I've seen some simulators the calculate the number of "locked" checkers -- those that cannot be flipped by any means. I suggest that Golem incorporate this and if that number ever exceeds the total needed to win, the game be declared for the winner. -- Admitedly this causes problems if the winning player would have missed their turn, thus forfeiting to the loser, but if we're not keeping stats on Checkers For/Checkers Against as an average, then it doesn't make sense to keep playing after the game is essentially over.
It does make sense to keep on playing... Reversi is interesting till the end. The challenge isnt gone when it's clear who wins the game. Trying to lose with the smallest possible number should be your next goal, if you cant win. A 30-34 loss feels alot better than a 10-54! As long as there are moves to think about, the game should be played, in my opinion... And besides that, there's always the option to resign, if one player doesn't want to play a lost situation (stable discs can be counted by yourself).
Actually, not. It would not be a step backward for anyone.
|
At the very least, it could tell both players that the game is over. Counting stable discs CAN be done, but it hurts no one to have the system do it.
|
And as I said, if we were keeping detailed stats on players, then it would be worthwhile to keep the game going. But as it is now, it's a waste of everyone's time. Especially the winner who has to continue -- delaying a next round -- when the game has already been decided.
|
This game is like baseball, not football or soccer. It's not on an overall timer. When the game is over, it's over.
I am just a beginner at Reversi, and I feel that often I can learn something in a game even after I have already lost. I think it would be a shame if the game was declared over as soon as my opponent has enough stable discs to win. I agree it's better for the games to go swiftly, but when there's still something to be learned from a game, I don't see any reason to stop it. There are no prizes for winning (at least not yet), after all, and if you want to start another game there's always the waiting room. Also, there are players who have been played Reversi even less than myself, and who do not understand the concept of stable discs - if they find they have been declared the loser for no reason they know of, they're probably going to be disillusioned and stop playing. I think that things are best left as they are.
People, you're driving to far...
First of all, it would be possible to combine both... by stamping the game as 'decided' (but not as finished), and do all the consequent things (rating, tournament standings); and still continuing the game until the end. Due to the 'vacation days'rule both players will have to play on, or resign. But there is one severe drawback.... counting the unturnable stones doesn't do the trick... If someone has 33 unturnables he wins. But what if someone has 31 unturnables, and is certain to have 2 stones more for certain, but it is not clear which? Then it is decided as well... I think that you get in a nasty 'game theoric' discussion on when is a game decided.
Of course I agree on the fact that the game should be played to the end if both players want it, or even if one player wants it. Learning and setting other goals, and the fun of playing, overrule the statement that it would better to all of us to keep games short.
You at least "know" what Reversi is really all about. ;) Having played Reversi every single day for almost 3 years at least qualifies me (I think) to post my opinion.
stopping the game to declare a winner because you think the game is to long to played out till the end is missing the point of the game
its fun to play a challenging game like reversi
and if the game is stopped and someone is declared a winner early in the game and the game is played out
and the other person actually wins then what?
does the person that was declared the winner through this system in turn win?
or does the oppent for actually winning?
what about the other games go for instance
devise away to shorten them
reversi is a fun game and itakg the fun out of the game while having the system name a winner and make the game shorter then that would take the challenge away form the game
Obivously, you aren't paying attention. If the game were "declared" over, then it would only because there is NO POSSIBLE WAY for the other player to win.
Everyone here is missing the point. I love reversi and have played since I was a kid. The point is that some were talking about suggestions to speed up tournaments. This would do that. When and if the winner is decided, the players should be able to end the game with the winner recieving the victory.
| | | |
Almost every time that it has become clear that I've been trounced, I do the other play the extreme COURTESY of resigning the game. We both have many other games to play and there is NO POINT in continuing a game once the winner is decided.
| | | |
A game IS over when the winner is decided. PERIOD. Continue to play after is purely academic. There is no "game" left to play.
