Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
"I have always a slight feeling of pity for the man who has no knowledge of Chess" (Siegbert Tarrasch)
Vanilla 1.1.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
1 to 17 of 17
Please comment on this. This is a way that may address games with uneven sides, where one side has a clear advantage:
1. Players play both sides.
2. In case where both players won with the same side, then the player who won in the least amount of moves would end up being considered the winner.
In cases where a person won both games, this point is moot. Please comment. I was looking for standardized way in the IAGO World Tour to handle games like Connect 4. In cases where one side has a clear advantage, I don't believe playing a third game is the answer.
Please comment here, or make a better suggestion. I believe also in games where the sides are real close, this approach could also work. So, it can be adopted as a standard solution across all IAGO World Tour events. I believe the case of Mark Steere's games, which always has one side a winner, would benefit from this.
Please post any comments you may have. If you have disagreements with this, please suggest another alternative. However, pointing out weaknesses are welcome.
I don't think standardization is possible, but the methods you suggest certainly could be in the toolbox.
Another tool is some variation of the pie rule.
I'm sure I could find (or construct) a game which would be unsuitable for any fixed equalization rule.
The exact method should depend on the nature of the game.
It would be useful if someone comes up with a list of approaches that can go into the toolbox.
The issue I was looking to address is the case where both players win with the same side, and preventing the need for a third game to be played.
Doesn't work well. Assume there's a strong side and a weak side, as in some versions of Tablut/Hneftafl, etc.
The player who plays the strong side second has a huge advantage. He knows exactly the score he needs for a win.
Oh...an alternative.
I've never come up with one, unless the game has a fairly obvious handicapping method, that can be reasonably balanced. In that case, you could "bid" for the strong side. Example: In Tablut, the King's side has a huge advantage, but if you gave 3 free moves to the attackers, they would have a huge advantage. You could bid as attackers with one free move, attackers with 2 free moves, or something like that.
In other words, I will take the attacker side, but only if I get 2 free moves. If you are willing to take it with one free move, then we play the game with you as the attackers.
In general, the bid is for playing the "weak" side. Whoever is willing to play the weak side with the smallest handicap is who will play.
In regards to knowing how many moves you need for "a win", it is more like, if the player who goes second doesn't happen to win the game in that many moves (what the opponent did), then they lose the game. Maybe one can argue that the player defending their win ends up defend so many turns to win the game.
I was curious though about bid method by number of moves though: If you were to use a bid method in chess with moves, then how many moves can one give up before the game is completely over? I also don't see bidding moves to be granular enough.
The thing about one side having a huge advantage is that the side with the strong advantage should be won by both players. The issue then is how you measure which player did better with the stronger side. My suggestion is moves, with the side winning in less moves winning the game. Sure, one side ends up much more on the defensive, but isn't that the point of games which are unbalanced.
In cases where a game will be played once and only once, then I do see you need to use a bidding method. My suggestion for bidding method would be to bid time on the clock. Both players do a Dutch auction bidding method, with the side winner the bid getting to pick what side to play, at the cost on the clock verses the other player, who happens to get the other side.
Of course, the idea of playing both sides, can use time left on the clock as a deciding factor. But, number of moves, as I saw it, was a way to do it, if you didn't have clocks to measure time.
So Mead, on this note, what are your thoughts in regards to bidding time? I am in favor of it in games where you play only one game, winner takes all.
I have no time for games of unequal sides. I think we should let natural selection weed them out, or reduce them to historical curios; because any method you choose is a contrivance that skews the original game. You are actually playing a varient, not the game itself. Who would watch a football game if they knew that one side always had a clear advantage? Who would bet on a horse to win if they knew it would always lose?
Having said that, if you intend to press ahead with some form of distortion to the original in order to redress an imbalance, any of the above methods could be matched to the individual game in question.
I think we need to look at possibly adding another criterior for abstracts which excludes games with a clear first move advantage, or games with unequal forces. Or perhaps have two categories: sbstract strategy games; and pure abstract strategy games?
All abstract strategy games, by the time their first move is made, in the first game, have an expiration date with it. The end result will be proven, which is the result of either one side or the other having an advantage, or perfect play results in a draw. Because of this, I believe it is important to come up with ways of handling balanced sides.
In regards to games with uneven sides being in IAGO, you have the Tafl family in the IAGO Hall of Fame at this point.
By the way, as for what is an abstract strategy game or not, I am not sure why balanced sides are a measure of anything. About every definition I have seen for abstract strategy games involves: no luck, perfect information, 2 players or sides, and lacking in theming relevant to play mechanics. Unbalanced sides doesn't seem to pop up. If one plays both sides that aren't balanced, I don't see why it is an issue. You just need an effective way to evaluate who did better. With unbalanced sides, one side is offense, and the other is defense.
