Infinite tournaments - some basic info - and a question? Go forum

27 replies. Last post: 2020-09-20

Reply to this topic Return to forum

Infinite tournaments - some basic info - and a question?
  • Sighris at 2016-05-08

    mmKALLL ★ wrote: 

    The basic idea of the infinite tournament is that every few weeks, you start a match with an opponent who has a similar score. It’s essentially an infinite swiss-style tournament, and a good way to get a steady stream of games.


    To begin from the leftmost column: There is the list of players, with their rating and number of games played, as well as points from the games (2 per win, 1 per draw, 0 per loss). The next column has the score; a large number representing their current score in the tournament, and a smaller one representing their all-time best. What follows is a list of games, with each game telling the placement and score of the player in the tournament at the time of the match. 
    The infinite Toroidal-Go (11x11 sized board) results are recorded here: http://littlegolem.net/jsp/in/tournament.jsp?trnid=go19.in.TOROID 
    What does the [40 P  33 G] under my name mean?

  • mmKALLL at 2016-05-08

    I would assume that it means that you have played 33 games, and have 40 points from them; in other words, 20 wins. Looking at the table, it seems like this assumption is correct.

  • Rex Moore ★ at 2016-05-09

    At what point is a winner declared in an infinite tournament? For instance, in Go 19x19 “sspring” is listed as the winner, but gamesorry has been in first place for every round showing... from rounds 1 – 40.

    https://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/games/gamedetail.jsp?gtid=go19&page=in



  • mmKALLL at 2016-05-09

    I haven’t stumbled upon that page before; I can only guess that such a “winner” was declared or is being declared based on an old system of counting the scores. It is worth noting though, that gamesorry’s only loss has been against sspring. Either way, I find that very odd and personally only care about the current leaderboard’s status.

  • Rex Moore ★ at 2016-05-09

    Thank you, mmKALLL. You’ve taught me more about infinite tournaments than I ever knew!

    The only thing I don’t understand is matching "with an opponent who has a similar score".    That seems a built-in mechanism to depress stronger players' scores.

    At any rate, I’m surprised and humbled to be leading both the TZAAR and Catchup infinite tournaments.

  • mmKALLL at 2016-05-09

    The idea of swiss style tournaments is that the top players are clearly identified. It is similar to the Elo rating, where you get more points for winning against stronger opponents, less for winning against weaker ones. It is important to realize that a victory (under the current EMA system) awards the same amount of points in the Infinity tournament regardless of opponent, but since your pairings are against stronger opponents as your score increases, the points gained by the top players are “worth” more relative to points gained by weaker players.

    Under these systems, from a given group of players with similar scores or ratings but not necessarily the same skill levels, the players with an underestimated rating will likely advance to a pool of stronger players while increasing their score. If it turns out that their victories were due to fluctuation and not actual greater playing strength, they will quickly drop back down when faced with players whose scores more accurately reflect their ability.

    The point of many rating systems is that (in theory) it should not matter who you play against: the score will increase less if you have a high winning probability against a particular opponent. Thus, over the course of many games against players of any skill levels, each player’s rating will (in theory) accurately reflect their actual playing capability. This is also the case in the Infinity tournament, where the strong players will inevitably gather more victories relative to weaker players. However, the games are more interesting due to the matches being against similarly skilled opponents, rather than random ones.

  • Rex Moore ★ at 2016-05-18

    mmKALLL (or anyone):

    • Do you know how the score is calculated? I notice that even as I keep winning, my score goes up and down.
    • Why are “points” calculated and shown if they don’t make a difference in the standings?

  • gamesorry at 2016-05-19

    Rex Moore:

    I think the current mechanism of the infinity tournament is: you always earn points when you win a game, and lose points when you lose a game. The more your points are, the harder you can earn the points and the easier you can lose points (regardless of the strength/points of your opponents). The unfinished games are treated as a draw, which make your points converge to around 1000 eventually (if you have infinite number of unfinished games). When a game finishes, all points in and after this round are adjusted accordingly.

  • richyfourtytwo ★ at 2016-05-19

    One consequence is that if you have above 1000 points, a new game starting will lower your score. Just a bit if you are barely above 1000, quite significantly if you are close to 2000.

  • mmKALLL at 2016-05-19

    And as for the second question, it’s nice to see how many games a player has played. Although perhaps a W/L/T list would be clearer; this way ties are properly distinguished at a glance.

  • 11733DeathsInADay at 2019-07-25

    It’s never ending

  • Richard Malaschitz ★ at 2020-08-07

    Probably will be better to replace infinite tournaments with very simple ladder tournament style.

  • metzgerism at 2020-08-07

    Richard, if you’re seriously considering replacing the current method for Infinites, please let me know. I’ve got a few ideas for “rolling” brackets and have used one in the past – one of them ought to work.

  • Richard Malaschitz ★ at 2020-08-07

    Yes, I really considering replacing infinity tournament with ladder. Most simple ladder i found there: https://www.redhotpawn.com/help/index.php?help=ladders and it looks as suitable (with some changes). On LG is a lot of variants and this system allow you play one or max two games for variant. 

