WHAT TO DO WHEN OPPONENT LEAVES B4 END OF MATCH?
HJKOZAK
I was on fibs b4 (my first full day) and something cruddy happened. I was up
2-0and well ahead in the final game. All of a sudden my opponent was nowhere
to be found. What's the story here? Will I still get credit? What else can
anyone tell me about this, including how to avoid it from happening again.
Please e-mail besides posting here. Thanks.
Hy Kozak
hjk...@aol.com
Marie1948
>All of a sudden my opponent was nowhere
>to be found. What's the story here? Will I still get credit? What else can
>anyone tell me about this, including how to avoid it from happening again.
If you type 'show saved' you'll see your unfinished matches.
You won't get credit until the match is finished.
Try to resume if any of these opponents are available.
You may want to use the 'waitfor' command to wait for them if
they aren't around when you log in.
Only way to avoid it happening again is to quit playing.
As long as there are ungracious losers it will keep happening.
Try playing people with a relatively large amount of experience, and those
close to your own rating.
The majority of FIBSters <and i'm assuming this happened on FIBS> will finish a
match.
But as in life, you'll run across the few 'bad apples'.
Take the bitter with the sweet, and accept what you get.
Then say the Serenity Prayer a few times.
:)
Happy Rolls To You!
Dean Gay
On 28 Jan 1998 02:37:33 GMT, hjk...@aol.com (HJKOZAK) wrote:
:I was on fibs b4 (my first full day) and something cruddy happened. I was up
:2-0and well ahead in the final game. All of a sudden my opponent was nowhere
:to be found. What's the story here? Will I still get credit? What else can
:anyone tell me about this, including how to avoid it from happening again.
:Please e-mail besides posting here. Thanks.
:
:Hy Kozak
:hjk...@aol.com
:
Hi Hy,
Welcome to FIBS and r.g.b.
Just about all of us have had someone drop on us at some point or
another. My first advice is not to automatically assume that the
person deliberately dropped to avoid losing the match. Communication
problems are pretty frequent on the net and it's quite possible that
the person's computer, server, power, phone line, etc. went down at a
particularly suspect time. I know this has happened to me a few
times, and I always worry that my opponent will assume the worst. I
usually try to leave a message explaining what happened and expressing
my hope that we can resume the match soon. I wish others would do the
same.
There is no mechanism in place for getting credit for unfinished
matches. The topic comes up in this news group from time to time but
the tacit conclusion seems to be that there is no universally fair way
to administer such rulings. Also, intentional drops happen pretty
infrequently and the harm done (a few rating points not awarded and
the understandable accompanying frustration) isn't enough to warrant
the time spent programming an ineffective solution.
Your best bet is to try to find the person online or leave them a
message and see if you can get them to finish. You may find that the
drop was unintentional. If it was intentional and the person won't
finish up, shrug your shoulders and forget about it. That's not an
easy thing to do when you really deserve the win, but it's good for
the soul. :) The unfinished match will be deleted from the system
after a certain number of days (100, I believe).
As for avoiding droppers in the future, someone in this news group
suggested a policy of not accepting matches with people who have very
low experience points and do not have an email address listed in their
"whois" information. I've had a lot of success with this. I've been
dropped only once in the last year or so. However, when I am in the
right mood, I will often break that policy and play a low-experience
player. I remember what it was like to be a FIBS newbie and I am
willing to risk a drop or two in order to welcome someone and make a
new friend. If you *really* can't handle being dropped on, try to
stick to players you know personally or have played before. You just
have to decide what your priorities are.
Sorry your first FIBS experience was a bad one. I hope many good ones
will follow.
Good dice,
Chase
William Smithers
>There is no mechanism in place for getting credit for unfinished
>matches. The topic comes up in this news group from time to time but
>the tacit conclusion seems to be that there is no universally fair way
>to administer such rulings. Also, intentional drops happen pretty
=========================================================================
Sorry, but in my experience, that is not true. In the past week, I've had at
least five obviously intentional disconnects in positions clearly lost for the
Gutless Wonders. Messages asking to arrange resumptions are ignored.
==========================================================================
... and the harm done (a few rating points not awarded and
>the understandable accompanying frustration) isn't enough to warrant
>the time spent programming an ineffective solution.