In regards to football (I speak of American football here) the sides are NOT balanced. Offense has a QB, and the defense has an extra player. In all sports, the sides aren't balanced either. Players on teams do have different skills, so the sides are not balanced.
I think also, it is important to know not every game in IAGO Is for everyone.
- Rich
Fair enough Richard, unbalanced games can be abstract, but it is only the unfairness built into a game that bothers me, not that two players have different skill levels which tip the ballance in favour of one or the other. I was refering to Rugby or League where the sides are equal and it is the captain and the coach that 'play' a certain strategy given the different qualities of the players they have assembled into a team.
But yeh, different strokes...
I do believe balance is important to IAGO. Because of this, it would be beneficial to come up with ways to balance games where one side has a clear advantage. And, that is the basis of the question here. It is to take that which is unbalanced and make it more balanced. One can also add handicapping into the mix here also, for effective ways to handicap.
My take on sports is, you normally have sides which have offense and defense to them. When one side has the ball, then the game shifts. The ball unbalances things. This is different than chess, or a balanced wargame, where both sides are on offense and defense at the same time.
So, on this note, this question is meant to address how to balance games that are unbalanced. My belief is to work for the best solution using the most unbalanced of games, and then applying the answer in a more standard way.
Renju is an example for a game with unequal (unfair?) rules to make the game fair. Balance isn't about abstractness, rather it is about quality like "clarity" (questionable), "drama", "depth" ... Omweso (my favorite game) is rather opaque, and yet it has become the national mindsport of Uganda in the 19th century. Clarity appears to be a Western concept.
in games with point scoring:
let each player begin once, the player who got more points wins the match
Points are a way to handle handicapping also. However, there is an issue of games without scoring, such as chess, where that isn't feasible. I believe the Tafl family is another example.
<blockquote>In regards to knowing how many moves you need for "a win", it is more like, if the player who goes second doesn't happen to win the game in that many moves (what the opponent did), then they lose the game. Maybe one can argue that the player defending their win ends up defend so many turns to win the game.
I was curious though about bid method by number of moves though: If you were to use a bid method in chess with moves, then how many moves can one give up before the game is completely over? I also don't see bidding moves to be granular enough.</blockquote>
The problem is that the second player has more information than the first. The first player can play aggressively, or cautiously. The system rewards aggressive play, though, because a quick win is better than a slow one. The first player doesn't know exactly how aggressive to be, but he knows he has to be quick about it. The second player has more information. He knows exactly how many moves he can make before he loses. That gives him an advantage.
I generally agree with david though, that whatever balance method used shouldn't muck with the rules. There are lots of good, balanced, games. Maybe not every game works well in a tournament format.
As for the bid method, the exact thing to "bid" would vary from game to game. In Chess, a competent player can win with one free move, so bidding moves would not be a good bid system. Perhaps minutes on the clock would be a good alternative? (On the other hand, since Chess is a just barely unbalanced game except at the master level, maybe there's no need to balance it in any way. Tournaments seem to work just fine at my level without any need to worry about it.)
I have two takes on this:
1. The first player usually will have an advantage in a game, unless there is a draw. Strengthening the second position would be a good things.
2. This counters the prior point a bit. We don't know if the first player has an advantage. However, we do know that the player who won the first game possibly does have an advantage.
One could decide to implement a move bidding system to see which player starts first to pick a side. This can then become the target which scoring will be based on. Points under or is the points the winning player gets. Then it would swap.
Ok, there may not one idea solution to this, but may be a list of possible ways to handle scoring for unbalanced sides. Each game could have a preferred method, or players could agree to which they want to use.
Bidding the number of moves will not only affect the game of the defender. Also, the attacker will rather resort to short and sharp than to positional play. This may be a good thing. However, there are highly positional games where you cannot introduce an "I will beat you quickly" variant. The approach looks limited, too.
Time bidding with a Dutch auction looks more general as a solution. The mode of the Chess world championship included a variation on the theme: last game to play was blitz, 6 (!) minutes for White, 5 for Black - but every draw is a win for Black. Of course, this will deeply affect gameplay.
Of course, all this will strongly favor quick players. They will love to bid for the stronger side.
Playing often enough with changing sides often is the historical solution. It may not be ideal for your purposes, yet it can yield surprising results. Since Tablut has been mentioned, the current opinion seems to be that with good players on each side, the side with the king has the worse chances... And as a curiosity, to my knowledge there have been chess players who were better with Black than with White. They will love bidding, too, for different reasons.
I guess there is no optimal solution.
There probably is a list of possible solutions that can be officially adopted. It is more a matter of getting agreement on what to use instead of trying to come up with a new solution.
1 to 17 of 17