  • Francis Fahys at 2020-08-07

    I am favourable to replace Infinite tournament by a Ladder like in DGS.

  • metzgerism at 2020-08-07

    The biggest thing I don’t like about that format (implemented nakedly) is that it may allow for instant rematches and give weird results if the two players are not very close – you could see your ranking take a dive if you finish your games quickly. Would also be better if you can adapt it for two games per round...I love that the 5-player tournament is the norm here.

    In my mind I keep going back to an idea where you operate a running, continuous tournament – if you have 14 players, two of them are playing for the championship, four are playing semifinals, and the other eight are playing quarterfinals. If you lose (or win the championship), the next round you start at the bottom; if you win, the next round you move up to the finals/semifinals/whatever. There’s modifications needed to have it work right, might be better as small (think 3-player) pools, and might be better if the champion only gets knocked down to the semifinals. Basically a divisions system but with everyone getting promoted or relegated...nobody stays put.

  • ypercube ★ at 2020-08-08

    Am I the only one that I really like the Infinite tournament implementation over a ladder one?

  • 11733DeathsInADay at 2020-08-08

    Maybe a matching system

    Eothello.com has a matching system that creates a new game with similarly rated players but also with players you have played less

    If you look at most players you will find they have played a variety of similar players

  • Rex Moore ★ at 2020-08-08

    I don’t like ladders where you have to challenge other players (and have them accept or decline the challenge). I like ladders where everyone plays a game, and then moves up/down if they win/lose. Next round starts automatically when all games are finished.


  • 11733DeathsInADay at 2020-08-08

    How about two ladders, one for each colour

    Match the highest with the highest in the other ladder, but not self, continue for unmatched players

    When the system stabilises most players may find themselves around the same rung in both ladders

    But others may be unbalanced which could help them identify a weakness in their game of one colour which ratings would not


  • Malcolm Schonfield ★ at 2020-08-09

    I strongly prefer the current system to a system where it is the player’s responsibility to issue challenges. So I agree with hypercube. 
    I only have a few comments for the current system where I think it could be better. 
    1) I would like to have around 3 or 4 simultaneous games. Currently I just have 2 ongoing games (in the toroidal Go infinity tournament)
    2) it would be nice if there was a way the top player in an infinity tournament could be mentioned occasionally in the Recent Little Golem Champions section of the home page. 
    3) the page for a tournament is a bit “heavy” and is hard to read /understand. Maybe there could be a section explaining things. 

  • metzgerism at 2020-08-09

    I also don’t want to have to challenge people – the advantage of the Infinity format is that you’re just issued out games periodically.

    Whatever you end up deciding, I think it’s going to be very game dependent: some games last only a week or two, which is fine for some systems, but some games (like Go 37x37 and Einstein50) take years to complete. The infinity format is good for some of those longer games, though I’m not sure it’s better than the Championship format.

  • richyfourtytwo ★ at 2020-08-10

    Another strong vote for keeping infinity as it is. I only play infinity atm. I wouldn’t enter a ladder.

  • Sighris at 2020-09-20

    I’m with ypercube ★ at 2020-08-08 and Rex Moore ★ at 2020-08-08 and Malcolm Schonfield ★ at 2020-08-09 and metzgerism at 2020-08-09 in that I like how the Infinite Toroidal-Go tournament keeps me in around 2 or 3 simultaneous games (automatically – no need to send invites – so I like it better than a ladder system). I also agree with all three of Malcolm Schonfield's points above except I think 2 or 3 simultaneous games is ideal. This allows players to send out invites or play in other tournaments if they want more games, but doesn’t overwhelm players who either have less time for games or are playing in other tournaments (maybe even on other game servers, like OGS, DGS, or KGS). 
    Special thanks to Richard Malaschitz ★ for everything he does here... Hey Richard, BTW, can we have a 13x13 or 15x15 (see other threads for discussion on why 15x15 T-Go might be best) Toroidal Go game and Infinite Tournament or Ladder??? Please!!! :) 
    Thanks also to mmKALLL at 2016-05-09 for the information/answers... and BurstingBubbles at 2020-08-08 too! (Also Rex) 

  • Sighris at 2020-09-20

    oh.... I just saw this: New Laddar format in the General forum  ---> https://littlegolem.net/jsp/forum/topic2.jsp?forum=1&topic=3257 (where Richard Malaschitz ★ at 2020-09-04 gives new Ladder rules) 

  • metzgerism at 2020-09-20

    I believe there will be a switchover in the next round. At least 50% of all games have switched, but I’d bet 19x19 will still be a few weeks and 37x37 might be a couple years.

  • Sighris at 2020-09-20

    oh, maybe I better join the 37x37 in the next year then! lol :D 


Return to forum

Reply to this topic




Include game board: [game;id:123456] or [game;id:123456;move:20] or [game;id:123456;move:20;title:some text]