=========================================================================
Sorry, but I disagree with you. In chess, a player leaving the board loses
the game when the time control runs out. On Internet chess servers, abandoned
games can be adjudicated by the admins. If the latter method is impractical on
FIBS, as I understand it to be, then the onus should be on the disconnector:
on the claim of the abandoned player, an unfinished game should be awarded to
the abandoned player when the FIBS database is through with it, or at some
other specified time.
===========================================================================
>
>Your best bet is to try to find the person online or leave them a
>message and see if you can get them to finish. You may find that the
>drop was unintentional. If it was intentional and the person won't
>finish up, shrug your shoulders and forget about it. That's not an
>easy thing to do when you really deserve the win, but it's good for
>the soul. :)
==========================================================================
Sorry, but I disagree with you. The aspect of yet another successful cheat
doesn't enhance my inner life at all.
==========================================================================
>
>As for avoiding droppers in the future, someone in this news group
>suggested a policy of not accepting matches with people who have very
>low experience points and do not have an email address listed in their
>"whois" information.
==========================================================================
I may try this. I feel I have to try something if the administrators won't.
==========================================================================
If you *really* can't handle being dropped on, try to
>stick to players you know personally or have played before.
============================================================================
Sorry, but this is not practical for a newcomer to FIBS.
=========================================================================
> You just >have to decide what your priorities are.
==========================================================================
My priority is to suggest that FIBS administrators find a more effective way
of handling the frequent cheating by disconnectors. I'm happy FIBS exists; I
wish it were a less frustrating place to play backgammon.
-- Bill Smithers
===========================================================================
John Goodwin
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 14:07:39 GMT, d...@pacificnet.net (Dean Gay) wrote:
snip
>Just about all of us have had someone drop on us at some point or
>another. My first advice is not to automatically assume that the
>person deliberately dropped to avoid losing the match. Communication
>problems are pretty frequent on the net and it's quite possible that
>the person's computer, server, power, phone line, etc. went down at a
>particularly suspect time. I know this has happened to me a few
>times, and I always worry that my opponent will assume the worst. I
>usually try to leave a message explaining what happened and expressing
>my hope that we can resume the match soon. I wish others would do the
>same.
>
>There is no mechanism in place for getting credit for unfinished
>matches. The topic comes up in this news group from time to time but
>the tacit conclusion seems to be that there is no universally fair way
>to administer such rulings. Also, intentional drops happen pretty
>infrequently and the harm done (a few rating points not awarded and
>the understandable accompanying frustration) isn't enough to warrant
>the time spent programming an ineffective solution.
>
>Your best bet is to try to find the person online or leave them a
>message and see if you can get them to finish. You may find that the
>drop was unintentional. If it was intentional and the person won't
>finish up, shrug your shoulders and forget about it. That's not an
>easy thing to do when you really deserve the win, but it's good for
>the soul. :) The unfinished match will be deleted from the system
>after a certain number of days (100, I believe).
>
>As for avoiding droppers in the future, someone in this news group
>suggested a policy of not accepting matches with people who have very
>low experience points and do not have an email address listed in their
>"whois" information. I've had a lot of success with this. I've been
>dropped only once in the last year or so. However, when I am in the
>right mood, I will often break that policy and play a low-experience
>player. I remember what it was like to be a FIBS newbie and I am
>willing to risk a drop or two in order to welcome someone and make a
>new friend. If you *really* can't handle being dropped on, try to
>stick to players you know personally or have played before. You just
>have to decide what your priorities are.
>
>Sorry your first FIBS experience was a bad one. I hope many good ones
>will follow.
>
The unfortunate corollary to your suggestion of only playing those
with reasonably high experience levels is that it means that the
cheats are dictating policy, and all newcomers are suffering.
I know at least one person on this group is very vocal in his
opposition to adjudicated matches on the grounds that he might have a
winnable match adjudicated against him through circumstance outside
his control.
I would like to offer a suggestion. There are probably flaws to it,
but it does have the benefit of being easy to implement and
understand.
The method would be as follows:
Where two players have a saved match, if either player requests that
the match is resumed and the other player refuses, then that match
will be awarded to the challenger.
