| Press for Spring of 1912 in ghodstoo |
Movement
> So Jamie worms his way into yet another draw, just like most of the
> Hall9* games. Good show, Gentle King!
> Looks like Pitt should have let Hohn win.
That's what I think too. ;)
Hohn
Private message from England to France:
Dudes,
SET DRAW NOW.
GKJ
Private message from Master to England:
> Message from [email protected] as England to Turkey and France in
> 'ghodstoo':
>
> Dudes,
> SET DRAW NOW.
>
> GKJ
>
>
This really is a message going to the Judge so I can check the game's
status, but I couldn't pass up another parting shot.
So, are you SURE that you are part of this draw?????? Don't count
those chickens.....
Jim
Private message from England to Master:
>This really is a message going to the Judge so I can check the game's
>status, but I couldn't pass up another parting shot.
A Partian shot, is it?
>So, are you SURE that you are part of this draw?????? Don't count
>those chickens.....
>
>Jim
My urgent demand expressed, not perfect certainty, but fervent desire.
:-)
One never know, do one?
(I will say, though, that I am *pretty sure* that there will be no *draw*
that doesn't include me. :-) So if your "this draw" refers to anything at
all, then yes, I am pretty sure. But I am not as sure as I'd like to be
that there's any "this draw" to speak of....)
The Gentle King
Private message from France to England:
I set draw quite a while ago. Hohn was exploring his options, but I told
him I was taking the draw, so that should be the end of it.
EOG will be interesting.
John
Private message from France to Turkey:
I sent a response, but perhaps it did not arrive. I suggest we set draw.
John
Private message from England to France:
Hey.
Ok, I don't know why we don't have a draw yet. I certainly have SET DRAW.
Either you are thinking you might possibly still eliminate me without Hohn
winning, or Hohn is thinking he might fool you into trying or me into
assuming something dumb, or I don't know what.
You can certainly rest assured that I won't jeopardize the position as long
as you order the obvious purely defensive moves against Turkey! To be
specific, you can feel free to march that new army to Ruhr if you like, by
Bur-Ruh and Par-Bur, which is quite safe to do this move. But if you move
anything else I am extremely likely to panic. As long as I'm happy, I'll
keep ordering support for my own F Stp, and for your A Ber.
If Hohn is up to something, I expect I'll see what it is this move. If
that's what's happening, we can discuss and assess the situation afterward,
if you like.
Maybe all it is is that one of you two just hasn't gotten around to SETting
DRAW. I certainly hope so. The more I think about it, the more I am
inclined to conclude that this must be the explanation. But just in case, I
thought I'd better put my cards on the table.
Gentle (albeit now getting a little nervous) King Jamie
Private message from Turkey to France:
John,
Just checking in. Haven't received a response to my last letter.
What are your thoughts? Do you have a proposal, or should we just go
with the three-way?
Hohn
Whew!
Gentle King Jamie
I guess Jim really was the *second* to congratulate, but I was not the
first. The Judge was. That congratulations message was an automagic one
generated by the end of the game.
I was the first human being to comment publicly on the end of the game, but
I merely expressed my relief. I hereby congratulate my drawmates, and in a
different way *all* of the participants (including, needless to say, our
GM) on a game 'well played' in the broadest sense. I enjoyed it very much.
I have rather a lot to say, as a matter of fact, and I bet some others do
too. I'll probably send more than one installment of End of Game statements.
Jamie, formerly Gentle King
Thanks, Manus, I will set all that up to get the game in the Showcase
section. One question for the "judge experts". The Judge is sending
me a message about sending a message "resume" to restart the game.
I assume this is only should I want to disallow the draw ;-)
The game stays "open" for us to exchange end game comments for a bit?
And Nick will have to let me know if I have to do anything to get the game
result properly recorded.
It will be a relief to get this game off of my system. It takes up a
large portion of my alloted space on world.std.com If the game went on
for a REALLY long time, I don't know what I would have done.
Jim
>The Judge is sending
>me a message about sending a message "resume" to restart the game.
>I assume this is only should I want to disallow the draw ;-)
Right.
>The game stays "open" for us to exchange end game comments for a bit?
Yes. It will stay open as long as people keep sending messages. It will
disappear if there are no signons for N days, where N is unknown to me....
-Jamie
I tried to send comments earlier and they bounced.
if this gets through then:
Congradulations to the group for their survival.
Again I think that if Turkey had stayed with Austria, there would have been a
very good chance that the game could have gon to a rather exciting three way
and may be a two situation with a strategic rather than a tactical stalemate.
Further there may have been better chances for a victorious back stab by
Turkey in the end game.
I have rambled enough on the game during it to the GM so that he plenty of
material to hang me with, so I will not comment further here,
Edi
Hi folks: I'll be commenting on this game eventually, but for the
moment, this is my weekend to move from Toronto to a small town north of
here called Aurora so I'll be quite busy. Oh, and I'm also smack dab in
the middle of studying for a final exam I have to ace to get the new job
(computer tech support for Sprint Canada) that I just finished training
for... busy? Who? Me?
For the moment, I WILL say that I wasn't surprised that Hohn stabbed me
and I was hardly an unwary pawn. It's just that, if I had turned on him
when everybody SAID I should, it would have handed France the 18 centre
win. My thinking was that, if I could smarm my way to five or six
centres WITH Hohn, I had a chance to be in the position that Jamie ended
up in - the indespensible third wheel between France & Turkey. I had a
better chance of doing that on Turkey's side than on France's. I was
absolutely convinced (and I was RIGHT, dammit! ) that Hohn NEVER had
a chance of an outright victory. Against novice or intermediate players
maybe, but not against this crowd.
Thanx for the game; hope to do it again. :)
Cal
--
Coordinator
Canadian Diplomacy Organization
http://www.bfree.on.ca/cdo/home.htm
>[email protected] as Austria has resumed game 'ghodstoo'.
Just can't give it up, eh?
It isn't necessary to resume a game, to send press.
Jim should issue a terminate command.
Nick
>Game 'ghodstoo' has been terminated.
>Use the 'resume' command to start it back up.
>
>Broadcast message sent:
>
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Austria in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
>>Edi, I'd like to see you explain your reasoning.
>>
>>Looking at the board at the time I stabbed you, I didn't see any way
>>in hell for the two of us to prosper while working together. I
>>especially didn't see a way for _me_ to prosper if I'd acceded to your
>>requests that you'd made the turn I stabbed you.
>
>At the very turn that you stabbed me I think I had reached my absolute
>height of being able to influence the west in particular the moves between
>Germany and France not to mention what I thought was pretty good tactical
>moves to
>recapture my home.
>
>If you had not stabbed me I felt fairly secure that I could continue in the
>balance act between Germany and France to the extent that would have
>allowed us as an alliance to breakthrough any western stalemate line. A
>critical factor that your stab of me delivered to the west. Given what I
>(maybe too egotistical) thought and given the military and diplomatic
>situation the position would have developed to BOTH our benefits. To
>judge the effectiveness of the
>Austrian diplomacy on the west, I think that the turn or two after the stab
>still showed some substantial influence there. Your stab took away that
>influence from the East and replaced it with an obvious and overbearing
>front runner. If there were the two of us in the East we could easily have
>parlayed our mutual reputations to continue to dominate the board
>diplomatically as well as
>militarily as the rest would still be in tension over the prospects of
>either one
>of us stabbing the other.
> This would have allowed you to have a better opportunity for a stab later
>with a chance for victory or even a two way draw with myself or one of the
>other Western powers.
>
>Edi Birsan
>mailto:[email protected]
>Web: http://www.mgames.com
>Midnight Games
>541-772-7872
>
>End of message.
>
>Movement orders for Spring of 1912. (ghodstoo.047)
>
>
Edi Birsan
mailto:[email protected]
Web: http://www.mgames.com
Midnight Games
541-772-7872
>Edi, I'd like to see you explain your reasoning.
>
>Looking at the board at the time I stabbed you, I didn't see any way
>in hell for the two of us to prosper while working together. I
>especially didn't see a way for _me_ to prosper if I'd acceded to your
>requests that you'd made the turn I stabbed you.
At the very turn that you stabbed me I think I had reached my absolute
height of being able to influence the west in particular the moves between
Germany and France not to mention what I thought was pretty good tactical
moves to
recapture my home.
If you had not stabbed me I felt fairly secure that I could continue in the
balance act between Germany and France to the extent that would have
allowed us as an alliance to breakthrough any western stalemate line. A
critical factor that your stab of me delivered to the west. Given what I
(maybe too egotistical) thought and given the military and diplomatic
situation the position would have developed to BOTH our benefits. To
judge the effectiveness of the
Austrian diplomacy on the west, I think that the turn or two after the stab
still showed some substantial influence there. Your stab took away that
influence from the East and replaced it with an obvious and overbearing
front runner. If there were the two of us in the East we could easily have
parlayed our mutual reputations to continue to dominate the board
diplomatically as well as
militarily as the rest would still be in tension over the prospects of
either one
of us stabbing the other.
This would have allowed you to have a better opportunity for a stab later
with a chance for victory or even a two way draw with myself or one of the
other Western powers.
Edi Birsan
mailto:[email protected]
Web: http://www.mgames.com
Midnight Games
541-772-7872
Wow, so you mean an eliminated player can object to a draw and restart
a game all by themselves. That's MY kind of Judge ;-) I've always
loved to "remain" in the game after being eliminated.
Jim
Well, quite a game. It's hard to know where to begin the EOG statement.
For starters, I'm happy to have survived. Even after weathering the first
storm, I had limited confidence that I would make it to the end. I was
once a 10-unit Italy, largest power on the board, and embarking my assault
on England when my erstwhile Austrian ally stabbed me. In a few short
years, I was history. So reaching a fairly large size is no guarantee of
participation in a draw.
The early part of the game was most interesting. I was lied to on all
fronts. England took the Channel, and Germany attacked from the east,
while Italy moved into Piedmont. I had resigned myself to an early exit,
but I did not give up. I stayed in contact with my neighbors, and
benefited when Italy turned east. The most important development was
Pitt's willingness to reverse field and allow me to repulse the English
attack. Before long, England was near elimination. Austria (Edi) was a
main player in bringing this about. As important, Pitt and I talked over
the phone and developed an effective plan for mutual expansion. The
benefits of the plan were clear enough.
The F-I relationship was particularly interesting. My policy throughout
the game was to befriend and support Italy. Unfortunately, Italy did not
see things quite the way I did. I told him the truth about why I wanted
his friendship: to buffer against Turkey. I anticipated a draw, and I
tried to impress on Italy that he would most likely participate in it if he
and I worked together. Cal, however, thought that he could manage the F-T
conflict to his own benefit by allying with Turkey. His reasoning (at
least as expressed to me) was that he could occupy the stalemate line, thus
being in position to throw the game if either F or T stabbed. My response
was to point out that I had virtually no presence in the Med, while Turkey
was, of necessity, a massive presence. I don't think I ever had more than
three fleets in the Med, and when Italy threw in with Turkey I had only
one. I don't think Cal read this situation correctly. But no matter what
I did, Cal would not go against Turkey, and this led to his demise.
For some reason, Cal thought I had a chance at a win, while Turkey did not.
Cal was proven right on Turkey's chances by events, but it was a close
call. I still don't see why he thought France could win outright. I
always expected a draw, and indeed I thought the game would end with as
many as five remaining powers.
At one point, England was down to one center and I could have easily
eliminated him, but I chose not to do so. Quite honestly, I don't recall
all the tactical considerations at that moment. I do recall (without
reviewing old messages) that I was about to attack Germany and I needed the
English fleet for some reason. More, I was then large enough to want to
gather small powers to my side. I befriended Russia and England, then
launched the attack on Germany. Why did I attack Germany? Simply, I felt
I had no other decent opportunities, and Germany was somewhat vulnerable.
I hoped to rebuild both Russia and England as solid allies. I calculated
that I would always be the dominant partner, and rescuing my former enemy
(England) from oblivion would be the basis for long-term trust. This did
happen; although I think England had a couple of opportunities (before
Turkey got so big) to stab me and make for an even more chaotic game, we
maintained open and honest communication for the rest of the game.
In the most controversial move in the game, Russia sacrificed himself to
ensure my capture of Munich (not necessary, as it turned out), but I did
participate in building England back up, ultimately to participate in the
draw. In part, I did this because this was a demo game, and I thought it
would be neat to show observers that no situation is hopeless. Also, Jamie
is an excellent tactician, and I wanted his advice.
My most unfortunate relationship was with Germany. Germany saved me from
oblivion, yet I later turned on him. Then, when he was down to a unit or
two, England and I took him out to reduce the size of the draw, after using
him to set up the stalemate against Turkey. Not very nice on my part.
Nothing personal, Pitt, just sheer opportunism.
Hohn and I did not communicate at all at the beginning, and then not much
for the remainder of the game. We bandied about the idea of a 2-way, but I
never took it that seriously. I have participated in one 2-way draw). It
was founded on game-long trust and cooperation, so strong that at the end
neither of us could imagine stabbing the other for a win. Hohn and I never
developed that kind of relationship, so I did not trust him to carry
through a 2-way draw promise, and, quite honestly, he had no reason to
think that I would. As things turned out, I would have had to bear much
the larger burden of risk anyway, so I opted for the 3-way.
I'm not quite sure what was going on for Russia. I know he became highly
offended by what he saw as maltreatment by Austria and Turkey. Perhaps he
had good reason for that. In any event, he became my vassal. I wish we
had played it so he had not been eliminated (at least not when he was) but
them's the breaks.
Austria and I spoke a lot. Edi called regularly until his fate was more or
less sealed. Also, I think he gave up on me when I did not come through on
his expectations. I misled him into thinking I would do things I did not
do. I wanted him to think I would, but I never fully committed, even
though Edi no doubt thinks I did. I tried to support him toward the end,
but by then it was too late.
I have always played Diplomacy by computer. I started out in the
Compuserve and Genie Dip areas, then moved to the judges after I dropped
the pay services. I found it downright startling to receive a phone call
from someone (usually Edi) on diplomacy. I'm used to having a chance to
think about my response before making it, and also to manipulating the
timing of my responses. I find it much easier to frame things just the way
I want in email rather than in a person-to-person conversation. I'm not
surprised that the FTF players among us had some difficulty with this
format. I know I felt it in reverse. The game was good experience for me
in giving me a taste of the FTF world, though far short of the real thing.