Bravo Kevin. Very good. Once the winner is known, the game is no longer fun for most people. That's why most people turn off football games late in the 4th quarter when one of the teams is ahead by 3 or 4 touchdowns. That's why chess masters resign long before they are ever checkmated. Once the winner is known, in any game or sport, the contest is no longer challenging, no longer fun, etc. (At least for most people.) If the game is played out, the other person can't possibly win. It would be impossible. What we've been discussing here is the system declaring a winner only when a player has 33 or more disks that are 'locked' or 'stable.' Once that happens, this player has automatically won, no matter what either player does for the rest of the game. And Akuti Dodi, there would be no 'challenge' taken away from the game. You would still have as much challenge as before. However, when you've lost, when there is absoultely no possible way left for you to win, only then would the system would declare your opponent the winner. I still feel you should be able to play out the game if you want, especially if you don't yet 'see' your loss, but I also like the idea of declaring a victor and moving tournaments along.
so where is the fun in playing the game if the winner is determined before the game is fully played out?
ive seen footballs and basketball games take a turn in the most unusual times
and other sports also
but i wouldn't put this game in the same catergory as football or baseball
its fun and determining a winner before the game is fully played out takes away from the game
You don't have to play a game all the way to the end to have fun. The fun comes before the winner has been decided, when the outcome is still unclear. Once the winner is known, THEN is ceases to become fun, at least for most people. Yes, football and basketball games can take a turn, and that's why they're still fun even late in the game... as long as the victor is not yet known. But it's NOT fun LATE in the game when one football team is up by 35 points with only two minutes left. That's BORING. Determining a winner before any game is fully played out takes away NOTHING from the game. The fun came in all the moves leading up to the point before the winner was determined. That's what is fun.
Consider baseball: Bottom of the 9th. Home team leads by 1 or more runs. There is NOTHING that the visiting team can do to win the game. They've had all their atbats. No more are coming. The home team cannot LOSE runs by any means. So no chance of that either. The home team has WON the game, even though they didn't play their ninth inning. Why? Because in this case the bottom of the ninth has NO MEANING. The game has already been decided.
The board games here aren't commercialized spectator sports! If a baseballgame. If you really, really like to play the game of baseball, then you would play till the end! just because you enjoy to be every inning in the field! Every strike or ball! Every run to the 3rd base! The more innings, the better. --- I think everyone got your point by now. And I think everyone DOES understand it, but that doesn't mean everyone agrees with it.
Personally I think this suggestion stinks... there is a certain satisfaction that comes from finishing a game even if you do loose it and from my point of view (one of a beginner that is still trying to get tyhe hang of some of the strategy moves a player is more likely to make helpful hints after they know that they cant loose anymore .... perhapse you should learn some paitience as that can be of a great benifit to may games ...
Obivously not, since someone ELSE made an erronenous comment about what I was saying. It's a good suggestion. It would improve tournament speed. If the site doesn't wish to use it, no big deal.
Craig, I have a great deal of patience. Someone suggested speeding up tournaments, hence my suggestion. Perhaps you need to have more patience in discussing topics.
I like the comparision with the baseball game.... consider the situation of the bottom of the 9th, where the guy getting ready to hit that ball is has hit 65 home-runs in his career, who the hell cares the game is played... everyone wants to see him hitting his 66th... Even if the game is decided, it ain't over, or I might be not over... I think it might be good to declare a game 'decided' and give both players the change to stop or go on.
In any game, when I have a 0% chance of winning, I gracefully resign, since the game is no longer fun for me. But when I have even a 1% chance of winning, I fight like hell.
Ed, that's all anyone is suggesting. When it's 0%, declare the winner. If both sides want to go on for "fun" then they can, but allow the winner to resign without penalty.
If I received some type of reward or rating points or SOMTHING for getting more disks, then yes. But getting 1 disc is no different than getting 31... either way, I've lost. The goal of the game is to beat the other player. It isn't to see how many discs you can get. Once I'm beaten, in any game, I resign. Getting more "meaningless" discs becomes irrelevant and a waste of time. I'd rather use that time to start another game.
why all this discussion? aren't most people here to play for fun instead of a fast win? I think if you want a fast win, you better go play at yahoo or zone.. you can finish a game in 3 minutes there and even play it till the end.