If during the course of any match, the same player drops on three
occasions, the match will be awarded to his opponent.
[The second rule is necessary to prevent the cheat simply accepting
the resumption, and dropping again a few moves later].
It is still possible that someone would be penalised for
communications problems that are outside their control, but it is a
matter of balancing the benefits. One could also make the point that
if your setup is so ropey that you cannot complete a match, then it is
not very polite to engage others in a game that you may well be unable
to complete.
Various tweaks are possible, for instance the actual number of drops
allowed per match could be increased for players who have a history of
games completed without drops, so that a genuine player who suffers a
sudden glitchy connection would no be so likely to be penalised. It
would also make sense not to adjudicate in favour of a player who was
significantly behind.
J.G.
Lars S"oz"uer
Dean Gay wrote:
>
> The unfinished match will be deleted from the system
> after a certain number of days (100, I believe).
>
My unfinished matches were consistently deleted after 60 days
in the 15 months that I'm on FIBS.
Excellent article BTW.
Yours,
sencay
--
Lars S"oz"uer |Tel.: +49-9131-33351 private |On FIBS: sencay
Schornbaumstr. 4 | -85-7066 office |(pronounced Shendzhay)
D-91052 Erlangen |FAX: -15249 |WBF_code: none
Germany |e-mail: Lars.S...@physik.uni-erlangen.de
Web Site: http://try.physik.uni-erlangen.de/~soezueer
William Smithers
In article <34d03dc6....@news.demon.co.uk>, J...@opticon.demon.co.uk
says...
>
>
>The unfortunate corollary to your suggestion of only playing those
>with reasonably high experience levels is that it means that the
>cheats are dictating policy, and all newcomers are suffering.
========================================================================
I agree with you completely, John!
========================================================================
>I know at least one person on this group is very vocal in his
>opposition to adjudicated matches on the grounds that he might have a
>winnable match adjudicated against him through circumstance outside
>his control.
=========================================================================
I wonder if that would be the one who emailed me today, warning that if I
did not make a "new" or "original" suggestion as to the problem of FIBS
intentional disconnectors, I would be "shot down in flames."
==========================================================================
>
>I would like to offer a suggestion. There are probably flaws to it,
>but it does have the benefit of being easy to implement and
>understand.
>
>The method would be as follows:
>
>Where two players have a saved match, if either player requests that
>the match is resumed and the other player refuses, then that match
>will be awarded to the challenger.
>
>If during the course of any match, the same player drops on three
>occasions, the match will be awarded to his opponent.
>
>[The second rule is necessary to prevent the cheat simply accepting
>the resumption, and dropping again a few moves later].
>
>It is still possible that someone would be penalised for
>communications problems that are outside their control, but it is a
>matter of balancing the benefits. One could also make the point that
>if your setup is so ropey that you cannot complete a match, then it is
>not very polite to engage others in a game that you may well be unable
>to complete.
=========================================================================
Once again, I agree completely. The basic premise is: finish the game
within a specified and reasonable period of time, or lose it.
I'm convinced that the problem of cheating disconnectors can be dealt with
effectively if there is a will to do it.
-- Bill Smithers
=========================================================================
Nigel Bailey
In article <34cf306b...@dnews.pacificnet.net>, Dean Gay
<d...@pacificnet.net> writes
>
>Your best bet is to try to find the person online or leave them a
>message and see if you can get them to finish. You may find that the
>drop was unintentional.
Are messages automatically flashed up when someone logs in, or do they
have to ask for them? The reason I ask is I've been dropped in two games
recently. One I was 2-0 up in a three point match, and the other I was
1-0 down in a 2 pointer. I've left messages to both opponents to see
when they want to resume the games, and heard nothing back, even though
WHOIS shows they've logged in again since I left my message.
Frustrating isn't it! :o(
Nigel
--
Nigel Bailey
'pompey' on FIBS
(why pompey? Check out my Pompey website at http://www.nigelbailey.demon.co.uk)
John Goodwin
On 29 Jan 1998 11:53:51 GMT, bil...@silcom.com (William Smithers)
wrote:
> I wonder if that would be the one who emailed me today, warning that if I
>did not make a "new" or "original" suggestion as to the problem of FIBS
>intentional disconnectors, I would be "shot down in flames."