The middle game is my weak point, and it showed up here. I did not display
good tactics when I had a large force to manage. This cost me dearly in my
battle with TI. I went from an offensive position to a precarious
defensive position in one turn. I need to spend more time on tactics
during the middle game rather than going with my first or second cut.
I'd be interested in others' views on my decision to attack Germany. Was
this a wise move, or should I have done something else?
More later, perhaps.
John, France
TURKEY'S END-OF-GAME STATEMENT IN "GHODSTOO"
Right. It's 2:00 a.m., I'm a bit buzzed from too much booze, and I
have a shitload of work to do tomorrow. Yet the muse has struck, and
I find myself finally prepared to talk about this great game.
As a preliminary disclaimer, some may find my writing style to be
overly formalistic and/or blunt. I'm not entirely sure why I tend to
do this, perhaps it's because I'm a lawyer. In any case, these are my
honest and straightforward thoughts, and please, if you wish to take
issue with them, I welcome you to. There is little I enjoy more than
strenuous and heated debate.
So, to begin. I'm pretty goddamn happy with the way this game turned
out, all things considered.
First, I was happy to draw Turkey. Turkey is my second favorite
nation, right behind France. Sometimes I think I play Turkey the best
out of all of the countries, even though I enjoy France more. Many of
my best performances have come with Turkey. The thing I love most
about Turkey is that you can never, ever count Turkey out. On so many
occasions, I've been down to 3, 2 and even 1 center with Turkey, yet
I've managed to climb out of my predicament and roll onward to a
respectable finish, sometimes even victory. At San Diego DipCon in
1989, my solo victory (which happened to be the only solo victory in
the entire con) was with Turkey, after being reduced to 3 centers in
1902 and 1903. A cagey defense can work wonders, and I can often
outlast my persecuters with Turkey.
So yes, I was thrilled to have drawn it.
Having Edi to my northwest in Austria was also a great relief. Edi
and I have always worked well together. He and I could tell you some
rather remarkable stories about DipCons past, and indeed, those games
have been some of my all-time favorites.
At this point, I'd like to raise potentially controversial issue
number one. When you've worked well with someone in the past, and you
do so again, is that "cross-gaming?" Or is that just the benefits of
experience? I tend toward the latter, although I know some who argue
the former. In my mind, the distinction is that although I know from
experience that Edi is a great player who tends toward strong
alliance, that doesn't mean I automatically go with him.
Since this was a demo game, I decided to do the exact opposite, in
fact. I wanted to torch Edi quickly, not only because I had never
started initially adverse to him and wanted to try a new experience,
but also because I knew he was dangerous. No offense to the rest of
my esteemed colleagues, most of whom I didn't know before this game in
any event, but I considered Edi to be the most dangerous other player
on the board, and I accordingly wanted to axe him.
To that end, I attempted to cultivate a strong RT. Mark seemed to be
on board with the idea, as well as personable and likeable, with an
apparently strong sense of the game. We exchanged what must have been
dozens of kilobytes of text, hashing out specific details, and
ultimately I figured he was solid, and that he was going to go with
me. Meanwhile, Edi and I had exchanged a perfunctory message or two,
along the lines of "Hey, let's kick butt together, we've done it
before, we'll do it again." And we didn't talk much more than that.
Of course, as my S1901 moves indicated, that was all BS on my part.
Again, I was strongly motivated by the novelty/demo factor, and I
wanted to see what I could do to take Edi out. And I was utterly
convinced Mark was with me. The old, "The greatest volume of
exchanged press==loyalty" schtick completely took me in.
And also of course, Mark completely snookered me.
I recall seeing the S1901 moves. I told a buddy of mine, "Well, so
much for this demo game. I'm meat." I would feel a bit less
doomsaying in the future, but I was quite demoralized after seeing
Mark neatly eviscerate my position. I was so convinced he wouldn't
stab me! The volume of messages we exchanged, the traditional
difficulty Russia has opening strongly against Turkey, my desire to
nail Edi to the wall and the paranoia I attempted to foment against
him with Mark, they all convinced me I was solid. How wrong I was!
In any event, after my S1901 failed so disastrously, I had to fall
back upon experience and a bit of fast-talk desperation. I approached
my old buddy Edi, pulled the nostalgia card, apologized humbly for my
fuck-ups, and pledged my eternal, undying support. All I wanted,
ostensibly, was to get back a little bit at Mark. I utilized my
standard "toady" line, and while I suspect Edi saw right through that,
it nevertheless panned out as Edi didn't move decisively against me.
He rather made some novel moves which _could_ have been used in a
devastating fashion against me in S1902, but which didn't overly hurt
me in F1901. That was fine with me; Edi straddling the fence was much
better for me than Edi taking the hammer to me.
F1901 was also spent trying to patch things up with Mark (read: me
begging Mark to pull off). We once again exchanged dozens of
kilobytes of text, and he again promised to go with me. This time,
though, I wasn't buying, and I decided to take the safe moves which
would hopefully maintain my position and defend against Russia. The
tone of my messages to mark would also set the tenor for my later
diplomatic strategy with him, one that would ultimately prove
successful.
I defended against Mark's greed, and then fell back into Fortress
Turkey mode. All the while, I was hoping against hope that Edi would
succumb to nostalgia and recollection of good past experiences with
me, so that we could work together against Mark.
Happily, Russia stabbed Edi shortly thereafter. This was a rather
large blunder on Mark's part, IMO. He stabbed too many people, at too
many dangerous times. I think he was taken by the "demo" aspect of
the game. Now, demos are all well and good, but even if you want to
try something different, you should still always keep sight of the end
goal, and utilize worthwhile strategies. You can't expect reckless
strategies to work, especially not in an experts' game.
Edi was then pushed into my camp, because of Mark's stab. I of course
marketed myself as the only reliable ally, and again pledged eternal
loyalty and support and toadiedom. All the while, I was still
conducting a diplomatic onslaught against Mark.
The strategy I adopted was one of absolute bluntness and truthfulness.
I played the "wounded victim" schtick up to the hilt, and took an
amazingly self-righteous tone. You see, I had noticed that Mark
appeared to avoid taking personal responsibility for his actions,
preferring instead to blame it all on Edi. "Edi made me do it" was a
rather common refrain, with Mark.
With this in mind, I figured that any sign of forgiveness or weakness
or general "laid-backness" would backfire on me. Every time I bought
into his prior acts, I got burned. So I figured if I took a hard
line, he might stand up and take notice. I also figured that if I
painted myself as the ever-loyal ally who always got brutally betrayed
by him, he might find my promises more credible. "I've never once
stabbed you" was a common refrain of _mine_ to Mark. I never let him
dodge responsibility, and I also figured that if I could make him own
up to it, and didn't let him off the hook, he might actually feel some
level of guilt and responsibility and do the "right thing" for once.
So on the crucial Fall turn of 1902 (or was it 1903? I forget, and
I'm trying to do this from memory, as my older game files are not
readily available) I made a tactical analysis of the board. One
particular set of moves would guarantee that I kept all of my centers,
as well as take SEV. I then made a full-scale diplomatic assault on
Mark so that he would make the necessary moves. Hoping against hope,
I then crossed my fingers.
And it worked! I blew Mark out of SEV, and my build on that turn
marked the end of my openings phase, and took me into my midgame.
[At this point, the muse passed out. Upon rereading the above, I'm
rather amused by quite a bit of it, so I decided I'd keep it in raw
form, rather than editing.]
Midgame was spent with Edi and me working solidly and steadily against
IR, with a lent French unit. We did well at first, but then we began
to bog down. So much so that the tide eventually turned, and Edi
began to take losses.
Somewhere during that time, there was a rather crucial exchange
between Edi and myself, concerning RUM. Much of this was done over
the phone, but basically, the way I saw it, if I managed to convince
him to let me take RUM, I'd then be able to shed the onus of toadiedom
and begin to breathe a bit easier. In fact, considering some of the
risks he was facing on that same turn, I might even be able to become
the dominant partner of the alliance. After much wrangling, he
finally consented to letting me have RUM on that turn, and I knew that
I was set. I was actually quite happy with myself, in that I'd
suspected he'd remain adamant in his desire to take/keep RUM, but I
think by that point, he'd decided to throw in with me for the long
haul, no matter what. I felt similarly, although I was starting to
realize that the realities of the situation might require a
rearrangement in the future. I really, really wanted to work with
Edi, because I knew he was reliable and because I knew any AT will
favor the T in the long run.
But we became stalemated, and Edi began to lose ground. Edi, I still
disagree with you quite strongly in that I don't think staying with
you would have benefited me in the end. I do think you're
overestimating your ability to influence our particular situation, to
be honest; France, Italy and Russia weren't budging, and hadn't shown
_any_ signs that they ever would, despite several years worth of
efforts by both of us. And if I'd granted you the support and centers
you wanted, it would have been at my expense. And I didn't want to
jeopardize my upward trend with a downward turn, especially knowing
how cagey you are, Edi. I was worried that you could have stabbed me
at any time, after making a deal with the others. Giving up parts of
my position to you as you had requested was just too dangerous, and
the potential payoff was too remote and speculative; what I saw was us
getting driven back, and you can't count on being able to influence
all of the others, which is what we would have needed for you to
prosper again.
Moreover, I also of course considered you to be very dangerous, Edi,
and since I saw an opportunity to axe you while growing at the same
time, I wanted to do it. See, I agree with most of the people here
that said that a solo victory was a very unlikely result. Thus, I
wanted to make sure I ended up in any three-way situation. Stabbing
you guaranteed my placing in at least a three-way, assuming France
couldn't achieve a solo (which I was genuinely concerned about for a
while). Stabbing you also was a way of playing for the win, since
even though I suddenly became a major player and a threat for the win,
I knew France was matching me, at least initially. Since the only way
to get to a solo is to get those 18 centers, I figured I'd have to
start moving, especially considering the threat of France. I knew
stabbing Edi was one way of growing toward that 18 center victory.
Jamie said that he thought that after I stabbed Edi, my chances of
winning were low. Of course they were low. In a game like this, the
fact that I or anyone came close was remarkable in itself; I fully
expected a three-way result from the start. Good players wouldn't
allow for any other result, for the most part, under most
circumstances. The thing I dispute is that I don't think staying with
Edi would have increased my chances of a solo. At max, even if we
assume Edi was able to get out of the stalemate situation he was in,
even if he managed to stave off FIR's push and recover some ground, I
figure we'd only be able to make it up to 11/11 or 12/12 before we
reached our maximum realistic extent. Then I could have stabbed, but
The other thing that helped me make my decision to stab Edi was some
words from Edi himself, where he said that we could grow to a decent
size and then "hopefully force a concession." I don't think Edi
realized this was a DIAS game, which makes everything different in
terms of end-game strategies. The vast majority of FTF games are won
by concession, but not DIAS games. As soon as someone pointed that
out to him, I strongly suspected Edi would be much more wary and on
guard against me, because there would be no easy concessions; one of
us would likely have to stab the other. And since I didn't know when
someone would clarify this point to Edi, I wanted to strike while the
iron was hot, and when he least expected me to stab him. Stabbing Edi
when he is on guard is a difficult proposition, after all, and should
be avoided whenever possible. :)
I was very happy with the turn that I stabbed Edi. That turn also
involved a stab of Cal, and it worked out perfectly, such that Edi
went down three while Cal maintained (I think). Every move worked out
exactly as I'd hoped, and I knew I was in the three-way, and possibly
might even get a two-way or a solo.
The endgame was rather simple, straightforward and brief. Edi stayed
alive longer than I'd hoped, and there was the judge e-mail fiasco
that caused such disruption between Cal's and my moves. I believe my
chances of winning would have been better had we been able to either
beat Edi down more quickly, or had we been able to coordinate better
on the judge fiasco turn. My reasoning for this was that if I had
been one turn faster on getting to the Med, I might have been able to
blow into MID myself, rather than needing Cal's assistance (assistance
which Cal wisely decided to withhold...it was very tantalizing to be
so close to blowing into the MID, but having Cal refuse to do so).
And if I'd made it into MID, I feel confident I would have won.
As a result of that, it was just a question of who would be in the
final draw. I had one last card or two to try, though, and things
were closer than I'd thought they would be.
I'd always planned on stabbing Cal, but the question was how to do it
without overly jeopardizing my position, because I was genuinely
worried about John winning, for a long time, perhaps longer than I
should have been worried. I think it was a bit of paranoia on my
part. As I've said, France is the only nation I like to play more
than Turkey, and I tend to overestimate France's chances in most games
I play in.
An opportunity did present itself, though, and not coincidentally that
opportunity presented itself at about the same time that I would be
able to make one final push for victory. So I stabbed Cal for the
three centers (I was also happy about that; I'd assumed for a long
time that I would only be able to get two from him on the turn of my
stab, but as a result of moves that Cal himself proposed, I was able
to finagle three), and moved into position in the north.
Now, had Pitt acted the way that _I_ would have acted, I would have
won this game. Basically, I view any elimination as an elimination.
If I'm not in the final draw, who cares whether the end result is a
solo or a three-way for the others? In fact, if I've been stabbed by
someone such that it results in my own demise, I'll do my damnedest to
try to throw the game to the non-stabber. This builds credibility for
my not infrequent throw-game-leverage threats, and it shows people
that stabbing poorly (since of course, any stab of _me_ must be a poor
decision, right? ;) ) has certain consequences.
In this game, John had brutally stabbed Pitt on more than one
occasion, as had Jamie at least once, I believe. And they were
unquestionably about to make the final stab which would cut down on
the draw size, too. Everyone knew it. The writing was on the wall.
Meanwhile, I had never once stabbed Pitt, and had supported him on a
number of occasions. So I thought I'd be on pretty reasonable grounds
to ask Pitt to move STP-FIN, and support me in STP in the fall if he
got into FIN. If he'd done that, I'd have won.
I was surprised, though, when he flatly rejected me. He knew that he
was going out, but he still wouldn't let me win. I was disappointed,
and although normally I would have tried to sway him, from his tone I
knew that he wasn't going to do it. So I pulled back defensive and
established my stalemate line (well, actually I was a bit forward of
the stalemate line, as a sort of offensive defense). And then it was
over. John and I exchanged a few perfunctory e-mails about a two-way,
but I suspected he'd back off of that proposal, and he did. Then we
called it.
