Azothi
Posts: 586
12/27/2018
|
With a few recent developments with this club, I suppose now is fitting for some more thoughts:
I. Worthy opponents
I propose that there should exist no "worthy opponent" rule given the existing structure of the club. The removal of the Mastery rule is a step in the right direction. While it is ideal in a fair match for individuals to play opponents of an equivalent skill level, this is challenging to achieve in practice given ideal play. The tendency of these matches is to favor the defender, because the defender has two opportunities to view the opponent's equipment versus the attacker's one. Thus, with both sides playing to maximize the probability of winning, the match is not precisely a battle of two equally matched minds, but rather a weighted dice roll of "higher Watchful versus high Watchful" or "higher Persuasive versus lower Persuasive".
With that in mind, a "worthy opponent" rule would, in the interest of fairness, try to limit a given player to characters with similar base stats relative to one another. This somewhat defeats the point, as most current members of the club appear to be in the 200+ (inclusive) range for each stat. This would reduce the amount of possible players for those of lower stats (which is unideal - the game rewards the losing side with more Sudden Insights, which tend to be more valuable to players who have not reached the stat cap).
Furthermore, because the club publicly lists the base and modified stats of each member, one can consult the figures in determining if one wants to send or accept a match. This enables a degree of self-regulation that I believe would be easier to enforce and more practically effective than a "worthy opponent" rule.
II. Tournament Structure
The Grandmaster Club hasn't had its first tournament yet, but the restriction stating that the number of participants must be a power of 2 leads me to believe that you're focusing on a bracket-style elimination tournament. This is fine - all tournament structures have their advantages and disadvantage. I'm just inclined to believe that there are other structures that might work better.
One of the key advantages of an ellimination tourney is its efficiency and narrative strength. The stakes consistently rise exponentially over time and the tournament swells to a climax and resolution. The structure of the elimination tournament resembles that of a story - we have an expository period to learn about the participants and their personal narratives; this is accompanied by rising action, punctuated with twists and turns before the tournament accelerates into the semifinal and final confrontations before the sudden cathartic release of tension as a victor is declared and celebrated. There's a reason why the final phase of highly-exposed athletic tournaments (the FIFA World Cup, for instance) use this - it draws viewers in with an overarching narrative, one that builds to absurd heights by the climax - at which point they are prime material for advertisers.
The problem is that we don't really need that. There's no need for that narrative strucutre, especially because it creates such great inequality. Players eliminated early only have a chance to play one match. By definition, this is half of the players. This is why double elimination tournaments are often used in "house" elimination tourneys; all players will play the same number of matches. Double elimination tournaments lose the other advantage of efficiency, though, and they create results that might be better achieved through other means.
And while some chess tournaments (notably Candidates) use single-elimination, that tends to come after a previous series of qualifications that mitigate some of the downsides of the format.
III. On Distracting the Opponent
First, I'd like to make the case that the use of "distracting" or irrigo-related moves be permitted. They are still fundamentally Watchful and Persuasive challenges, and they add an element of unpredictability to the game. I personally find that unpredictability more fun; others' mileage may vary. Regardless, if we are to be consistent with the implementation of the "distraction" rule (currently just represented by the humming rule), it would be advisable to also ban the moves tied to "Scandal" and "Boatman's Opponent":
Attempt to distract your opponent wrote:
Your hand hovers over your bishop. You make as if repressing a smirk, and consider instead your pawn. You laugh, now. Your opponent raises an eyebrow. You apologise - it's just that it reminds you of an incident [...] You relate the story as entertainingly as you can, hoping it'll get your opponent to drop their guard.
Taunt your opponent into making a foolish move wrote:
Has your opponent ever died? Have they ever gone down the river with the Boatman? He never refuses a game of chess. You tried that very combination of knights and bishops against him. A foolish move. You died a second death in that game.
If humming is prohibited, this explicit psychological warfare should also be prohibited.
IV. A Few Conveniences
It may be more convenient to, instead of listing one's location in the spreadsheet, to merely have a boolean statement of whether or not one is accepting matches at the moment. For zee travel, Menace zones, or other such engagements, one would only have to change it from a "Y" to a "N". You could also change it if you're not interested in accepting chess matches but are not traveling. Besides, you can see the location of another player just by looking at the header of their profile, for the most part. This would be more robust and user-friendly.
I'd also recommend adding a rule against cancelling a game after it's begun without proper reason. If a player has not responded in a long time, that'd be a valid reason to cancel. Losing the first match is not a valid reason to cancel. Practically speaking, this shouldn't be very common, but it's good to have.
[end]
--
Azoth I, the Emissary of Cardinals - A Paramount Presence (not currently accepting new Proteges)
Away to where the Chain cannot bind us.
 Hesperidean.
|