>
I got a similar email. One wonders who but a dedicated cheat would be
so desperate to stifle debate on the matter, rather than, as most
sensible readers, use the blindingly obvious tactic of:
NOT READING THREADS IN WHICH THEY HAVE NO INTEREST
(apologies for shouting)
J.G.
Patti Beadles
I've heard this debate on and off for many years.
Nobody has ever proposed a solution that is can distinguish between
network problems and intentional drops, is guaranteed to be fair to
everybody, (most importantly) has no loopholes for abusers, and
doesn't require tons of implementation effort.
The first time somebody proposes a solution that meets those criteria,
I'll personally push marvin to do it. I haven't heard one yet.
In the meantime, the best thing you can do is choose your opponents
carefully. My personal criterion is that I won't play with anyone who
has less than 400 experience points unless I know them personally, or
they've entered a legitimate-looking email address using the "address"
command. In the last two years, nobody has dropped on me.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles |
pat...@netcom.com/pat...@gammon.com |
http://www.gammon.com/ | "I trust you. It's just
or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" | that I'm scared of you."
Dean Gay
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:09:12 +0000, Nigel Bailey
<NI...@nigelbailey.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:In article <34cf306b...@dnews.pacificnet.net>, Dean Gay
:<d...@pacificnet.net> writes
:>
:>Your best bet is to try to find the person online or leave them a
:>message and see if you can get them to finish. You may find that the
:>drop was unintentional.
:
:Are messages automatically flashed up when someone logs in, or do they
:have to ask for them? The reason I ask is I've been dropped in two games
:recently. One I was 2-0 up in a three point match, and the other I was
:1-0 down in a 2 pointer. I've left messages to both opponents to see
:when they want to resume the games, and heard nothing back, even though
:WHOIS shows they've logged in again since I left my message.
:
:Frustrating isn't it! :o(
:
Messages display automatically immediately following login.
Eliot W Dudley
Dean Gay wrote:
>
> On 28 Jan 1998 02:37:33 GMT, hjk...@aol.com (HJKOZAK) wrote:
>
> :I was on fibs b4 (my first full day) and something cruddy happened. I was up
> :2-0and well ahead in the final game. All of a sudden my opponent was nowhere
> :to be found. What's the story here? Will I still get credit? What else can
> :anyone tell me about this, including how to avoid it from happening again.
> :Please e-mail besides posting here. Thanks.
> There is no mechanism in place for getting credit for unfinished
> matches. The topic comes up in this news group from time to time but
> the tacit conclusion seems to be that there is no universally fair way
> to administer such rulings.
I would like to see a simple rating that would indicate the net worth of
a player's saved games, seems like droppers would stick out like sore
thumbs.
Marie1948
>I would like to see a simple rating that would indicate the net worth of
>a player's saved games, seems like droppers would stick out like sore
>thumbs.
I agree. While this won't stop droppers from dropping, at least
it will give you an indication of their record, and you can use
your own judgment in inviting them.
Netgammon lists a player's saved matches on their information card.
And at NOBS you can type 'show saved username' to see how
many saved matches an individual has.
Since FIBS and NOBS are so similar, isn't there a way to use
this command on FIBS?
Rodrigo Andrade
Hey, hey, hey!!! I'm a kinda newbie to FIBS too, my exerience is only 53, and I
never drop a game intentionally, unless I have some network problem here!!!!
If I ever abandon you, I'll be more than happy to get e-mail from you asking what
happened! The Internet really sucks sometimes!!!!!!!!!!!
In chess, even on-line, if you tip your king, or simply leave the game, the game
is over and the abandoned player wins and gets the points.
See ya,
Rodrigo
HJKOZAK wrote:
> I was on fibs b4 (my first full day) and something cruddy happened. I was up
> 2-0and well ahead in the final game. All of a sudden my opponent was nowhere
> to be found. What's the story here? Will I still get credit? What else can
> anyone tell me about this, including how to avoid it from happening again.
> Please e-mail besides posting here. Thanks.
>
> Hy Kozak
> hjk...@aol.com
Chuck Bower
In article <pattibEn...@netcom.com>,
Patti Beadles <pat...@netcom.com> wrote:
>I've heard this debate on and off for many years.