The keys to this game for me were the three crucial turns that I
describe above, first the taking of SEV, then the stab of Edi, and
finally the stab of Cal. Each marked the passing of a game phase for
me, from openings to mid to end. And even though I wasn't able to
pull off the solo, even though the game ended up a three-way like we
all had suspected, I'm happy with the way this game turned out,
especially considering my beginnings. I'll take a 17-center three-way
with a few "almost wins" any day, especially among this crowd.
I had a great time, and I salute all of my esteemed colleagues. My
only regrets are that Pitt wasn't able to participate more fully (for
obvious reasons; and I hope things get better soon), and that Mark
seemed to have some hard feelings about the game. Regardless, I hope
to see you all again in another game. And Edi, I hope I haven't
completely torched my credibility with you...this was just an anomaly,
I swear it! :)
Hohn Cho
Turkey in "ghodstoo"
Edi wrote:
> If you had not stabbed me I felt fairly secure that I could continue in the
> balance act between Germany and France to the extent that would have
> allowed us as an alliance to breakthrough any western stalemate line. A
Didn't John stab Pitt on the same turn I stabbed you? If so, that
defeats your argument of any kind of "balancing act" existing between
F and G.
> still showed some substantial influence there. Your stab took away that
> influence from the East and replaced it with an obvious and overbearing
> front runner. If there were the two of us in the East we could easily have
John was also doing quite well, and as the board did _not_ unite
against me right after I stabbed, I feel your claim here is also
erroneous. Sure, I was a front runner, but then to get to 18, you
eventually have to show your stuff.
> parlayed our mutual reputations to continue to dominate the board
> diplomatically as well as
> militarily as the rest would still be in tension over the prospects of
> either one
> of us stabbing the other.
You are speaking with the benefit of complete knowledge and hindsight
here, Edi. Sure, _you_ know that you weren't planning to stab me, and
that if we'd been able to get you out of your predicament, that you
would have stayed with me.
I didn't know that for sure, not by any stretch. I know how good you
are, Edi, and even though we've always worked well together in FTF
games, DIAS PBEM is a very different beast. I was always concerned
with the stab from you. So when an opportunity presented itself to
take you out, I took it. And I don't think it was a bad decision, not
at all.
> This would have allowed you to have a better opportunity for a stab later
> with a chance for victory or even a two way draw with myself or one of the
> other Western powers.
A two-way between you and me would have been impossible, based on
geography. As for stabbing you for the win, I suppose that if
everything worked out perfectly, that would have been possible, but my
estimates of the probability of that happening differ from yours,
apparently.
Hohn
I have a couple of things to say about Hohn's comments.
First, about Pitt's ending:
>In this game, John had brutally stabbed Pitt on more than
>one occasion, as had Jamie at least once, I believe.
Never, though I had *been* stabbed by Pitt more than once.
I sure would have stabbed him if I'd had a chance, but I never did get one!
(Until the last year, of course.)
>And they were unquestionably about to make the final
>stab which would cut down on the draw size, too.
>Everyone knew it. The writing was on the wall.
I wonder why you thought this was so obvious.
>So I thought I'd be on pretty reasonable grounds
>to ask Pitt to move STP-FIN, and support me in STP
>in the fall if he got into FIN. If he'd done that, I'd have won.
Yes, you would have won.
If Pitt had been completely on top of things, he probably would have thrown
it to you then. But, if he were really completely on top of things, he
wouldn't have let the game *get* to that stage. (I explained this a bit in
my eog statement.)I was counting on this fact, myself.
Hohn to Edi:
>Didn't John stab Pitt on the same turn I stabbed you?
Yes, the stabs were simultaneous. In 1905. (I can't remember which season,
though. I can check on Monday.)
>If so, that defeats your argument of any kind of "balancing
>act" existing between F and G.
It kind of does, doesn't it?
(Still Hohn to Edi)
>As for stabbing you for the win, I suppose that if
>everything worked out perfectly, that would have been
>possible, but my estimates of the probability of that
>happening differ from yours, apparently.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think the chance was?
I would factor into two elements. First, there is the chance that you and
Edi could have beaten whatever westerners resisted you. And second, there is
the chance that *given you could overcome the westerners together*, you
rather than Edi would have gotten the win. (The final chance is the product
of those two factors.)
My view is that the first of these two was very low, but the second was
fairly high. (In fact, one reason I think the first is low is that the
second is so high!)
-Jamie
Actually I knew that the 'system' allows only Draw Include All Survivors,
however for me that was also part of the challenge. Players often
surrender themselves to the 'system' rather than realising that they are
and should be in control and can do what ever the hell they want with the
game. The game is a social function and the ultimate victory is to do both
get the players to support you in a victory of some sort within the game
and at the sametime get them to join in a victory over the system.
A demonstration game is just that a demonstration. One of the things I
like to demonstrate is that we the players call the shots not some system.
Too many people regulate their freedoms and choices out of existance, here
we could have worked to create a situation in which all the players would
have a rebellion against the system while at the sametime supporting our in
game goals. In this I was at fault for not making it clearer to Hohn.
The ultimate control over a game's result is what you want in some manner
or another that also gives you in game recognition. Showing players how to
break the DIAS issue and confronting the email community with it is
something that was worth the effort. By turning on Austria you surrendered
your focus to only the ingame result of a three way draw, something that
could have been achieved without having to go to the extent of attacking
me..but anyway....that's another story that has already been over told.
Edi
Hohn wrote:
>The other thing that helped me make my decision to stab Edi was some
words from Edi himself, where he said that we could grow to a decent
size and then "hopefully force a concession." I don't think Edi
realized this was a DIAS game, which makes everything different in
terms of end-game strategies. The vast majority of FTF games are won
by concession, but not DIAS games. As soon as someone pointed that
out to him, I strongly suspected Edi would be much more wary and on
guard against me, because there would be no easy concessions; one of
us would likely have to stab the other. And since I didn't know when
someone would clarify this point to Edi,
Edi Birsan
mailto:[email protected]
Web: http://www.mgames.com
Midnight Games
541-772-7872
No, you've misunderstood.
Edi is the Trotsky of Diplomacy. It's permanent revolution! Jim-Bob Burgess
is not to blame, it's the dreaded System itself. Dippers of the world,
unite! You have nothing to lose but your centers!
I think you are attacking a non-issue. No one disputes that the players
control the game. Any parameter - even the DIAS flag - can be changed by
unanimous vote of the players. Of course, the GM can annouce prior to the
game that he will not allow any parms to be changed, but in that case you
can simply decline to play in that game.
Now, if you're going to argue that a the players should be able to change
the parms by a majority vote (instead of a unanimous one), I'll strongly
disagree with you. But I don't think you're saying that, so I don't see a
problem.
Jeff
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Austria in 'ghodstoo':
>Actually I knew that the 'system' allows only Draw Include All Survivors,
>however for me that was also part of the challenge. Players often
>surrender themselves to the 'system' rather than realising that they are
>and should be in control and can do what ever the hell they want with the
>game. The game is a social function and the ultimate victory is to do both
>get the players to support you in a victory of some sort within the game
>and at the sametime get them to join in a victory over the system.
>
>A demonstration game is just that a demonstration. One of the things I
>like to demonstrate is that we the players call the shots not some system.
>Too many people regulate their freedoms and choices out of existance, here
>we could have worked to create a situation in which all the players would
>have a rebellion against the system while at the sametime supporting our in
>game goals. In this I was at fault for not making it clearer to Hohn.
>
>The ultimate control over a game's result is what you want in some manner
>or another that also gives you in game recognition. Showing players how to
>break the DIAS issue and confronting the email community with it is
>something that was worth the effort. By turning on Austria you surrendered
>your focus to only the ingame result of a three way draw, something that
>could have been achieved without having to go to the extent of attacking
>me..but anyway....that's another story that has already been over told.
>
>
>Edi
" We have ways of making you talk....we know your fears better than your
Father Confessors...we know your nightmares and your day's horrors...we
know your values ...your scales and measures... for we have seen into the
darkness and know its name. "
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as France in 'ghodstoo':
>
>Edi: What exactly would have been in it for anyone but TA (under your
>scenario) to drop DIAS? How do you think you would have gotten to a
>unanimous vote while any other player had a unit left alive?
>
>
>
>
>
Edi Birsan
mailto:[email protected]
Web: http://www.mgames.com
Midnight Games
541-772-7872
Edi: What exactly would have been in it for anyone but TA (under your
scenario) to drop DIAS? How do you think you would have gotten to a
unanimous vote while any other player had a unit left alive?
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in 'ghodstoo':
[....]
>I think what you have to do is start, very early in the game, a
>campaign to change the rules. After all, the DIAS rules are pretty
>lame in a lot of respects. They give equal weight to runty powers who
>just peter about most of the game, never achieving true greatness.
>Those remora-like powers who, even when they drop down to one SC,
>latch onto some greater neighbor, to weave their way back into the
>midgame, just to eliminate the mighty Kaiser Pitt on the last turn.
>
>Oh, wait, that got a little out of control :)
You're on my list now, Rick. You just wait. Keep looking over your
shoulder, too.
>Seriously, I've played DIAS and judge NoDIAS games for a few years.
>NoDIAS is essentially DIAS, as any power can veto a draw not including
>himself.
Hm. No, I don't think that's right, actually.
But I do think that good players would rarely vote for a draw that does not
include them.
> The combination of DIAS and HoF scoring gives equal weight
>to frontrunners who almost win and tiny powers who squeak into a draw.
That's certainly true!
>If the real purpose of the game is to try to
>win, isn't the 17-SC power somehow 'closer' to this goal than the tiny
>survivor?
"Somehow" it is. But is it closer in the relevant way?
What if we play chess, and at the end I have two knights and a king, and
you have just a king. Hey, I think I'm closer to winning! But it's a draw.
Or, maybe you have more pieces, but I sneak into a stalemate position. I
would be pretty pissed if the scorekeeper insisted that the stalemate was
just a technicality and awarded you a point and me nothing!
The aim of the game is to get 18 centers. So if you can't get the 18, you
don't win! Close, but Diplomacy isn't horseshoes. And if you have 17 and I
have one, but nobody can win without my letting them, I think I control the
game as much as you do. I should get the same 'reward' you get. If you
don't like it, you just try to eliminate me. If you can't, why do you
deserve the win? Why do you deserve more of a win than I do?
>In contrast, at AvalonCon, any coalition which controlled 29 SCs could
>impose a draw. Yes, this favors 2-way draws much more than a DIAS
>game would. It has its own downsides, such as late-game skirmishes
>between two 6-SC powers to stay about the elmination line. But it
>rewards more aggressive play, which is something I like.
Hmmm. I'm not so sure it rewards aggressive play.
It just changes *which* positions you have to play very defensively.
I like the usual Judge scoring, myself. I think board *position* is as
important as number of centers, and so is diplomatic position. Seeing the
game as reducible to the number of centers one controls is, well, kind of
crass, in my opinion.
Jamie
(And do keep looking over that shoulder, Rick. That guy with the bowler hat
and white gloves, that might be me. It might be....)
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as France in 'ghodstoo':
>
>Edi: What exactly would have been in it for anyone but TA (under your
>scenario) to drop DIAS? How do you think you would have gotten to a
>unanimous vote while any other player had a unit left alive?
Of course, this is one of the things that's so, well, ironic?, about DIAS.
I think occasionally you could convince someone to agree to vote for a draw
that didn't include him, as a matter of fact, but these are likely to be
pretty dull examples. (For instance, if England were down to a single
center, one which could be captured safely by France, so that England's
choices were to survive, voting for a draw that didn't include her, or be
eliminated. Then the draw vote would just speed up the inevitable.)
In GHODSTOO, I am perfectly willing to believe that France would under no
circumstances have agreed to a nonDIAS draw that didn't include him. I
can't think of any reason that Jon *would* have agreed to such a thing.
By the way, most gm's (myself included) will *not* allow a DIAS setting to
be changed in midgame, even with unanimous consent of the players. The
reason is pretty obvious, so I won't bother to explain it.
