e.g. by insisting on a certain number of moves being made before a draw can be offered, people get round it. In some cases, by agreeing beforehand to follow a pre-arranged sequence of moves that look like a complicated hard-fought game, but known to come out to a drawing position. Sometimes it is just hard to overcome human nature!

One way to address it is to make the scoring system reward wins so much more that it is worth risking a loss going for a win. The old 0-1-3 scoring system...ok that doesn't quite work for this sort of thing. But an expanded version. And possibly go even further - find some way to make the points on offer dependent on there having been some significant combat. (Unlike chess, once forces get into close combat the players lose control and somebody may win regardless of the players' intentions.)

If losing after a serious fight scored at least as many points as drawing a game in which neither player does anything significant, the scoreboard pressure is on the players to make something happen. In the case of a terrain-friendly and a terrain-unfriendly army, a compromise might need to be reached - you attack into the terrain on one side, I'll attack out of the terrain on the other.

Hammy, I'll e-mail the details to you over the weekend. I think I have your e-mail address from the army list submissions

Marc

ShrubMiK wrote:One way to address it is to make the scoring system reward wins so much more that it is worth risking a loss going for a win. The old 0-1-3 scoring system...ok that doesn't quite work for this sort of thing. But an expanded version. And possibly go even further - find some way to make the points on offer dependent on there having been some significant combat. (Unlike chess, once forces get into close combat the players lose control and somebody may win regardless of the players' intentions.)

If losing after a serious fight scored at least as many points as drawing a game in which neither player does anything significant, the scoreboard pressure is on the players to make something happen. In the case of a terrain-friendly and a terrain-unfriendly army, a compromise might need to be reached - you attack into the terrain on one side, I'll attack out of the terrain on the other.

The US Gulf South circuit in the DBM days used a system where you got double points for enemy commands killed.

It would be possible to use a similar system for FoG. You get 0-10 points for tenths of your breakpoint left. 0-20 points for tenths of your opponents breakpoint taken and a bonus for an army break.

That would mean a draw with no losses would score 10-10.
A perfect win would be 35-0.
Losing and taking 60% of the enemy break point on the way would nett 12-29.
but and possibly the biggest problem a 'draw' where both sides take 90% losses would result in a 19-19 it would be possibl for players to collude to get a string of 19-19 scores.

hannibal wrote:Hammy, I'll e-mail the details to you over the weekend. I think I have your e-mail address from the army list submissions

Marc

Ta

hammy@the-riverbank.net BTW

hammy wrote:possibly the biggest problem a 'draw' where both sides take 90% losses would result in a 19-19 it would be possible for players to collude to get a string of 19-19 scores.

AND a fun game. Which I think is the points we need.

philqw78 wrote:

hammy wrote:possibly the biggest problem a 'draw' where both sides take 90% losses would result in a 19-19 it would be possible for players to collude to get a string of 19-19 scores.

AND a fun game. Which I think is the points we need.

Grr, my long reply got eaten.

The issue is not with hard fought games were both sides lose 90%. It is where one side is 10% of losing but does a deal with their opponent to fall on their sword in return for sacrificing a few extra points. If you have a 5 poitn win bonus and only lose 1 point to give your opponent 2 there are plenty of situations where both players gain by collusion.

hammy wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

hammy wrote:possibly the biggest problem a 'draw' where both sides take 90% losses would result in a 19-19 it would be possible for players to collude to get a string of 19-19 scores.

AND a fun game. Which I think is the points we need.

Grr, my long reply got eaten.

The issue is not with hard fought games were both sides lose 90%. It is where one side is 10% of losing but does a deal with their opponent to fall on their sword in return for sacrificing a few extra points. If you have a 5 poitn win bonus and only lose 1 point to give your opponent 2 there are plenty of situations where both players gain by collusion.

This issue of possible collusion comes up whenever scoring systems are discussed. Clearly, some systems make collusion possible, and avoiding collusion is a good thing. But . . . . Is collusion something that we, the FoG community, see as a big risk? I admit that I do not see much danger of it, at least among the gamers that I know.

Am I missing something?

Marc

babyshark wrote: This issue of possible collusion comes up whenever scoring systems are discussed. Clearly, some systems make collusion possible, and avoiding collusion is a good thing. But . . . . Is collusion something that we, the FoG community, see as a big risk? I admit that I do not see much danger of it, at least among the gamers that I know.

Am I missing something?

Marc

That the ones who play all innocent are usually the worst offenders...?

babyshark wrote:This issue of possible collusion comes up whenever scoring systems are discussed. Clearly, some systems make collusion possible, and avoiding collusion is a good thing. But . . . . Is collusion something that we, the FoG community, see as a big risk? I admit that I do not see much danger of it, at least among the gamers that I know.

Am I missing something?

Marc

To be honest I don't see it as a problem but all it would take would be one 'incident' where a player offers his opponent deal to cause a row.

At present there is not much of a problem with people not playing the game. In DBM there were IMO a lot more dull shutouts than in FoG. Is this a 'problem'? If not it doesn't need to be fixed.

That said there is nothing stopping someone using a different scoring system and the one I have suggested would definitely encourage agression.

I spoke to a couple of the organisers at Vapnatak yesterday and they had pictues of a new room that they are hoping to book for more competition space. It looks nicer that the gym - more winows and natural light.
So things are on the up.
Also lets us this forum to help those with 'no mates' to form ad-hoc teams.
No names - Rob - doooh I let it slip out!!

Thanks for giving away my anonymity Mr Amey !!

I also learned yesterday that 2 heads came sometimes be better than 1. I could have done with a partner to stop me making those rash decisions..............like sending knights on a flank march !!

Rob

Robert241167 wrote:Thanks for giving away my anonymity Mr Amey !!

I also learned yesterday that 2 heads came sometimes be better than 1. I could have done with a partner to stop me making those rash decisions..............like sending knights on a flank march !!

Rob

No Rob I thought that was a good decision

Almost as good as letting me shoot those protected Medium foot to fragged.

Not sure your dice was just below average remember you won fights you should have lost and lost those you should have won. I don't think another person would have helped with the fights on table.