>
>Nobody has ever proposed a solution that is can distinguish between
>network problems and intentional drops, is guaranteed to be fair to
>everybody, (most importantly) has no loopholes for abusers, and
>doesn't require tons of implementation effort.
Gee, you don't ask for much! ;)
>The first time somebody proposes a solution that meets those criteria,
>I'll personally push marvin to do it. I haven't heard one yet.
>
>In the meantime, the best thing you can do is choose your opponents
>carefully. My personal criterion is that I won't play with anyone who
>has less than 400 experience points unless I know them personally, or
>they've entered a legitimate-looking email address using the "address"
>command. In the last two years, nobody has dropped on me.
Yesterday afternoon I wrote a post on this subject, and then applied
(Daniel) Murphy's Law: "wait 24 hours before submitting an emotionally
charged post." Patti's point #1 above ('no one has yet come up with a
satisfactory solution to adjudicating dropped matches') was part of my
post (and she said it more tersely; imagine that)!
The second thing I was GOING TO say can be summed up in a question:
"How important is a person's rating?" This applies to the 'dropper' AND
the 'droppee'. I wait for (a flood of) answers before deciding if I
should elaborate.
Patti's second point has some merit as well, but, as has been
mentioned by others, MAY discourage some HONEST newbies. Still, if that's
the only way to keep one's blood pressure under control, then maybe it's
a good idea. (A presumption here is that low experience players are
more likely to be droppers. I doubt if anyone's done a systematic
study of this...) When I first started playing on FIBS, Butch Meese
(indianajones) suggested that a good rule is to play others who are
in a similar situation--that is, if you have low experience then invite
players with low experience. This can be thought of as "paying one's
dues". I followed his recommendation. Maybe this should be in the
FIBS FAQ. (Maybe it already is. But if others don't read it any more
carefully than I do, then putting it there may not be worth the effort. ;)
While you're mulling over my "how important is ratings" question,
here is another one for you. What is the frequency of 'dropped' matches?
I'm looking for a fraction or percentage--like "On average I'm dropped
on once every N matches". What is the value of 'N'?
Chuck
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
c_ray on FIBS
Dean Gay
On 31 Jan 1998 18:09:14 GMT, bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Chuck
Bower) wrote:
: The second thing I was GOING TO say can be summed up in a question:
:"How important is a person's rating?" This applies to the 'dropper' AND
:the 'droppee'. I wait for (a flood of) answers before deciding if I
:should elaborate.
Exactly. After the initial frustrations of being dropped a few times,
I soon realized that it wasn't a big deal. There really is nothing of
huge import to me at stake. And in the long run, droppers are not
likely to have any real impact on my rating anyway.
Someone here mentioned that they didn't like the idea of droppers
dictating playing policy. Well, I guess you could say that I decided
I didn't like droppers dictating the state of my mood. Holding a
grudge is usually more detrimental to one's well being than the
initial injury. So now I just try to shrug my shoulders and invite
someone else. Like I said, it's good for the soul.
: While you're mulling over my "how important is ratings" question,
:here is another one for you. What is the frequency of 'dropped' matches?
:I'm looking for a fraction or percentage--like "On average I'm dropped
:on once every N matches". What is the value of 'N'?
I have over 11,000 experience points on FIBS (don't know how many
matches that equates to, but I typically play 5-pointers). I've been
the victim of what I *believe* to be intentional dropping 5 or 6 times
over the 2 and half years that I've been on the system. Since
adopting Patti's suggestion of avoiding those with very low experience
and/or no listed email address about a year or so ago, I've had one
drop that I believe to have been intentional.
Personally, I think my rating (and my peace of mind) is better served
by spending my time trying to better my checker play and cube
decisions than by fretting over the injustices of having been dropped
on.
Ed Mooney
Patti Beadles wrote in message ...
>I've heard this debate on and off for many years.
>
>Nobody has ever proposed a solution that is can distinguish between
>network problems and intentional drops, is guaranteed to be fair to
>everybody, (most importantly) has no loopholes for abusers, and
>doesn't require tons of implementation effort.
>
>The first time somebody proposes a solution that meets those criteria,
>I'll personally push marvin to do it. I haven't heard one yet.