-Jamie (formerly Gentle King)
Okay, Edi. I guess what you are saying is you don't have any idea how you'd convince a survivor to vote for accepting a loss rather than striving for participation in a draw. I think what you have to do is start, very early in the game, a campaign to change the rules. After all, the DIAS rules are pretty lame in a lot of respects. They give equal weight to runty powers who just peter about most of the game, never achieving true greatness. Those remora-like powers who, even when they drop down to one SC, latch onto some greater neighbor, to weave their way back into the midgame, just to eliminate the mighty Kaiser Pitt on the last turn. Oh, wait, that got a little out of control :) Seriously, I've played DIAS and judge NoDIAS games for a few years. NoDIAS is essentially DIAS, as any power can veto a draw not including himself. The combination of DIAS and HoF scoring gives equal weight to frontrunners who almost win and tiny powers who squeak into a draw. This summer, I played my first convention, where SCs were counted as part of a player's score. My instinct was against this, but now I think I like this idea. If the real purpose of the game is to try to win, isn't the 17-SC power somehow 'closer' to this goal than the tiny survivor? The DIAS/HoF scoring has a definite effect upon how people play, which I'm not sure is good. In contrast, at AvalonCon, any coalition which controlled 29 SCs could impose a draw. Yes, this favors 2-way draws much more than a DIAS game would. It has its own downsides, such as late-game skirmishes between two 6-SC powers to stay about the elmination line. But it rewards more aggressive play, which is something I like. After a few years of playing this game, it becomes easy to develop a play-to-the-draw strategy. You muddle about for a while, letting a frontrunner approach victory. Then you make a lot of noise, and form a stop-the-leader coalition, which needs you as a vital participant. Finally, you clear out the chaff, and get your draw. My problem with this approach is that it never includes any honest attempt to win the game. I seem to be implicitly criticizing Jamie for his play in this game. Well, that's just needling, as Jamie really should have died, and for him to reach the size he did is fairly miraculous. And I know that Jamie will play for the win, and certainly both John and Hohn did so in this game. Well, my point seems to have wandered. Suffice it to say that there is an argument to be made against DIAS, but you would have to make it early in the game, when it was not appearing to be a purely partisan move. RickOkay, Edi. I guess what you are saying is you don't have any idea how you'd convince a survivor to vote for accepting a loss rather than striving for participation in a draw.Private message from Observer to England:
A very eloquent defence of DIAS! Well done! I am writing to ask if you plan to make a return to the Pouch pages. Your writing is so good and you are definitely among the best instructors and players around. Hoping, ManusBroadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'ghodstoo': >Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in 'ghodstoo': [....] >Oh, wait, that got a little out of control :) You're on my list now, Rick. You just wait. Keep looking over your shoulder, too. You'll have to find me first! The only non-Gunboat game I'm playing is TAP's Show_Me_The_Money! (show me the first move?) >Seriously, I've played DIAS and judge NoDIAS games for a few years. >NoDIAS is essentially DIAS, as any power can veto a draw not including >himself. Hm. No, I don't think that's right, actually. But I do think that good players would rarely vote for a draw that does not include them. Well, the key word is 'essentially', which in math speak means 'not really, but the difference is small and I don't care about it'. For me, the only draws I would vote for in nonDIAS games which excluded me would be timesaver draws, i.e. I don't see any way to avoid elimination anyway. Of course, not everybody thinks the same way. >If the real purpose of the game is to try to >win, isn't the 17-SC power somehow 'closer' to this goal than the tiny >survivor? "Somehow" it is. But is it closer in the relevant way? By one measure it is. By another it isn't. What if we play chess, and at the end I have two knights and a king, and you have just a king. Hey, I think I'm closer to winning! But it's a draw. Or, maybe you have more pieces, but I sneak into a stalemate position. I would be pretty pissed if the scorekeeper insisted that the stalemate was just a technicality and awarded you a point and me nothing! That's different. The stalemate is part of the rules. Diplomacy rules really do not concern themselves with weighting draws. (I know you can read the rules as imparting the spirit of DIAS, but they certainly do not do so explicitly, or in any way which measures the relative value of a win against a draw. At AvalonCon this year, there was only one solo victory. That player was not the overall winner, as another player had two 16-17 SC powers in two-way draws. Debates about scoring systems are necessarily beyond the scope of the rules.) The aim of the game is to get 18 centers. So if you can't get the 18, you don't win! Close, but Diplomacy isn't horseshoes. And if you have 17 and I have one, but nobody can win without my letting them, I think I control the game as much as you do. I should get the same 'reward' you get. If you don't like it, you just try to eliminate me. If you can't, why do you deserve the win? Why do you deserve more of a win than I do? You don't. Nobody deserves a win. You perhaps deserve 'more of a draw', whatever that means. >In contrast, at AvalonCon, any coalition which controlled 29 SCs could >impose a draw. Yes, this favors 2-way draws much more than a DIAS >game would. It has its own downsides, such as late-game skirmishes >between two 6-SC powers to stay about the elmination line. But it >rewards more aggressive play, which is something I like. Hmmm. I'm not so sure it rewards aggressive play. It just changes *which* positions you have to play very defensively. I would have to see more games to judge. But I think the combination of time constraints and the rules changes favor aggressive play. Which is not in my favor, as I tend to play games where I sit around for a long time in third place and hope to get an end-game advantage in 1920 or so. I like the usual Judge scoring, myself. I think board *position* is as important as number of centers, and so is diplomatic position. Seeing the game as reducible to the number of centers one controls is, well, kind of crass, in my opinion. Jamie Well, it's not really 'Judge scoring', it's HoF scoring, but that's a nitpick. I don't reduce the game to the number of SCs controlled. But I do dislike play which is intentionally drawish (such as those hideous 8 SC-Englands which have eliminated Germany and France and control Portugal, but have no armies at all) and would prefer a system which rewards the players who have at least made a visible effort to try to reach 18 SCs over those players who really had no plan or intention ever to reach 18. (And do keep looking over that shoulder, Rick. That guy with the bowler hat and white gloves, that might be me. It might be....) A bowler hat and white gloves! Is that some Rhode Island thing? RickUm, Edi, you do know that it's not _necessary_ for you to resume the game just to broadcast press, right? RickActually I know pretty much how I would go about it in each case. It is something that is not disectable until the circumstances are drawn upon the parties involved. >Broadcast message from [email protected] as France in 'ghodstoo': > >Okay, Edi. I guess what you are saying is you don't have any idea how you'd >convince a survivor to vote for accepting a loss rather than striving for >participation in a draw. > > > > > Edi Birsan mailto:[email protected] Web: http://www.mgames.com Midnight Games 541-772-7872> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in 'ghodstoo': > > Um, Edi, you do know that it's not _necessary_ for you to resume the > game just to broadcast press, right? > Rick > Rick, Edi's just trying to keep me involved by getting me to shut down the game each time. Just to make it clear, as I understand it, the game will stay "active" as long as there is at least one press item sent in each one week period. Just briefly, I thought that Hohn and John's (hey, they rhyme!) comments on the endgame captured the accuracy of the matter from my point of view. It was very clear to me (reading things as they were going) that there was an extremely unlikely possibility that one of them would win, and otherwise it would be a three way draw between them and one other person. Jamie, as he stated pretty clearly, was the only one who really acted to ensure he would be that person. All in all, from the GM's point of view, it was a pretty ho hum ending to what was a much more exciting and fluid midgame and early game. JimEdi, I'd be interested, then, in how you would have gone about achieving the rules change in the game we just played.>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Austria in 'ghodstoo': > > >If I had achieved 18 centers in a spring move and then turned around to you >and said either vote for a two way to Hohn and I or face being a loser in a >win you would have gone along with the 2 way...and Hohn knows that I would >have voted for it also just to make a point. Why would that make me, a hapless power not being offered a spot in the draw, go along with it? What do I care if Hohn adds one more success to his career? Remember, you have to get everyone to agree, not the just the happy few being offered a spot in the winner's circle. JeffAha! A great recipe for making everyone vote for a two-way draw. Step One: get to 18 centers in a Spring move, making sure that nobody could take any of them back in the Fall. Step Two: propose draw. Step Three: vote for draw. I'm going to try this next game I play. Of the three steps, two seem quite simple indeed! -JamieIf I had achieved 18 centers in a spring move and then turned around to you and said either vote for a two way to Hohn and I or face being a loser in a win you would have gone along with the 2 way...and Hohn knows that I would have voted for it also just to make a point. >Edi, I'd be interested, then, in how you would have gone about achieving >the rules change in the game we just played. Edi Edi Birsan mailto:[email protected] Web: http://www.mgames.com Midnight Games 541-772-7872Each person has his values and what is important in the event that he does not win. In John's case I think HE would agree. In your case maybe another approach is needed. There is an old saying from the sixties on Diplomacy: it is the seven pieces around the table that are more important than the 34 pieces on it. Edi >Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in 'ghodstoo': > >>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Austria in 'ghodstoo': >> >> >>If I had achieved 18 centers in a spring move and then turned around to you >>and said either vote for a two way to Hohn and I or face being a loser in a >>win you would have gone along with the 2 way...and Hohn knows that I would >>have voted for it also just to make a point. > >Why would that make me, a hapless power not being offered a spot in the >draw, go along with it? What do I care if Hohn adds one more success to his >career? Remember, you have to get everyone to agree, not the just the happy >few being offered a spot in the winner's circle. > >Jeff > > Edi Birsan mailto:[email protected] Web: http://www.mgames.com Midnight Games 541-772-7872>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Austria in 'ghodstoo': > There is an old saying from the sixties on >Diplomacy: it is the seven pieces around the table that are more important >than the 34 pieces on it. Now I'm getting shivers down my spine. The last time someone called me a 'piece', well, let's just say in the end I married her. -Jamie> You're on my list now, Rick. You just wait. Keep looking over your > shoulder, too. > >You'll have to find me first! The only non-Gunboat game I'm playing >is TAP's Show_Me_The_Money! (show me the first move?) I may not find you soon. But you'll have to keep looking over that shoulder.... >Well, the key word is 'essentially', which in math speak means 'not >really, but the difference is small and I don't care about it'. Oh, sorry, I thought the term for that was 'the same up to isomorphism'. > For >me, the only draws I would vote for in nonDIAS games which excluded me >would be timesaver draws, i.e. I don't see any way to avoid >elimination anyway. Yeah, I agree, as a matter of fact. > What if we play chess, and at the end I have two knights and a king, and > you have just a king. Hey, I think I'm closer to winning! But it's a draw. > Or, maybe you have more pieces, but I sneak into a stalemate position. I > would be pretty pissed if the scorekeeper insisted that the stalemate was > just a technicality and awarded you a point and me nothing! > >That's different. The stalemate is part of the rules. Diplomacy >rules really do not concern themselves with weighting draws. Oh, that's true. But I think this is a good rule in chess, so I think a similar rule is good in Diplomacy. I do agree that there's nothing actually *wrong* with various different scoring methods. My views about this are on record ("Let a thousand scoring systems bloom"). I'm just explaining which method I prefer. >Well, it's not really 'Judge scoring', it's HoF scoring, but that's a >nitpick. Fair enough. > I don't reduce the game to the number of SCs controlled. >But I do dislike play which is intentionally drawish (such as those >hideous 8 SC-Englands which have eliminated Germany and France and >control Portugal, but have no armies at all) and would prefer a system >which rewards the players who have at least made a visible effort to >try to reach 18 SCs over those players who really had no plan or >intention ever to reach 18. Hm. But what about the guy who had a really awful plan to reach 18 centers, one which could easily be seen to be doomed to failure, stuck at 17? You want to reward him too? I want to reward the guy who took a little chance, left himself open to a significant stab that would (and in the event, did) reduce him to four centers, because he knew he would still hold a crucial position. Maybe he took the chance in going along with a not-very-stable alliance. Or maybe what held the alliance together was exactly the knowledge that each member could control a stalemate line. I think that's good, interesting play. I like people to take those chances. I want to give them these extra tools. Not just holding a big basket of centers, but also holding a crucial position. > (And do keep looking over that shoulder, Rick. That guy with the bowler hat > and white gloves, that might be me. It might be....) > >A bowler hat and white gloves! Is that some Rhode Island thing? Well, that might not be me. I might be the short fat guy reading the newspaper. You just never know, Rick. That's the thing. But think about it, always think about it. I'm out there somewhere. Don't forget. JamieJust a few comments from the peanut gallery: First, I must say that watching this game been an experience and an education. I've seen things done and said both inside and outside the game that have fascinated, intrigued and shocked me, things that I wouldn't have thought of doing or even dreamed of doing. It wasn't so much the moves that made the stabs, but the subtleties that led up to them that I found so educational. Watching a game of all top caliber players is something I think every novice or intermediate level player should do, even if they do nothing more than read the broadcast press and keep only the vaguest contact with what was actually going on in the game itself. Secondly, watching this game made me understand why I underestimated Hohn so much in the two games I've played face-to-face with him. I had no idea who he was at the time, and both times he surprised me with his knowledge of the game and ability to analyse and take advantage of situations as they arise. This may sound like unabashed flattery, but he is the only one of the Seven that I have met, and seeing him play both FTF and on the Judge was educational in itself. Finally, the perspectives brought into the 'outside' discussions made them lively and nearly every broadcast was something worth reading. (Most of the time, anyway.) For someone who is not in the 'Inner Circle' of the Dip World, those discussions shed light on topics that I had had only a cursory interest in before this game, and have been firmly lodged in my thick skull until I have the time to fully pursue those subjects. Congratulations to the Final Three, and thanks to everyone for playing in this game. It was truly a joy to watch. James Glass ObserverI'd rather not get into the middle of the debates unitl I have a chance to review the game a bit myself. I will say a couple of very general things at this point that might be helpful: 1) Jamie was probably the best at communicating what he was really up to as the game progressed, closely followed by Hohn, in terms of private notes to the GM. Mark also was pretty good about it while he was in the game. Cal and John went through spurts where they updated me on where they were going and spurts where they did not. Pitt and I had some very, very regrettable behind the scenes misunderstandings. In all, it was a great shame that he has gone through a very eventful and not very pleasant 1997. I sincerely wish that things look up for him into the holiday season. 2) Watching Edi was fascinating! I've always asserted that Edi was right up there with the best I've seen. I now have greater insight into his powers and his weaknesses. WIthout getting too detailed about it at the moment, he did what I think is one of the true marks of a great Dip player, he was always in the game and always in the middle of the game. Jamie at one point talks of letting Edi occupy the center stage in hopes of gaining ground quietly. Edi seems to see that his personality makes it impossible to hide (and his record) so he's better off working it for the best. One way to do that is to keep things shaken up. I'm sure that at least one reason for the quadrapartite proposal was to send the game into an unusual early game position that he had analyzed better than any of the other players. I was reading all the press and I was surprised by some of his moves. While Edi did try very hard to keep me up to date on various aspects of his dealings, sometimes he appeared to be operating on levels I found difficult to follow. This aspect of "raising the level of the game" as I have called it in my debates with Dan Shoham is my top Diplomacy player characteristic and Edi had it in spades. 