If you thinks it's no fun playing a game after it's a done deal, just click the resign button, that's what it is for.. let everyone else who wants to play a game till the end, even if there's no way to win it any more simply finish the game
JeroenDmt, you're missing the point. If the WINNER wants to end the game by resigning, then he loses the game. All we're suggesting it a fix to this problem. Once the game is over, the winner can resign and keep his win. OR he can keep playing until the "end"
a lot of people seem to be "missing the point".. it's clear what you mean, but it seems you don't completely understand why several people don't seem this to be a problem that needs to be fixed
Once again, you're mistaken. I understand a few vocal folks don't want to fix the problem. But in the process of voicing that, they mis-state what I said. So logic dictates that I clarify since they were objecting to something they didn't understand in the first place. Understand now?
Lemme add my two eurocents: I believe the objective of the suggestion was to speed up the games by declaring the win once the required amount of 33 stable disks is archieved. One can pose the question, regardless of courtesy and fair play and so on, whether this option in fact will speed up games significantly. In my experience, the case of enough stable disks arises in 2 different situations: a) when a strong players plays a weak one, in which case it happens fast, and b) when two strong players play each other, in which case it happens very late. (the case of 2 weak players is rather erratic, I am not going to burn my fingers on that one :-) in case b) the rule won't make a significant time difference since the game has already been almost finished. In case a) the game usually is determined by an extreme lack of mobility for the weak player, in which case it could be finished fast too, especially if passing was handled automatically.
In short: I don't think the suggestion archieves the goal it aims for, but I do think that automating the passing of moves will shorten game time significantly.
I fully agree with smaughster. Altough in most of the games with only 4, 5 or 6 moves left it is clear who will win, but in the vast majority there are still stupid moves left, which gives away the victory. In other words: Noone has at least 33 stable discs in the majority of the games. And when it is, there are just a few moves to go and the game is almost finished.
In cases where the losing player has to sacrifice a lot very ealry because of lack of mobility, the other can get a lot of stable discs very early, but there is still the challenge to wipe and the satisfaction when that will be achieved. For the losing player there is the challenge of preventing the wipe.
In all cases of 33 stable discs or more in any stage of the game there is still the endgame left, which is a very interesting part of the game. Even in very bad or very good positions it is interesting to puzzle with parity, access and swindles.
The original suggestion is unpractical because, for example, Zebra doesn’t calculate all the stable discs. I am also agree with Smaughster when he says: "I don't think the suggestion archieves the goal it aims for, but I do think that automating the passing of moves will shorten game time significantly."
But it is hard to agree with the dominant trend in which a player must play until the end of the game without resign. Why? If I have little mobility, it is easy to find the best moves because I only need to think between a couple of moves, then, if I am losing clearly, I resign. If I want to practice my endgame, I know there are programs to practice it.
It's true. But as I read some days ago in a message of a newsgroup, about how to calculate the number of stable discs, and we can see in the help files of Zebra: "The discs that are marked as stable are guaranteed to be stable, but in some positions some stable discs might be shown as mutable. The reason for this is that deciding the stability status of all discs leads to long searches."
1. Discs at corners or besides corners with no holes or opponent discs in between. These cannot be flipped and it is very obviously at first sight for both man and machine.
2. Discs that are in the midfield and don't look like stable discs, but there cannot be found any possible sequence of moves in which that particular disc can be flipped at least once. This requires much exact computing and will take exponentially more time with a greater number of moves left. Machines can compute this with more empties left than men.
I agree with Klaashaas and Smaughster here. Giving the winner the option to 'resign' a game and win after having reached 33 stable discs is nonsense, because the loser could want to play on and learn more from the game and this way he/she would have no saying in it. If you're winning, then go on, win, prove you're better by winning with a lot of stones more. If you've lost, or are going to lose and you dont want to play any longer, resign.
The option to show the amount of stable discs is okay, but it really won't add much to speed of tournaments like Smaughster said. Auto passing would be great feature to speed up tournaments, but newbies would quickly lose track of what happend. They would lose control of the game, and wouldnt like it.
Little Golem