Patti,
Why not use JF rollouts to finish saved matches 30 days old? This has been
suggested before, and is not the perfect solution you are looking for. It
would be, however, a big improvement over doing nothing, as it is now. The
benefits easily outweigh the problems. To not improve a problem because the
solution isn't perfect makes no sense.
EdM
Ed Mooney
Ed Mooney wrote in message <6b4j1n$phq$1...@news9.ispnews.com>...
>
>Patti Beadles wrote in message ...
>>I've heard this debate on and off for many years.
>>
>>Nobody has ever proposed a solution that is can distinguish between
>>network problems and intentional drops, is guaranteed to be fair to
>>everybody, (most importantly) has no loopholes for abusers, and
>>doesn't require tons of implementation effort.
>>
>>The first time somebody proposes a solution that meets those criteria,
>>I'll personally push marvin to do it. I haven't heard one yet.
>
Correction: What I meant to say: (have JF complete, instead of rollouts)
Patti,
Why not use JellyFish to complete saved matches 30 days old? This has been
Alexander Nitschke
I would love to see a good solution too. But your suggestion to end
matches by playing both sides with Jellyfish is really flawed: Suppose
two players with a big rating difference are playing a match. After one
game one player leaves the match. Clearly it would be very favorable now
for the underdog to let the match end with Jellyfish playing for him.
Obvious cheating technique would be now to drop early in the match
against a high rated player (for example computers). But aside from
cheating this method would effect all saved games because the players
simply wouldn't play like Jellyfish.
My solution would be basically the same like the solution on the chess
server ICC: A player with a clearly won position (less than 1% or 2% -
have to be decided - match winning chance for the opponent) could
'adjudicate' the match. Then a program could estimate the match winning
chances in the position. If the match is indeed that much lopsided then
the win would be awarded to the demanding player.
It's not a perfect solution of course. A cheat would just drop if he is
down to 3%. :-) But I think it is simply not possible in a luck game
like backgammon to adjudicate matches where both sides have reasonable
winning chances, and 3% are definitely reasonable, I have experienced
lots of such swings.
Another way would be more transparency about the games of other players.
On ICC one can see the history of the last 20 games of every player and
even replay the games. So you get a good feel if this is player you'd
like to play or not. On FIBS you know just nothing about other players
but there IP address and one finger line. There is really much room for
improvement on FIBS.
--
Alexander
William Smithers
In article <34D5EBCD...@ww.tu-berlin.de>,
alexander...@ww.tu-berlin.de says...
>
>Ed Mooney wrote:
>>
>> Patti,
>> Why not use JellyFish to complete saved matches 30 days old? This has been
>> suggested before, and is not the perfect solution you are looking for. It
>> would be, however, a big improvement over doing nothing, as it is now. The
the solution isn't perfect makes no sense.****
>>
>> EdM
===========================================================================
Ed -- I agree wholeheartedly with your last statement. And that seems to be at
the core of the problem here. I would like to see the administrators, Patti,
and others, contribute toward a solution to the problem of cheating
disconnectors, rather than acting as judges who'll decide whether they'll
recommend to someone the fruits of others' work.
===========================================================================
>
>I would love to see a good solution too. But your suggestion to end
>matches by playing both sides with Jellyfish is really flawed: [SNIP]
>
>My solution would be basically the same like the solution on the chess
>server ICC: A player with a clearly won position (less than 1% or 2% -
>have to be decided - match winning chance for the opponent) could
>'adjudicate' the match. Then a program could estimate the match winning
>chances in the position. If the match is indeed that much lopsided then
>the win would be awarded to the demanding player.
> [SNIP]
>Another way would be more transparency about the games of other players.
>On ICC one can see the history of the last 20 games of every player and
>even replay the games. So you get a good feel if this is player you'd
>like to play or not. On FIBS you know just nothing about other players
>but there IP address and one finger line. There is really much room for
>improvement on FIBS.
>
>--
>Alexander
==========================================================================
Alexander --
I'm very happy to see a discussion of the solution to this problem taking
place; much more useful than email messages warning of being "shot down in
flames," or being offered "Serenity Prayers" counseling -- in the offerer's
eyes -- the acceptance without active opposition of a particular brand of
corruption to be found here.