3) As the game simplified, Edi's advantages waned and once the game started to revolve around the stalemate line, from my perception everyone appeared to be operating on reasonably equal footing. Since the Judge and novice Judge players seemed to have very different views of the stalemate line and there was LOTS of posturing on all sides on that point, it seems to me that some discussion of the role of the stalemate line in this game is also in order. Ultimately, this did turn into a pretty standard application of stalemate line DIp theory. 4) The effect of the Judge itself was subtle. I thought the rookies had the greatest problem trying to manage pace and flow of communications in the new medium (for them). Mark, in particular, fell for the trap of the instant reply, while John appeared to manage the process with the most skill. Hohn did well with this too, but some of it was his exploitation of his different time zone and busy work schedule. 5) In my eyes it was a well matched game with diversity and talent. Pitt's illness shortened an interesting end game into a foregone conclusion. Thoughts? Jim(Edi) >> I tried to send comments earlier and they bounced. (They got through earlier. We've now seen some of the same content twice.) >> Again I think that if Turkey had stayed with Austria, there would have >>been a >> very good chance that the game could have gon to a rather exciting three way >> and may be a two situation with a strategic rather than a tactical >>stalemate. >> Further there may have been better chances for a victorious back stab by >> Turkey in the end game. >> I have rambled enough on the game during it to the GM so that he plenty of >> material to hang me with, so I will not comment further here, Hohn: >Edi, I'd like to see you explain your reasoning. So would I. We *could* wait until all the memos to m are released, and try to piece together the reasoning ourselves, but it would be a lot simpler if you'd just tell us what it is. >Looking at the board at the time I stabbed you, I didn't see any way >in hell for the two of us to prosper while working together. I >especially didn't see a way for _me_ to prosper if I'd acceded to your >requests that you'd made the turn I stabbed you. > >Ask Jim, I noted to him at length at my desire to try to maintain the >AT alliance, especially as those types of alliances favor Turkey. I >also wanted to keep working with you. But we were getting stalemated >or pushed back, and so I took my alternative opportunity. To be >honest, I think that stab of you is the major reason why I came so >close to victory, and that it was a good stab, tactically and >strategically. > >More later, as I'm swamped (story of my life), but I wanted to respond >to this to see what you and others think. I have no particular view on this question. I wasn't interested in it at the time, because I was trying desperately to survive. :-) Tentatively, I will say that it does kind of seem like Hohn had only a smallish chance of winning once he stabbed Edi. I guess he had to hope that France and Germany would get very tangled up together and not be able to bury the hatchet in time to set up a line to contain Turkey. I have to admit that this is about the weakest aspect of my own game. I have a lot of trouble seeing through that part of the middle game. The pure tactical aspects are *so* complicated, and the broader considerations have not yet clarified for me, when, say, in 1907 I have to assess what I have to do to be where I want to be in 1910. In this particular game, of course, I didn't have the luxury of worrying about how to position myself in the midgame to have the best winning chances in the ending. Jamie (formerly Gentle King)Edi said: > I tried to send comments earlier and they bounced. > if this gets through then: > Congradulations to the group for their survival. > Again I think that if Turkey had stayed with Austria, there would have been a > very good chance that the game could have gon to a rather exciting three way > and may be a two situation with a strategic rather than a tactical stalemate. > Further there may have been better chances for a victorious back stab by > Turkey in the end game. > I have rambled enough on the game during it to the GM so that he plenty of > material to hang me with, so I will not comment further here, Edi, I'd like to see you explain your reasoning. Looking at the board at the time I stabbed you, I didn't see any way in hell for the two of us to prosper while working together. I especially didn't see a way for _me_ to prosper if I'd acceded to your requests that you'd made the turn I stabbed you. Ask Jim, I noted to him at length at my desire to try to maintain the AT alliance, especially as those types of alliances favor Turkey. I also wanted to keep working with you. But we were getting stalemated or pushed back, and so I took my alternative opportunity. To be honest, I think that stab of you is the major reason why I came so close to victory, and that it was a good stab, tactically and strategically. More later, as I'm swamped (story of my life), but I wanted to respond to this to see what you and others think. HohnI tried to send comments earlier and they bounced. if this gets through then: Congradulations to the group for their survival. Again I think that if Turkey had stayed with Austria, there would have been a very good chance that the game could have gon to a rather exciting three way and may be a two situation with a strategic rather than a tactical stalemate. Further there may have been better chances for a victorious back stab by Turkey in the end game. I have rambled enough on the game during it to the GM so that he plenty of material to hang me with, so I will not comment further here, EdiThere hasn't exactly been a flood of comments from the other players, huh? I'll liven things up and do my part to prevent the game from actually expiring. ENGLAND's eog statement for GHODSTOO (another installment) The Opening ----------- As the observers never discovered, and as at least many of the players I think did know, there was a AIRE alliance at the outset. Edi suggested it. I liked the idea. For one thing, as Edi noted, it would be unusual, and that's a plus for a demo game. For another, it seemed to me that it would be quite advantageous to me, England, if it all held up. And, of course, what I feared most in the opening was a GF alliance against me, or a very northward-leaning Russia, and the AIRE plan seemed to be a good way to eliminate such potential problems. So I opened very strong toward France, something I am not generally inclined to do. Now, much of the diplomacy in the early phases was shot through with what I can only call paranoia about Edi Birsan. I loved this. I tried to fan the flames at every opportunity. The more everyone was looking at Austria (even over their shoulders), the less trouble for me (so I thought!). And, if the AIRE held up for a while, it meant that Russia and Italy would be thinking of Austria as their next target, after the demise of the unalligned powers. And that would surely be very good for me. I could just pick my channel of expansion: the Mediterranean, over the top into Russia, or through the middle with armies into Germany and then Central Europe. The prospects appeared fine indeed. But a huge problem emerged rapidly, to put it mildly. First, I'd failed to count on Pitt being much cagier than the average player. This was really stupid. I think my worst mistakes in the game were diplomatic, misjudging the characters of the players. But my worst *strategic* mistake was in overlooking how my opening would appear to Germany, and what he would be most sensible to do in response. He quite rightly saw that I would be growing alarmingly fast, and that I would be able to choose my enemies, if France fell as rapidly as it looked like he might. And he saw me snatch Belgium, appear very confident of being able to take Norway later (!!!), with all signs of close ties to Italy and Russia. So he stabbed me when it was most effective. This was strategically disastrous. At the same time, the AIRE alliance fell to pieces, exactly because of the Birsan-paranoia I had encouraged. Italy and Russia went for Austria. Russia stole Norway. Italy let France off the hook. I was in big, big trouble. So the turning point in the game came very, very early for me. Not only was my tactical position wrecked, but my attitudes toward all the players changed. First, I now had to view France as my potential savior, even though he was the only power I had attacked -- an uncomfortable situation! But I had some hopes. I'd tried to stay on good terms with John even while I was invading him; not that I really thought I'd ever need his goodwill, but you never know. Second, I had been thinking of Russia as my major ally, my "last enemy" (there are no lifelong friends in Diplomacy, your best friend is really just your last enemy. Deep, isn't it?). But he'd just stuck me by taking Norway. This was one of those (numerous) cases in which I am stabbed, and because I'm taken by surprise I feel that the stab must have been a dumb move (otherwise I would have expected it). (This was not the case when Pitt stabbed me. I could see that the dumbness was mine there.) Russia was fighting Turkey, he was stabbing Austria, and now he was opening a third front! Insanity. I wanted to punish him, or at least I wanted it to emerge that taking Norway was a really dumb move. I almost decided to chuck it all and destroy the Russian position with my last gasps. But I decided to inflict punishment by haranguing Mark endlessly instead. I think Mark will agree that this was a pretty harsh punishment. :-) Third, I now regarded Turkey as my only definite friend. I tried to make use of him, but to no real avail. (I didn't blame him, either.) Fourth, I felt that Italy's abandonment of the invasion of France was an indirect stab of me. And fifth, I felt that somehow Austria was responsible for the whole thing. (So I guess some of that paranoia was rubbing off!) Putting the goal of a really good finish on the back burner, I adopted as my goal to see as many of my betrayers eliminated as possible before I felt the final axe myself. (I hoped to get a little revenge against Germany, too, but this was the lowest priority.) For this reason I decided to try to hold out as long as I could, maybe exerting some diplomatic influence in the midgame, rather than to play all my on-the-board cards at once to avenge myself against Russia. I have to say that I thought the Russian and Italian openings made no sense at all. If they were going to stab Austria in 1902, it would have made a lot more sense to begin in 1901 instead. As it worked out, Italy was way out of position, and had to tip the attack by shifting his fleets eastward. Russia got little out of 1901 except a Turkish enemy. Nor could I see anything in particular that happened in 1901 that Russia and Italy couldn't have expected beforehand. It's not as though it was a great surprise that Italy couldn't just scoop up the French and Iberian centers quickly without resistance! Everyone knows that is a difficult attack, one that bears fruit only after a couple of years. (I'm really just saying this to get Cal and Mark to say something. Oooh, maybe I'd better inform Mark that the game is over!) The Opening portion of the game was awfully short, as far as I'm concerned. Once the AIRE fell apart, after exactly one year!, the Opening was over for me, I had to adjust my goals and strategies. I guess I'll send in my thoughts about the midgame another time. Jamie, formerly Gentle King>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in 'ghodstoo': >N is generally equal to 7. > >Nick Yes, and x is usually 17 and y is generally 11. (That's what Charlie Brown's friend Lucy says, anyway.) -JamieI will have something to say about the course of the game later. Now, I wish to congratulate everyone on a game well played and to thank the players and our esteemed master for giving me this opportunity. I very much enjoyed the game and I hope we meet again on a new field of battle. JohnWell, well...a three way draw. I have always felt that a perfect game of Diplomacy ends in a three draw...but more on a strategic stalemate than a tactical one. I still think that if Hohn had kept to his original ally that there would have been a better possibility for a two way or even a frightening run at a win for either of us if we wanted to gamble. But that was not to be this time. Congradulations to all and hope to see you again at the World Con and other games. On Wed, 22 Oct 1997 04:34:47 -0500, USIN Diplomacy Judge wrote: > News about USIN can be found at > http://kleiman.indianapolis.in.us/diplomacy/usin.htm > > All unmoderated games will be removed. > Judge address is [email protected] > >Game 'ghodstoo' has been declared a draw between Turkey, England and France. >Congratulations on a game well-played. > Edi Birsan Midnight Games/Legends and Iron and Steam mailto:[email protected] http://www.mgames.com Phone: 541-772-7872 (9am-4pm) OregonENGLAND's eog comments on GHODSTOO (a first installment) Here I'll just remark on the endgame, while I have fresh thoughts about it. First off, let me say that I was sorry to hear that Pitt had been ill. I didn't know until he mentioned it recently on r.g.d. The ending was fairly interesting, I thought. Leaving aside the question of *when* Turkey would annihilate his Italian friend (there wasn't much question about *whether*), the main issue seemed to be how and whether the FEG coalition would hold together. The problem, as became very obvious, was that it might/would become too easy for me and France to eliminate Germany in the very final stages to reduce the draw. Pitt had to try to find some way to make himself indispensible. His general approach seemed right, only the details weren't sufficiently worked out. As an aside, Edi asked whether it was really 'worth the trouble'. But of course, it was no trouble! Edi also noted that his attitude is that a draw is exactly as good as being eliminated. Well, not to me! Working backwards, in the last year there were few choices left. With my fleet in Sweden, I could order it to Finland, and if I got there I would have Stp locked. (I could prevent Turkey ever taking it, and eventually I would be able to take it myself.) Similarly, it was a trivial matter to get France into Berlin, consolidating his forces (which he desperately needed to do to make sure of being able to block a Turkish win). Of course, Germany could see this, and we could see that he could see it, and so on, but all this knowledge was to no avail. If Germany wanted to throw the game, this was his last chance. But in effect there was no more incentive for him to threaten to throw it, since it would be a threat he would have to carry out immediately. There was no promise, at *that* point, that he could extract, no demands he could make. If he ordered Stp-Fin, or Ber-Kie, he'd just be throwing it. If he didn't, he'd be eliminated. He was stuck. Ideally, theoretically, I shouldn't have let this situation arise. For Germany now had no incentive *not* to throw the game, either. I shouldn't have let the position evolve into one in which Germany *could* throw the game and had no incentive not to. I should have done something earlier to prevent the situation from arising. I believe that the last moment to do this was when I was considering capturing Sweden. If Pitt had strenuously demanded that I leave it for him, and further than I *never* bring a unit next to Finland, then I think he could have managed to survive. Maybe. I'm not absolutely sure. Possibly Hohn could have backed away from the stalemate line, far enough to make it possible for me to eliminate Germany safely anyway. In any case, in F1910 Pitt did ask me to leave Sweden for him, but he didn't explain or threaten sufficiently for me to take him seriously. I decided that he wasn't paying very close attention. (Actually I had decided this much earlier.) [And I now figure it was because of his illness.] So I took it, and I think at that point the ending was forced. With no more threats, Pitt had to decide whether he was just going to throw it, or whether he'd have to trust to my Gentle dispositions or something. I guess he felt that there was enough of a chance that I'd want him around, just for some unambitious, non-greedy reason. But I was still cutthroat enough to want to reduce the draw, and for that matter to extract the final revenge against the last suriviving power that had stabbed me earlier. Maybe some of the late Italian moves should be counted as part of the endgame. I guess the *late* Italian moves were all more or less irrelevant. Once Turkey had surrounded the Boot, there appeared to be no hope at all of Italian surivival. I'll figure out what I wanted to say about the Opening and Midgames and report back later. -Jamie> Game 'ghodstoo' has been declared a draw between Turkey, England and France. > Congratulations on a game well-played. > Let me be the second (Jamie always gets in there first) to congratulate Hohn, John, and especially Jamie on the three way draw outcome. It is said by many (and I basically agree) that the most likely outcome for a game played among experts should be a three way draw. Moreover, all three of the draw participants were at one point or another "on the ropes" and Jamie in particular was very close to elimination. Other than Jamie, three of the four participants in an early "quadrapartite" alliance were eliminated, and I would argue that all four "should" have been eliminated, if not for the force of Jamie's will that brought him back into the final draw. As Rick previously noted, Jamie has a "talent" for doing that in expert games. This is not a substitute for the GM's full fledged end game statement, but it is a request for assistance in figuring out where to put this archive of material I have collected on the game and to ask when I should make it available to the players. I enjoyed GMing my first Judge game and I appreciate all of your patience in bearing with me as I worked out incrementally how and what I should be doing. In particular, at some point I want to comment on the effect of the Judge and the electronic medium upon the outcome of the game. The players who were rookies with the Judge were the ones eliminated. That presumably is not completely a coincidence. That's all I have to say at this point, but I look forward to everyone's larger statements on the game and to archiving this