Slitherine

Could someone please explain how the scoring works? What does 15+15 mean?

And how does swiss chese format work?

And will there be more tournaments for those who missed to join in time?

wdkruger wrote:Could someone please explain how the scoring works? What does 15+15 mean?

I don't understand some of the numbers but I think I know what 15+15 mean.
Both games have started but no BP have been achived by any player. A game is worth 30p so at this stage the score is just divided in two.

And how does swiss chese format work?

The principle of a Swiss tournament is that each player will be pitted against another player who has done as well (or poorly) as him or herself. For the first round, players are paired either according to some pattern or randomly (according to common practice in that type of game or sport). For subsequent rounds, players are sorted according to their cumulative scores and players are assigned opponents that have the same or similar score to that point. One proviso is that the same players never oppose each other twice. There may be adjustments made to the natural order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss-system_tournament

I wonder if Slith should mention something to the players when they invite to a tournament about thinking through his or hers commitment. Checking the dates and be reasonably sure they can take part.
It's now almost 48 hours since the start and my opponent hasn't made a single turn...

Whereas tofman & I finished our pair of games on Sunday. Although we each won one he has done slightly better on terms of points as I lost my game by a greater margin than the one which I won.

I'm away from tomorrow until Monday next. Not sure if that if a problem for round 2 but if not I'll pick up the games on Monday evening (GMT).

Ok, now I have a question about the scoring.
My opponent still haven't exhibit any sign of life. The game I started showed 15 to each player.
Now it shows 0 to both of us. Nothing have happened with the game.
How did the change in score came about?

More questions arise...
Yesterday when I checked one match was 13/15 vs 17/15.
Fine, but today the same match is 0/1 vs 0/29? What's going on?
On a different note, there are four matches were the standing is 0/0 vs 0/0.
Does it mean that all four are like mine with one player being absent?

hidde wrote:More questions arise...
Yesterday when I checked one match was 13/15 vs 17/15.
Fine, but today the same match is 0/1 vs 0/29? What's going on?
On a different note, there are four matches were the standing is 0/0 vs 0/0.
Does it mean that all four are like mine with one player being absent?

I would like to have this explained too. There is no real point to having a constantly updating scoreboard if no one knows what is happening on it!

The sciring reflects what woudl be awarded if no more turns were made. It is inly an estimate. It should not change unless someone ran out of time. This may be why you see things changing.

If you run out of time you'll be awarded 100% losses but retain teh kills up to that point. We probably need to explain the mechanics somewhere!

We've just added the April tournament to the listings so you can start signing up now if you missed this one!

I'm sorry but as things become pretty ecstatic at the office with the piiq family&friends beta launch closing, my free time ran straightly out of the window. Better pull me out of this one, than destroy the other rounds games I might not attend too. Thank you.

As best I can figure out, if your opponent never plays a turn and you win a time victory, you will win more points than if you slug it out with someone. Thus all the leaders after round one seem to fall in this category. Somehow, this does not seem fair. However, it is not clear to me what the solution should be.

wdkruger wrote:As best I can figure out, if your opponent never plays a turn and you win a time victory, you will win more points than if you slug it out with someone. Thus all the leaders after round one seem to fall in this category. Somehow, this does not seem fair. However, it is not clear to me what the solution should be.

As far as I'm concerned the scoring system is meaningless. The only thing that matters is if you won your game or not. The game hinges on many rolls though prudent tactics can hedge the situations to your own favor so someone who wins barely after experiencing poor rolls but played outstandingly to compensate will recieve a close to 50/50 split in points. On the other hand you get a highly experienced player going up against a beginner and then they just rake the points in. Thus we include now the element of chance with who you will play. People are also inclined to drop out and as such it further disrupts the scoring system as weaker players may end up at the top when they would never have made it gaining a handicap in points over other players. Potentially you could get a beginner versus a veteran match-up on the second round due to byes (which happened in the previous tournament in rounds 2 and 3) which once again makes for an easy round rather than being progressively more difficult. People should be just awarded a set number of points based on win-draw-loss results and then those in each group of points are randomly matched up. In this way winning a bye gives you no advantage bar progress to the next round of winners though you still will encounter mis-matches but ultimately by the 4th round only the strongest performing players in those scenarios should remain. I'd also make a point of not allowing those players who drop out to play in other tournament until a cooling period has passed. If you drop twice in a row then you should be excluded for a year.

pantherboy has a good point, we've been extensively discussed byes at the previous tournaments.

byes being only rewarded with round's/player's average points made, and match ups for the next round being randomly made should be the best solution for this, as by the 3rd round, only the really good should get to the top of the list (though the other floors would still have some higher chance of unjustly promoted byes).

Cothyso and PB are bang on - the current system eventually ends up with the good players at the top and the poor players at the bottom, but the ranking +/- 3-4 places is random, depending more on whether you played novices or experienced players (maybe thats just me getting my excuses ready because I've been drawn against eric!).

1) Bye and time-out winners should get an average win, not a maximum win
2) Drop-outs should have a cooling off period, currently it is too easy to sign up casually, and dropping reduces the fun for opponents

I'm not sure we need to go as far as pantherboy suggests - I think the points total is meaningful, and it is fun to watch the scores evolve, even with the random component.

This has been discussed in both previous tournaments. Is Slitherine going to change it? Compared to the current system, a straight knock-out would be preferable.

The obvious problems that will arise is time zones and the difficulty of playing enough turns to win or lose, due to limited time.

Players should really consider whether or not they will have the time to play in a Slitherine tournament. I had no idea when it was going to start and or end until the challenge came through.

It may well be best to specify dates a week or 2 in advance and that would allow players the chance then to enter if they can. I am thinking of Triarius who was away from 12th to 19th. I knew he would be away due to ROR Comp cup way before I knew when the new Slitherine tourney was aboout to begin.

Iain metntioned something about explaining the mechanics of the tourney. Again it would be very good to know what this consists of before entering.

The new LOEG season is prob less than 2 weeks away and as there may well be anew division due to LT, time to play for some players is even more limited.

I am just wondering for the Slitherine tourneys if each round should be extended a week or more. Hopefully you will then be able to play 1.5 to 2 turns per day. I have fond on avaerage 11 turns is about the time it takes to finsih a game.

Finally chatting, replaying opponents turn does this eat into the clock?

Even so thanks guys for arranging these additional tournaments.

The round times are all listed in the tournament including the battle.

I just want to 2nd Davouthojo's suggestion that time victory be awarded at the average of the non-timed victory point totals. While not perfect, this would prevent the 60 point round scores that put those whose opponents did play at a significant disadvantage.

It is looking possible that I may well be playing Chris/davouthojo again.

Also this scoring system I just won the British encounter and lost 14/49 vs Chris' 20/19 I picked up 23 pts

In 1st round as Persians 9/35 vs Romans 36/36 and Romans 10/36 vs Persians 45/35 In those games I scored 23 and 24 (don't know which is which)

How are these scores calculated.

Anyway do Chris and I play again?