Can you, or someone, help me with this: Does the FIBS program now (or can it
be readily made to) recognize and record which player in a match has
disconnected?
-- Bill Smithers
===========================================================================
Patti Beadles
In article <34D5EBCD...@ww.tu-berlin.de>,
Alexander Nitschke <alexander...@ww.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>My solution would be basically the same like the solution on the chess
>server ICC: A player with a clearly won position (less than 1% or 2% -
>have to be decided - match winning chance for the opponent) could
>'adjudicate' the match. Then a program could estimate the match winning
>chances in the position. If the match is indeed that much lopsided then
>the win would be awarded to the demanding player.
Please describe in detail your algorithm for determining the
match-winning chances for a player. Bear in mind that it must be easy
to implement within the current framework of FIBS.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles |
pat...@netcom.com/pat...@gammon.com |
http://www.gammon.com/ | Try to relax
or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" | and enjoy the crisis
David desJardins
Dean Gay (invalid address) writes:
> Exactly. After the initial frustrations of being dropped a few times,
> I soon realized that it wasn't a big deal. There really is nothing of
> huge import to me at stake. And in the long run, droppers are not
> likely to have any real impact on my rating anyway.
This seems to me to be a good argument for "he who disconnects loses."
Sure, occasionally a player might be inadvertently disconnected, and not
able to reconnect to finish the match. But that's just not that big a
deal. There really is nothing of huge import at stake. And, in the
long run, disconnects are not likely to have any real impact on one's
rating.
Since it just isn't that important one way or the other, it makes sense
to tailor the policy to discourage, rather than encourage, anti-social
behavior.
David desJardins
Daniel Murphy
>Another way would be more transparency about the games of other players.
>On ICC one can see the history of the last 20 games of every player and
>even replay the games. So you get a good feel if this is player you'd
>like to play or not. On FIBS you know just nothing about other players
>but there IP address and one finger line. There is really much room for
>improvement on FIBS.
I agree, and wrote last March:
"The only change I've ever seen suggested for dealing with droppers
that I would like to see implemented on FIBS is to allow the command
"show saved <userid>." I suspect droppers with little expererience
would disappear even more quickly -- and without affecting FIBS
regulars who happen to have a lot of saved matches but also enjoy a
good reputation."
I'll be surprised if any of the other proposals are ever implemented
on FIBS anytime "real soon," but this one is the least authoritarian
and should also be rather simple to implement (as Lou Poppler has done
on his server, NOBS).
_______________________________________________
Daniel Murphy http://www.cityraccoon.com
Don Banks
I've seen this thread come up a lot, and this surprises me because having
played on fibs off and on for three years, I've only been "dropped" in
an assured winning position once.
Anyway, assuming this is a huge problem, I think that a simple method is
to allow saved games to continue without an opponent being present. That is,
if X is playing O, and O drops, if it is X's turn, he can still play his next
move without O being logged on. Then, when O logs back on the next day,
he's greeted with the message "Nag: It is your move in saved game with X"
So, O may type "continue X", O rolls the dice, makes his move, and the game
is again saved for X to play the next time he is on-line.
If a player goes more than 3 weeks without making a move in a saved game, he
loses automatically.
marina_smith
I have recently played against someone with an unstable connection. He
got disconnected 5 times during the match, for which he apologized. He
did say that this was unusually bad. we should be tolerant of those
players with less-than-perfect ISPs, often in less developed parts of
the world from ourselves.
Marina/mas on fibs
David desJardins <de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
--
Marina Smith - Reading U.K, to mail me remove XX from address
Gary Wong
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Chuck Bower) writes:
> The second thing I was GOING TO say can be summed up in a question:
> "How important is a person's rating?" This applies to the 'dropper' AND
> the 'droppee'. I wait for (a flood of) answers before deciding if I
> should elaborate.
Let me behave like a politician and start my answer by rewording your
question :-) I think it can be broken down into:
* How important is it that ratings are _accurate_?
* If a rating is _inaccurate_, how much of a problem is it?
* What value does a rating have to a person? (would I be happier if my
rating were 100 points more? would my meaningless life be fulfilled if
I reached 2000? etc.)