game somewhere so people can look at it. Then I will be writing a general commentary on the entire game and publishing it in my Diplomacy szine. Thanks to all the Players and Observers! Jim>:: Judge: USIN > >Summary of game 'ghodstoo' through F1911B. > > Master: Jim Burgess [email protected] > Austria: Edi Birsan [email protected] > England: James Dreier [email protected] > France: John Barkdull [email protected] > Germany: Pitt Crandlemire [email protected] > Italy: Cal White [email protected] > Russia: Mark Fassio [email protected] > Turkey: Hohn Dennis Cho [email protected] > >Game Started: Thu Jan 23 23:00:56 1997 >Draw declared: Wed Oct 22 04:34:02 1997 > >The game was declared a draw between Turkey, England and France. > > >Historical Supply Center Summary >-------------------------------- > Ven Nap Edi Lvp Par Por Bel Mun Ber Swe Stp Mos Con Smy Rum Ser Vie >Year Rom Tun Lon Bre Mar Spa Hol Kie Den Nor War Sev Ank Bul Gre Bud Tri >1900 I I I . E E E F F F . . . . G G G . . . R R R R T T T . . . . A A A >1901 I I I I E E E E F F F F E G G G G G R . R R R R T T T T R A A A A A >1902 I I I I E E E F F F F F G G G G G G R R R R R T T T T A T A A A A A >1903 I I I I E E E F F F F F G G G G G G R R R R R T T T T T A A A A A I >1904 I I I I E E F F F F F F G G G G G G G R R A R T T T T T T A A A A I >1905 I I I I F E F F F F F F G G G G G G G R G A T T T T T T T A A A I I >1906 I I I I F E F F F F F F F F F G G G G G G T T T T T T T T T T A A A >1907 I I I I G E F F F F F F F F F E G G G F G T T T T T T T T T T T A A >1908 A I I I E E F F F F F F F F G F F E G G T T T T T T T T T T T T T I >1909 I I I I E E F F F F F F F F F F F E G G T T T T T T T T T T T T T T >1910 T T T I E E F F F F F F F F F F G E E E G T T T T T T T T T T T T T >1911 T T T T E E F F F F F F F F F F F E E E E T T T T T T T T T T T T T > > >History of Supply Center Counts >------------------------------- >Power 1900 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 Player >Austria 3 5 6* 5 5 4 3 2 1 Edi Birsan >England 3 5 3 3 2 1 1 2 3 3 James Dreier >France 3 4 5 5 6 7 10* 10 10 11* John Barkdull >Germany 3 5 6 6 7 8 6 5 3 2 Pitt Crandlemire >Italy 3 4 4 5 5 6 4 4 4 4 Cal White >Russia 4 6 5 5 3 1 Mark Fassio >Turkey 3 4 5 5 6 7 10 11 13 14 Hohn Dennis Cho >Index: 10 22 24 24 26 30 37 38 43 49 > >Power 1910 '11 Player >England 5 6 James Dreier >France 10 11 John Barkdull >Germany 2 Pitt Crandlemire >Italy 1 Cal White >Turkey 16 17 Hohn Dennis Cho >Index: 55 63 > >* = 1 unused build. > >Index is the sum of squares of the number of supply centers divided by the >number of players. It is a measure of how far the game has progressed. > >USIN Diplomacy Judge wrote: > Broadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'ghodstoo': > > Hm, that was interesting. > > I finally understand what Cal was thinking in the opening! > > I couldn't figure it out. Tactically, it was completely incoherent. Italy > opens westward, the moves on the board go exactly as could be expected, and > then Italy immediately turns around and heads east. Since nothing unexpected > happened, why didn't he go east to begin with?? > > But of course, the explanation was entirely off the board. Cal was > hoping/expecting to hear a certain attitude from Edi, but heard quite the > opposite song. Heh heh, I'm glad to see you now understand that I'm not totally incoherent! (well, not totally anyway...) > I do not agree with Cal's remarks about the late midgame, though. It would > certainly not have been easy, as Cal says, for France to eliminate both > Germany and England by himself, even assuming Italy could have held off an > AustroTurkish alliance. And even if France *HAD* eliminated both me and > Pitt, he *still* would not have been able to win, I think. So personally I > think that was Cal's best chance, to control his own centers and Tunis while > keeping Hohn to the east and John to the west. Geez, holding off both while working with neither? You have a higher opinion of my tactical ability than *I* do, that's for sure! d:}) Obviously, we can go on debating this, but we'll never really know, will we? Suffice it to say that, from the eastern end of the board (distance equals different perspective?), it appeared to me (and to Hohn as well as he said in his end game statement) that it really seemed that there was a risk of a French victory. You must understand, I was looking at it from a POTENTIAL point of view. That is, should France have been able to deal with England & Germany in any reasonably quick fashion, he WOULD have been across the stalemate line and THAT is what was worrying me. Sure, it may not have ended up tactically feasible, but in any game at this level, I'm not going to take a chance like that. I KNEW I could stop Hohn from the win; I wasn't so sure about France. Cal -- Cal White Coordinator Canadian Diplomacy Organization http://www.bfree.on.ca/cdo/home.htm Co-Owner scoresheet-talk listserver>> I do not agree with Cal's remarks about the late midgame, though. It would >> certainly not have been easy, as Cal says, for France to eliminate both >> Germany and England by himself, even assuming Italy could have held off an >> AustroTurkish alliance. And even if France *HAD* eliminated both me and >> Pitt, he *still* would not have been able to win, I think. So personally I >> think that was Cal's best chance, to control his own centers and Tunis while >> keeping Hohn to the east and John to the west. Cal: >Geez, holding off both while working with neither? You have a higher >opinion of my tactical ability than *I* do, that's for sure! d:}) Working mainly with France, I was thinking, but in case France seemed to be getting too far too fast, ready to let Turkey support from the east side. >Obviously, we can go on debating this, but we'll never really know, will >we? Suffice it to say that, from the eastern end of the board (distance >equals different perspective?), it appeared to me (and to Hohn as well >as he said in his end game statement) that it really seemed that there >was a risk of a French victory. You must understand, I was looking at >it from a POTENTIAL point of view. That is, should France have been >able to deal with England & Germany in any reasonably quick fashion, he >WOULD have been across the stalemate line and THAT is what was worrying >me. Sure, it may not have ended up tactically feasible, but in any game >at this level, I'm not going to take a chance like that. I KNEW I could >stop Hohn from the win; I wasn't so sure about France. Hmmm. I don't know which 18 centers you thought France might have in this potential victory. I am saying that you could have kept him from taking Tunis or any of your home centers. Also, which were you primarily trying to do: (i) keep Turkey and France from winning, or (ii) be a part of a draw? Your actual decision may have been the best way to achieve (i), but I think another choice would have been a much better bet to achieve (ii). -Jamie> Broadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'ghodstoo': > Hmmm. > I don't know which 18 centers you thought France might have in this > potential victory. > I am saying that you could have kept him from taking Tunis or any of your > home centers. The French, German & English home centres (9), plus Iberia (2), Scandinavia (3), the Lowlands (2) & St Pete's make 17. Warsaw or Tunis were potential winning centres. They may not have been gained easily but they were posssible. I didn't care to gamble on anything at that point. > Also, which were you primarily trying to do: (i) keep Turkey and France > from winning, or (ii) be a part of a draw? Your actual decision may have > been the best way to achieve (i), but I think another choice would have > been a much better bet to achieve (ii). The way it turned out, yes, but I was thinking at the time that you and Pitt were on the way to elimination. I knew somebody had to be the power that prevented the game from going to 17-17. I was trying to put myself in that position when you were probably just thinking about survival. :) Cal -- Cal White Coordinator Canadian Diplomacy Organization http://www.bfree.on.ca/cdo/home.htm Co-Owner scoresheet-talk listserverSorry for my silence lately; work, and all that. Regarding the now mostly dead-and-buried statistical argument, I can't speak as to statistical accuracy in its purist form; I never took any statistics in school. My opinion on the matter is close or identical to Rick's though. I feel that taking centers into account for draws is one valid scoring system, and that by not using it, you are effectively throwing away useful information. Regarding John and his chances of victory, when we both hit 10 on the same turn, I was extremely worried about him. I saw German resistance crumbling, and I saw John's potential 18 as: FRANCE, GERMANY, ENGLAND, Scandinavia, Iberia, Low Countries, STP, and WAR as the 18th. He could have gotten WAR guaranteed, eventually, had he been able to keep his Tyrolian raider on the board. Thus my concern. I think the concern was legitimate, too, and had John pressed things more aggressively, I think he and I would have both come down to the wire in terms of possible victory. I also think Cal's initial concerns were legitimate. As the game wore on, though, I saw John's chances of victory recede, although I kept up my doomsaying to Cal in an effort to keep him on my side. The last few years, IIRC, I was pretty well convinced that the game would either end in a three-way or a solo for me. Jim, are the press/reports to GM up yet? I'd love to read them. HohnJust to give you all an update.... what I'm doing is saving all of this press with the original game press. On this Wednesday, I will close off the gates and send the entire package to Ryan Brase who will be putting it on the Diplomatic Pouch web page. He is one of those student types, I think, and we assures me that he will get it up over the Thanksgiving weekend. Comments after that to the "game" will be discouraged (i.e. I won't be saving them any more) and we will move the discussion to the letter column for Diplomatic Pouch. I then will finish my article on the game which will go there as well as in my szine. Is that OK with everyone? Ryan wasn't going to be able to get to it until Thanksgiving anyway, so I thought it would be better to keep this forum going until then. I know you all are SOOOO curious. Jim> This is not a substitute for the GM's full fledged end game statement, > but it is a request for assistance in figuring out where to put this > archive of material I have collected on the game and to ask when I > should make it available to the players. > My suggestion is to contact Ryan Brase, new (and active) upkeeper of The Diplomatic Pouch's Showcase section. He will be able to get it up for the world to see for all eternity. SYS, ManusWell, this one's over. Where can I find another game? Funny that you should ask..I was just about to start another demo game. Stay tuned for details. RickWell, this one's over. Where can I find another game?Thanks, Jim, that was helpful. I don't really think that Hohn and I are as far apart as it may look on the issue. (I think we both like making mountains out of molehills, for one thing :-)) And actually, I've probably advanced my own thoughts more in the last three broadcasts than I had in years. I feel I understand what a reasonable scoring system must be now much better than I did last week. JamieI've not copied Jamie's message so as not to make the thread even longer and more convoluted, but I agree with him. The point of designing a rating system that weighted smaller powers in a draw greater than larger powers in a draw (admittedly with tongue slightly in cheek) was to suggest how incentives to go for the win and not just settle for being the largest power in a draw would promote win oriented play all around. It also will actually be HARDER for a small power to get into a draw if they will be the one who scores the most "points". As John and Hohn pondered the two-way possibilities, they might have given them more weight if they realized that Jamie would benefit more than they would in the 3-way. Don't get me wrong, I still think the three way was the natural result in this case at that point, I'm just trying to get you to visualize the twist. More generally, what counts is how decisions are made under existing uncertain conditions, not a post-mortem after all relevant states of nature have been realized. Personally, (and Hohn most emphatically was NOT doing this) I find the kind of play that pushes to the 17 center stalemate line and just sits there and waits for the game to end to be really boring and nearly morally reprehensible (possibly two sides of the same coin). To this observer, you had top quality players in this game trying to work their way to that razor edge win in the only way you can with other players of the same quality -- carefully and deliberately, with a good degree of misdirection mixed in. Without belaboring the details of the exchange, I don't see why Jamie and Hohn can't reach a communication equilibrium on this. The knife's edge is VERY hard to balance on between their positions. Jim(Me) >> I guess I think >> that insofar as having 17 centers really does mean >> you are 'more likely to >> win', that greater likelihood is your reward. You'll >> win more often (so you >> say, anyway), so *that's* the reward. (Hohn) >Huh? > >I'm not talking about trends. I'm talking about recognizing >individual play in any particular _game_. Huh? :-) So am I, of course. Put it this way: there is exactly one measure of playing 'well': the chance that your play gives you of winning the game. A strategy that gives you a 30% chance of winning by laying low with just five centers for most of the game is most definitely better than one that gives you a 20% chance of winning by running out to sixteen centers and hoping the other powers don't gang up to stop you. If a good scoring system is to reward good play, then, it must reward proportionally to probabilities. So, I say, let these higher probabilities *be* your higher reward. Of course, sometimes you get unlucky, sometimes you have played especially well, given yourself an especially high chance of winning, but you get a bad break or two in the ending and don't win after all. That's ok, you got your reward: your higher chance. (Think of how the NBA draft awards more lottery tickets, or pingpong balls, to the teams with the worst records. When the team with the largest number of tickets doesn't get one of the very best picks, that's the breaks--they obviously can't complain that the system wasn't fair. It was fair. They *were* given something valuable that the other teams didn't get.) The reason I was talking about winning 'more often' is that speaking of long run frequencies is often a good way of clarifying points about probabilities. >With respect to one particular game, a person with 17 probably has >played a better game than a person with one. More strategies were >successful, better decisions were made, etc. etc. I'm afraid I just don't agree with you about that. It's like saying the football team that gains more yards has played a better game. Not so -- gaining yards is obviously important, but only insofar as it advances your chance of victory. Oh, now I see you said 'probably'. That may well be true. Yes, I'd have to agree with you, the power with 17 centers is on average played better than the one with two at the finish. > Personally, I feel >your attempt to analyze broad trends, over the course of time, is >inapposite to this particular issue. I'm not talking about any given >player's overall skill, or who is a "better" or a "worse" player. I'm >talking about any given player's overall performance in _one_ game. That's fine. I was mentioning broad trends *only* as a way of clarifying the probability point. Though as I've said, and as I'm about to explain a bit further, there is an intrinsic link between probabilities and long run frequencies.... >But when it comes to scoring, you need to look at the particular game. >And if you do that, _anyone_ can subsequently establish trends and >generate a general index/player rating system. And I suspect it'd >still be pretty consistent with what we have now, to be honest. I'm not following you here. Anyone can do what? Look at the particular game and subsequently establish trends and... I just don't understand what you mean. It certainly seems to me that a *good* scoring system will be one that over the long run is rating the better players higher. Isn't that fairly obvious? Naturally, it may not give the 'true' ranking just after one game, because (and this is a good time to remind us all of this point!) performance in a single game is apt to be due a *great* deal to luck, and only a little bit to talent. I have always thought this was quite obvious, myself. It's one way I manage not to get depressed when I'm eliminated, and not to feel too impressed with myself when I win. In any case, the only sensible test for a scoring system is how it performs over the long run. Fortunately, a system that follows my view about rewarding players for increasing their *probability* of success is extremely likely to 'rank truly' in the long run. (The Law of Large Numbers says so.) >> From what I >> understand of it, especially about tournament play, I do think it makes >> good sense to use a center-count sensitive scoring system in that case. > >How does the PBEM context differ, then? In tournament play there is often no time to play to an 18 center victory. You have to have some substitute. My *hunch* is that the idea Rick mentioned (I think it was Rick) of allowing any coaltion that controls 29 centers together (or was it 23? twenty something, anyway) to declare joint victory, is a better system than counting centers. But I'd have to think about that hard to have any settled view about it. -Jamie> Broadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'ghodstoo': > Just quickly: > I do sort of agree with Jim about rewarding small powers, at least I think > this consideration *offsets* the ones Hohn mentioned. What is 'thriving', > anyway? Did you feed your citizens better or something?? I guess I think > that insofar as having 17 centers really does mean you are 'more likely to > win', that greater likelihood is your reward. You'll win more often (so you > say, anyway), so *that's* the reward. You also want a greater reward when > you *don't* win? Talk about greedy! Someone who consistently finishes with > three centers is 'punished' by getting very, very few solo wins. You don't > also want to punish him again when he wiggles into the draw, do you? I > guess you do. Seems very unreasonable. Huh? I'm not talking about trends. I'm talking about recognizing individual play in any particular _game_. With respect to one particular game, a person with 17 probably has played a better game than a person with one. More strategies were successful, better decisions were made, etc. etc. Personally, I feel your attempt to analyze broad trends, over the course of time, is inapposite to this particular issue. I'm not talking about any given player's overall skill, or who is a "better" or a "worse" player. I'm talking about any given player's overall performance in _one_ game. I've had inspired games, where I've played very well. I've also had shitty games where I played like, well, shit. It happens. But when it comes to scoring, you need to look at the particular game. And if you do that, _anyone_ can subsequently establish trends and generate a general index/player rating system. And I suspect it'd still be pretty consistent with what we have now, to be honest. To reiterate, though, I do think individual centers are important to the determination of who has done well in any given game. > I have played very, very little Face-to-face Diplomacy. From what I > understand of it, especially about tournament play, I do think it makes > good sense to use a center-count sensitive scoring system in that case. How does the PBEM context differ, then? > I expect I'll have a little more to say about Hohn's recent postings, on > Monday. By all means. Hohn>Hohn, have you ever seen my "reverse" center count scoring system >that rewards small powers more than large ones (Jamie, you would >have liked that here) whose basic premise is that small powers >voted into the draw have done the "most work"? More broadly, >the system is designed to increase incentives to eliminate those >small powers (it's not a pure center count but relative center count >within the draw) and force larger powers to go for the win. I used to believe that it was more impressive to survive as a small power in a draw than as a large power. Then I did it 20-25 times. Now I'm of the completely opposite opinion. To stick around as a small power, all you have to do is not offend anybody and play reasonable defense. With some countries it is easier than others, notably England and Turkey, and to a lesser extent France and Italy. To finish as a large power, you have to get away with making aggressive moves. You have to break down other players' defenses. You have to meet on the battlefield and win. To survive as a small power, you often only have to meet on the battlefield and lose slowly. To survive as a large power, you will need diplomatic successes. You can sometimes survive as a small power in spite of diplomatic failures. In short, the fact that I find it relatively easy to finish as a small power in a draw compared to finish as a large power in a draw makes me view the latter task as one which ought to be more respected. Of course, finishing as a small power in a draw beats the hell out of losing! :) RickJust quickly: I do sort of agree with Jim about rewarding small powers, at least I think this consideration *offsets* the ones Hohn mentioned. What is 'thriving', anyway? Did you feed your citizens better or something?? I guess I think that insofar as having 17 centers really does mean you are 'more likely to win', that greater likelihood is your reward. You'll win more often (so you say, anyway), so *that's* the reward. You also want a greater reward when you *don't* win? Talk about greedy! Someone who consistently finishes with three centers is 'punished' by getting very, very few solo wins. You don't also want to punish him again when he wiggles into the draw, do you? I guess you do. Seems very unreasonable. I have played very, very little Face-to-face Diplomacy. From what I understand of it, especially about tournament play, I do think it makes good sense to use a center-count sensitive scoring system in that case. I expect I'll have a little more to say about Hohn's recent postings, on Monday. JamieEdi wrote: > If I had achieved 18 centers in a spring move and then turned around to you > and said either vote for a two way to Hohn and I or face being a loser in a > win you would have gone along with the 2 way...and Hohn knows that I would > have voted for it also just to make a point.First of all, how do you figure you could have _gotten_ to 18, Edi? Or anywhere close? Let's talk specific center distribution, please. Under what possible circumstances could this scenario exist? How would we have gotten there? Second, if you think I'd have gone along with any of the above that you suggest, demo game or no, history of working well together or no, you are badly mistaken. I'm all for negotiated two-ways in FTF games, where DIAS is not a factor. But my level of paranoia ramps way, way up in DIAS games, and if any ally of mine is on the verge of victory, I'll generally try to either take the victory myself or make sure my ally doesn't steal it. Usually this requires either carefully planned expansion, or a third-party buffer state. Alternatively, on extremely rare occasions (and I did this in a game called "shadow," where France and my England split a two-way just because of the incredible synchronicity and goodwill we had built up over the course of the game, and because it would have been a stylish ending, despite the fact that either of us could have taken a solo at any time), the trust and "what the heck" attitude can exist to do a two-way DIAS without the carefully planned expansion. I don't think that would have happened here, Edi. As Austria to my Turkey, if we'd truly managed to succeed together to the extent that we were both in the mid-high teens (which I doubt), I likely would have found the temptation to stab you (as it is especially easy for T to stab A in such alliances) to be too great. Hohn > Broadcast message from [email protected] as Turkey in 'ghodstoo': > > Regarding draws/centers, I do think centers are an important indicator > of game play and relative performances, to be honest, and I think they > should be taken into account in scoring systems. Because the more > centers you have, the greater the likelihood that you have played a > good game with successful strategies, whether it be good tactics, > fooling your neighbors, or exploiting a good alliance. > > Sure, I respect the one-center guy who forces himself into a crucial > role and into the draw. That's good play. But the bigger guy not > only managed good play to make it to the final draw, he also managed > to survive and prosper. > > Centers are a measuring stick. Considering the goal is to reach 18 of > those centers, I personally think that any scoring system which does > _not_ take center performance into account is a less desirable one. > > Please keep in mind this is undoubtedly biased by my predominantly FTF > experiences, which almost always have scoring systems based on > centers. > > Hohn > Hohn, have you ever seen my "reverse" center count scoring system that rewards small powers more than large ones (Jamie, you would have liked that here) whose basic premise is that small powers voted into the draw have done the "most work"? More broadly, the system is designed to increase incentives to eliminate those small powers (it's not a pure center count but relative center count within the draw) and force larger powers to go for the win. I will back up the assertion that Hohn always had the win on his mind, at least he repeatedly mentions it in his notes to me during the game. JimRegarding draws/centers, I do think centers are an important indicator of game play and relative performances, to be honest, and I think they should be taken into account in scoring systems. Because the more centers you have, the greater the likelihood that you have played a good game with successful strategies, whether it be good tactics, fooling your neighbors, or exploiting a good alliance. Sure, I respect the one-center guy who forces himself into a crucial role and into the draw. That's good play. But the bigger guy not only managed good play to make it to the final draw, he also managed to survive and prosper. Centers are a measuring stick. Considering the goal is to reach 18 of those centers, I personally think that any scoring system which does _not_ take center performance into account is a less desirable one. Please keep in mind this is undoubtedly biased by my predominantly FTF experiences, which almost always have scoring systems based on centers. HohnEdi wrote: > Actually I knew that the 'system' allows only Draw Include All Survivors, > however for me that was also part of the challenge. Players often > surrender themselves to the 'system' rather than realising that they are > and should be in control and can do what ever the hell they want with the > game. The game is a social function and the ultimate victory is to do both > get the players to support you in a victory of some sort within the game > and at the sametime get them to join in a victory over the system. To be blunt, as several others have also stated, I think your argument here is utterly meritless, Edi. If we'd wanted NoDIAS, we easily could have done it that way from the start. I _like_ DIAS. I think it's more challenging, and I think that it has helped my endgame play enormously since I started playing it. I like DIAS even though it takes away the thing that I'm probably most known for in FTF games, and that is the negotiated victory. So I see no need for "revolt" against the system, or anything of that sort. We had the choice. We chose DIAS. > By turning on Austria you surrendered > your focus to only the ingame result of a three way draw, That's crap, Edi. I was always looking for the win. And despite your claim that the only result could be a three-way after I stabbed you, any number of reasonably probable occurrences could have resulted in my victory. The fact that those things didn't occur is hindsight. At the time I stabbed you, I felt I had a reasonable chance of winning. And even though I didn't, I think the game bears witness to the fact that I had a decent shot at it. > something that > could have been achieved without having to go to the extent of attacking > me..but anyway....that's another story that has already been over told. Even if I'd stuck with you, I doubt you would have ended up as one of the final three, Edi. HohnJamie wrote: > I wrote: > >And they were unquestionably about to make the final > >stab which would cut down on the draw size, too. > >Everyone knew it. The writing was on the wall. > > I wonder why you thought this was so obvious. Because Pitt was absolutely unnecessary to the stalemate line, and given the positions in spring of the final year, he had no way of stopping an elimination. In this case, any promises would have to be hollow ones, due to the simultaneous moves processing present in Dip. You guys were already bordering him; it's not like he could warn you off. And unless you were going to cut him in on the draw for free, out of the goodness of your hearts (yeah, right ;) ), he was a goner. That's why I would have thrown the game to the Turkish position, were I playing Germany. For the sake of credibility and revenge, if nothing else. > >As for stabbing you for the win, I suppose that if > >everything worked out perfectly, that would have been > >possible, but my estimates of the probability of that > >happening differ from yours, apparently. > > Just out of curiosity, what do you think the chance was? Impossible to quantify. Qualitatively, I think my chances of winning were greater the way I did it than they would have been had I conceded to Edi's requests the critical turn that I stabbed him. > I would factor into two elements. First, there is the chance that you and > Edi could have beaten whatever westerners resisted you. And second, there is > the chance that *given you could overcome the westerners together*, you > rather than Edi would have gotten the win. (The final chance is the product > of those two factors.) > My view is that the first of these two was very low, but the second was > fairly high. (In fact, one reason I think the first is low is that the > second is so high!) Exactly so, IMO. But I think the first one was improbable enough given the situation that my alternative action looked better to me. HohnHm, that was interesting. I finally understand what Cal was thinking in the opening! I couldn't figure it out. Tactically, it was completely incoherent. Italy opens westward, the moves on the board go exactly as could be expected, and then Italy immediately turns around and heads east. Since nothing unexpected happened, why didn't he go east to begin with?? But of course, the explanation was entirely off the board. Cal was hoping/expecting to hear a certain attitude from Edi, but heard quite the opposite song. I do not agree with Cal's remarks about the late midgame, though. It would certainly not have been easy, as Cal says, for France to eliminate both Germany and England by himself, even assuming Italy could have held off an AustroTurkish alliance. And even if France *HAD* eliminated both me and Pitt, he *still* would not have been able to win, I think. So personally I think that was Cal's best chance, to control his own centers and Tunis while keeping Hohn to the east and John to the west. -JamieGuess it's about time I put SOMETHING down on electronic paper about this game. Not that my role was anything to brag about - I never DID get anything momentum going and wasn't able to play as much of a part in the final outcome as I would have liked to have done. The one big mistake I made this game was in being a bit taken by the fact that it was a demonstration game. I thought, and a few others agreed with me, that it would be nice to do something unusual for a change. Edi's idea of a "quadripartite" alliance appealed to my sense of the bizarre. Basically, I would attack France, Edi's Austria & Mark's Russia would attack both Germany & Turkey. The attack on Germany would be made in conjunction with Jamie's England. Neat plan which might have worked in theory except for two things: 1) Edi's negotiating style. He flat out refused every single suggestion that he should make ANY move that would commit him to ANY course of action. That gave the impression that he was going to play every side of the fence no matter what happened. That can only work for so long. 2) Mark's playing style. Mark was very nervous about being in a demo game and was especially concerned about being next to Edi (I had a touch of that myself. I have a great deal of respect for Edi's skills - we've butted heads over a few games of FTF 2-player Escalation Dip). This meant that he was hypersensitive to Edi's lack of commitment to anything. Mark liked the idea of the "quadripartite" at first, but the more Edi vascillated, the more nervous Mark got. This lead to our "stab" of Edi in 1902. That ill fated stab (as well as the initial westward move in S'01) was what led to me spinning my wheels for the whole game. I ended up being in a position of having to almost beg Mark or Jamie, depending on what year it was, to let me get an extra centre or two to use against Edi, Hohn or Edi/Hohn. I was never able to gather up enough centres to be a real factor militarily. I spent the mid-game making no progress on any front. Once end-game rolled around, I ended up in the position that I feared was coming for almost the whole game. I had to find a way to make myself become the vital third wheel in a stalemate line between France and Turkey. I did a pretty good job of that but, unfortunately, a couple of things got in the way: 1) France's decision to let England back in the game. (I never understand things like that; if you take a small opponent right out of the game, you never have to worry about him again). That let a second country vie for the position I was trying to achieve; 2) I faced a choice of letting Hohn go past the Italian peninsula and taking a chance that he might win with 18 centres, or moving west myself and pretty much ensuring that Hohn would take my open centres. I chose option #1 for two reasons. First, if I remained on or near my homeland, there was a chance that Hohn would leave some vital strategic space open that I could slip into. If he had held off on his final stab ONE more season, I would have been in the Aegean and had some REAL leverage. (Didn't know that, did you, Hohn? Heh heh). Secondly, since option two, in my opinion, GUARANTEED that I would eventually be taken out, I figured it was better to cling to some faint hope that Hohn would choose me over Jamie as being deserving of being in the draw. I'm still not sure why he chose to put me out of the draw, especially when he did. I can understand stabbing to at least TRY for the win, but France seemed amenable to taking England out as the loser in the three way draw sweepstakes and Hohn could have always stabbed LATER to try for the win (there were obviously some background dealings of which I wasn't a party to...) I know that some (read "most" if not all) of you thought I was being naive by supporting Hohn against the F/E/G alliance, especially in light of the fact that it seemed inevitable I would get stabbed. While I think the above explains my logic, I also want to add that John's end game statement shows that he was unaware of how close he was to taking a real good shot at an 18 centre victory. Hohn will, I believe, support me on this. France could have taken E/G out fairly quickly and, as long as he did it one victim at a time, he could have been across the stalemate line in Munich & St Pete's. He would have only needed Jamie's goodwill for a short time to achieve this. Meanwhile, if *I* had gone against Hohn, France could have even gotten himself in a position to take Tunis and an Italian centre or two. Only John's relatively non-aggressive (for a Dip game) playing style, I think, prevented him from seeing this. To sum up, I may not have survived, but I believe I prevented a solo winner. I'll take solice in that during this cold Canadian winter (sounds of violins, children shouting and the crack of a puck against the boards in the background...)