The last question is probably the easiest to answer -- it depends on the
person, of course. To a deliberate dropper, it's obviously very important
(a desire to be rated highly is among the ingredients in their recipe,
besides a lack of morals and having nothing more worthwhile to do). To a
bot, it's not important in the slightest. To the vast majority of FIBSters,
it's presumably somewhere in between.
Answering the first question now: assuming ratings are important (and there
are many good reasons they might be, leaving aside vanity value for the
moment) then it seems clear that accurate ratings are superior. It has
long since been observed that fluctuations are large -- expect swings up
to 100 points, say.
The last thing I want to address is the second question -- how much of a
problem is an inaccurate rating? Given that a 100 point discrepancy can
occur from random variation alone, you might be tempted to argue that even
if somebody cheated 50 points off you, the difference is insignificant and
lost in the noise. At the other extreme, you could claim that losing a
single point has permanently lowered your rating and you will never again
be rated as highly as you would be if you had won the point (which is also
true, modulo rounding error). Overall I think a fairer answer is to consider
the "half-life" of a result -- assume you are cheated out of a game and
"lose" a few points (not scoring n points that you deserve is essentially
equivalent to having n points unfairly deducted from your rating). Your
rating is now n points lower than it should be; but to compensate, your
future wins will be worth fractionally more (since you are now underrated).
How many games will you have to play before you are only rated n/2 below
your "true" rating?
For simplicity, let's assume your experience is 400+ and you only play 1
point matches. If an equally rated player drops on you on a game that you
would certainly win, then your rating is 2 points lower. However, you'll
score slightly more in future (0.0023 points on average). This quantity
will gradually reduce as you approach your "true" rating again, but as
a linear approximation let's say it will take somewhat over 200 games to
gain a point from it -- ie. the "half life" of a FIBS match result is of
the order of 200 experience.
> While you're mulling over my "how important is ratings" question,
> here is another one for you. What is the frequency of 'dropped' matches?
> I'm looking for a fraction or percentage--like "On average I'm dropped
> on once every N matches". What is the value of 'N'?
N will naturally vary depending on who you are, who you play, etc. etc. But
as an order-of-magnitude estimation, Abbott has been on FIBS for about a
week, plays one point matches only, has 1094 experience and 39 saved games.
It tries hard not to start new matches with players it has saved games with,
and to the best of my knowledge it has succeeded so far. If we assume half
of the saved games are deliberate drops that will never be resumed, then
N is about 1094/19.5 -- let's call it 50. For humans I expect N to be
somewhat higher, since I hope droppers are less likely to cheat against
a human; humans are able to apply a little more pressure in convincing a
dropper to resume a game; and humans are more likely to be suspicious of
starting a game with a dropper in the first place (would you join somebody
with an 1800 rating and 50 experience?). So I'll claim N for a human is
about 100.
So, what effect do droppers have on your rating overall? If we take the
same 1-point player as above, and assume she lost 2 points 50 matches ago,
and another 2 150 matches, 250, 350 etc., how much lower will her rating
be? The 2 points she lost 50 matches old will now be worth -1.68; 150 old
will be worth -1.19, etc. -- the sum to infinity of a geometric series with
a = -1.68, r = 1/sqrt(2). This works out to be about -5.74. There have
been several assumptions and estimations in this quantity so let's say our
guess is that the true value is between 2 and 10 and probably about 5.
_Therefore, I'd estimate that everybody who is not a dropper is rated
typically 5 points lower than they ought to be._ Personally I don't think
this is large enough to be worried about. Certainly not worth all the
heated accusations, or being put off FIBS over! Do I dare suggest the
simplest fix for Patti and Marvin to make would be simply to start every
new player on FIBS with a rating of 1505.74 to compensate? ;-)
And to shed yet more opinions, I think the most constructive suggestions
so far have been the "show saved <name>" extension (though you'd also need
an "oldboard <name1> <name2>" to distinguish between droppers and
droppees -- bots accumulate dozens of saved games a week, but they're not
droppers). That and the Serenity Prayer :-)
Cheers,
Gary (GaryW on FIBS -- yep, the one whose rating is in a sorry state, and
he doesn't care).
--
Gary Wong, Computer Science Department, University of Auckland, New Zealand
ga...@cs.auckland.ac.nz http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~gary/