... All in all, a very enjoyable game. Certainly it was very challenging. Most of the games I have played in the last dozen or so years have been tainted by one or more players who's skill level didn't match the rest of the board. That was certainly not the case in this game. I expect to be at DipCon in Chapel Hill next summer. If anybody here is planning on attending, let's get together for a round of drinks and recriminations, shall we? :) Cal -- Cal White Coordinator Canadian Diplomacy Organization http://www.bfree.on.ca/cdo/home.htm Co-Owner scoresheet-talk listserverCal wrote: >1) Edi's negotiating style. He flat out refused every single suggestion >that he should make ANY move that would commit him to ANY course of >action. That gave the impression that he was going to play every side >of the fence no matter what happened. That can only work for so long. This technically and factually incorrect. If you all would review the Quad alliance proposals, I as Austria did exactly what I said I would do. My Spring, Fall and Winter 1901 builds were exactly what was called for. In Spring of 1902 I was stabbed by Russia as suspected and surprised by the Italian stab. From that point on I had every right to insist on a on board demonstration of the intent of the Italians to pull back from me. It should be noted that in Spring 02 I moved into a perfect position to take on the Turks if there had been a sign from the Italians of anything other than a double cross. Throughout the game's early period and carrying on throughout the game Cal continued to give me false statements and to perceive a strategic concept of things that did not facilitate trust, therefore my response to him was that he had to 'show me the truth' with his moves, which he never did. As for Mark, from my winter 1901 phone conversation with him I did not trust him and felt that we was habitually committed to attacking me, again combined with a perception of his game strategic view that did not encourage trust. Time and time again, as the communications probably show, I offered Cal various deals which would have allowed for a check on Hohn and the potential for something viable to develop between Cal and I, and time and time again Italy moved against me. I try different styles with different people based on what is going on in the game. Certainly my style with Hohn was far from lacking to make commitments. What is missing in Cal's interesting summary is that there is a relationship between the way people respond to you based on what is going on in the game as that players properly employ a whole range of negotiating styles at the higher intensity levels of play. What would be interesting to carry on the 'demonstrating' side of things is to go over the situation where you feel that the other player's negotiating style is not what you want, then how to do you go about changing it and seeing your own part in it. For example from my perspective with Italy, he was unable to be trusted at any time and that a single turns miscalculation on my part would have left me decimated. Going over the moves retrospectively I still can see any turn after Spring 02 that I could have tactically trusted Italy and not avoid a catastrophe. In quite the opposite view there were numerous postiions where Italy could have trusted in my actions without negative consequences on his part in order to re-establish relations. This tactical interplay of trust is often overlooked and something that I strove again and again with Italy to create but failed. When the tactical consequences are so overwhelmingly one sided there is no real basis for trust to be re-established so it behooves the less threatened position to create a tactical 'breathing time' for the negotiations to be redone. Italy never did this and my negotiating style with him reflected the fact that I could never risk guessing wrong with him. I would be interested in hearing from Cal on what move and what was he expecting me to say that would have resulted in his halting the unending attack on Austria that was his visible actions from Spring 1902? Edi>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in 'ghodstoo': > > >>1) It is very possible through no fault of your own to come under attack >>from your neighbors right from the word 'go'. > >That can be viewed as a failure of diplomacy. It can be, but as I said, it is also very possible to have that happen regardless of your diplomacy. Someone is going to come under attack. If everyone involved is conducting "good" diplomacy, that is still going to happen. >>If this happens, you might >>play far more skillfully than anyone else just to survive and take part as >>the small power in a draw. How are you going to measure that against the >>guy who just hangs around playing comfortable defense the whole game and >>getting the exact same result? The only way to do it is to have a >>subjective scoring system. And who wants that? > >I don't know what you mean by a 'subjective scoring system'. If you >are saying something like having judges, a la diving or figure >skating, well, that seems like a pain. That's what I mean. Sometimes you can coast to a five-center position in a draw, other times you have to work your tail off. To me, it is advantageous to keep it objective. A draw is a draw. The players involved should get equal credit. If the big powers don't want the little guy to get credit, then they should work out a way to eliminate him. It adds to the challenge. Eliminating the little guy usually involves trust and cooperation between two long-time enemies. There's no way the little guy can stand up militarily. So, I suppose it could be viewed as a failure of diplomacy if the two big powers can't find a way to work together. If they want a bigger reward, they should be forced to overcome that barrier. If they can't, I'd say the small power has done his job well. >I think, though, you have to allow a scoring system to let one player >play 'much better' than another and get the same score. This seems >inevitable. You can only hope for the scoring system to do well on >average. >>2) If you take the large-power small-power argument to its logical extreme, >>it would seem that you should argue that points should be awarded to the >>losers in a solo. > >Look, if you want to argue this point, go ahead and do so. Don't tell >me that I should. It's ridiculous. Yes, it is. But that doesn't answer the question. Didn't the 15-center power play much better than the 1-center power? Isn't the argument here that large powers on average have played better than small powers? My whole point, as I proudly wave the small-power banner, is that if you can't be eliminated, you should get an equal part of the draw. I don't care if you're at one or five or seventeen. If the big powers don't want the small power to get a piece of the pie, eliminate him. You've got the firepower. Do what it is needed. Back off that line, set up a line over there, find a set-up that allows you to trust one another long enough to reduce the draw. If you can't, split the point evenly among the survivors. >> But the argument that some draws are more equal than others sounds just as silly to me. > >Well, if you can find the person who was arguing this Orwellian line >of logic, let me know. Exasperating. Isn't that what this whole discussion is about? Basing points in a draw on number of centers? >If, at some point, you wish to address points I made, I would suggest >citing me, instead of mischaracterizing my points in a >framework which is coincidentally easy to ridicule. Who said I was addressing you? My post was in response to the many fascinating posts I found in my box when I arrived home late last night. >You also seem to be completely misunderstanding my points. I am >discussing rating systems, not results. > >I can say the result of a game is a draw, while still saying that I >will rate a certain player higher than another based on his play in >the draw. There. I *knew* that's what we were arguing about. Some draws are more equal than others. I disagree. >>As for Rick's observation that it is very easy to go to five-six centers and >>simply not offend anyone, I'd say maybe that is easy for him. Maybe it >>suits his style or maybe he is just good. A lot of players find that sort >>of balancing act very difficult. > >I didn't say it was 'very easy'. I did say it was 'easy' or 'simple'. >This was in comparison to something else more difficult, namely >growing towards a winning position. Sorry. There were a lot of posts and I slipped in "very" by mistake. But I still say that just because you find it easy doesn't mean everyone does. I find it hard to stay that small without becoming a target which probably just says that you're a better diplomat than I am. Or that our styles are different. For me, the easiest game is to stay in 2nd or 3rd place, pick an opportune moment to point to the leader and yell "Fire!" as loud as I can, and try to slip by in the confusion. Others seem to find that having the most centers offsets the disadvantage of attracting unwelcome attention. I find that style and your style to be harder for me to play. >>4) I think if you want a better scoring system, you need to take into >account strength of opposition. > >Everybody seems to agree on this point. > >> But a more productive debate my center on revamping the HOF system >to take into account strength of opposition or, at least, number of >games played. > >Some of the worst players, unfortunately, play a lot of games, and >never improve. Let's only take strength of opposition into account. I may not have made myself clear here. I don't believe players should achieve a high ranking simply by playing lots of games. In other words, I don't think players should be rewarded simply for playing lots of games and getting lucky occasionally. There are even players out there (we've all run into them) who care so much about HOF that they sign up for every game in sight and then abandon the ones that don't go well. Of course, an easy fix for that is to respond to an abandonment by deducting a few of those HOF points they care so much about. That'd get their attention. > >Rick > Jeff> I don't mind terminating it each time.... perhaps I should let it > continue next time?? ;-) > My first judge game, I also resumed the game to send an end-of-game comment, and ever since then, extending now into my more-Mastering-than-playing days, I've been wondering what it would be like to leave a game resumed and play on. Could a solo victor (in a good position) perhaps achieve 34 centers? Would the judge declare the game over every single year requiring that it be re-resumed? Things that make you go, "Hmmmm...." ManusHey, guys, we also learned how great Diplomacy players are not necessarily adapt on conceiving how the Judge works ;-) Edi, to say again, you DON'T have to keep resuming the game each time you send press. I don't mind terminating it each time.... perhaps I should let it continue next time?? ;-) JimOn Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:45:59 -0500, USIN Diplomacy Judge wrote: > News about USIN can be found at > http://kleiman.indianapolis.in.us/diplomacy/usin.htm > > All unmoderated games will be removed. > Judge address is [email protected] > >:: Judge: USIN Game: Ghodstoo Variant: Standard >:: Deadline: S1912MX Mon Nov 10 1997 23:30:00 EST Boardman: 1997KT > >Game 'ghodstoo' has been terminated. >Use the 'resume' command to start it back up. > >Broadcast message sent: > >Broadcast message from [email protected] as Austria in 'ghodstoo': > > >>This was a demo game. What did we demonstrate? > >That it was a fun game. > >That writing press can be fun. > >That the level of strategic and interpersonal relations/skills between players >is still the major challenge to players. > >That the use of the phone as a means of communication still remains superior >to the typing of email and that much can be added to the game by picking up >the phone and talking to someone rather than lurking on an email line. > >That there are still many levels of play in the game and that we each must >find that which gives us the most fun. That those levels and areas of concern >are not the same in all players and cause considerable conflicts when players >try to translate them out into game rated performance. > >Oh...and one last thing...don't let Hohn take Rumania. > > >Edi > >End of message. > >Movement orders for Spring of 1912. (ghodstoo.047) > Edi Birsan Midnight Games/Legends and Iron and Steam mailto:[email protected] http://www.mgames.com Phone: 541-772-7872 (9am-4pm) OregonI don't see what makes the phone a superior means of communication over email. It seems to me to be a matter of taste and style. I am happy that I experienced phone communication in this game, but I still prefer email. Perhaps I need to push myself some, but in this game I preferred to get off the phone with as little transpiring as possible and move the discussion to the written word. Did we demonstrate that phone is better than email? I don't think so. I think we demonstrated that they are very different and the medium does matter in Diplomacy.>This was a demo game. What did we demonstrate? That it was a fun game. That writing press can be fun. That the level of strategic and interpersonal relations/skills between players is still the major challenge to players. That the use of the phone as a means of communication still remains superior to the typing of email and that much can be added to the game by picking up the phone and talking to someone rather than lurking on an email line. That there are still many levels of play in the game and that we each must find that which gives us the most fun. That those levels and areas of concern are not the same in all players and cause considerable conflicts when players try to translate them out into game rated performance. Oh...and one last thing...don't let Hohn take Rumania. Edi>1) It is very possible through no fault of your own to come under attack >from your neighbors right from the word 'go'. That can be viewed as a failure of diplomacy. >If this happens, you might >play far more skillfully than anyone else just to survive and take part as >the small power in a draw. How are you going to measure that against the >guy who just hangs around playing comfortable defense the whole game and >getting the exact same result? The only way to do it is to have a >subjective scoring system. And who wants that? I don't know what you mean by a 'subjective scoring system'. If you are saying something like having judges, a la diving or figure skating, well, that seems like a pain. I think, though, you have to allow a scoring system to let one player play 'much better' than another and get the same score. This seems inevitable. You can only hope for the scoring system to do well on average. >2) If you take the large-power small-power argument to its logical extreme, >it would seem that you should argue that points should be awarded to the >losers in a solo. Look, if you want to argue this point, go ahead and do so. Don't tell me that I should. It's ridiculous. > But the argument that some draws are more equal than others sounds just as silly to me. Well, if you can find the person who was arguing this Orwellian line of logic, let me know. If, at some point, you wish to address points I made, I would suggest citing me, instead of mischaracterizing my points in a framework which is coincidentally easy to ridicule. You also seem to be completely misunderstanding my points. I am discussing rating systems, not results. I can say the result of a game is a draw, while still saying that I will rate a certain player higher than another based on his play in the draw. >As for Rick's observation that it is very easy to go to five-six centers and >simply not offend anyone, I'd say maybe that is easy for him. Maybe it >suits his style or maybe he is just good. A lot of players find that sort >of balancing act very difficult. I didn't say it was 'very easy'. I did say it was 'easy' or 'simple'. This was in comparison to something else more difficult, namely growing towards a winning position. >4) I think if you want a better scoring system, you need to take into account strength of opposition. Everybody seems to agree on this point. > But a more productive debate my center on revamping the HOF system to take into account strength of opposition or, at least, number of games played. Some of the worst players, unfortunately, play a lot of games, and never improve. Let's only take strength of opposition into account. RickThis was a demo game. What did we demonstrate?This talk of draws is all very interesting. There's a few obvious points that seem to be getting lost. 1) It is very possible through no fault of your own to come under attack from your neighbors right from the word 'go'. If this happens, you might play far more skillfully than anyone else just to survive and take part as the small power in a draw. How are you going to measure that against the guy who just hangs around playing comfortable defense the whole game and getting the exact same result? The only way to do it is to have a subjective scoring system. And who wants that? 2) If you take the large-power small-power argument to its logical extreme, it would seem that you should argue that points should be awarded to the losers in a solo. After all, in an 18-15-1, didn't the guy with 15 centers play much better than the guy with 1? Shouldn't the points awarded reflect that? Sure it sounds silly. But the argument that some draws are more equal than others sounds just as silly to me. The small guy has to be skillful enough to make himself unkillable. That's not so easy. If you really want to prove yourself more skillful, find a way to squeeze him out. Otherwise, accept him as an equal partner in the draw. To me, it is like a forced draw in chess. You may have outplayed your opponent and you may have more material, but if you can't achieve the goal of capturing his king, it doesn't matter. Equal draw. As for Rick's observation that it is very easy to go to five-six centers and simply not offend anyone, I'd say maybe that is easy for him. Maybe it suits his style or maybe he is just good. A lot of players find that sort of balancing act very difficult. 3) There is no third point! 4) I think if you want a better scoring system, you need to take into account strength of opposition. I've been a chess player much longer than I've played Dip. At first, I was very surprised that strength of opposition wasn't taken into account. I was also surprised that you could achieve a high rating simply by playing in lots of games (remember the real-time v. "normal" debate?). Now I know the HOF system is set up the way it is to try to ease the burdon of keeping it current. That's understandable, but to me it means that it is not going to give more than a general "feel" for who the top players are. But a more productive debate my center on revamping the HOF system to take into account strength of opposition or, at least, number of games played. 5) A brief ad. It seems we have a few chess players here. I play PBEM chess with friends and would love some fresh blood. I play at a mid-to-high expert level. Or a low master on my best days. I'll play a single game, black or white, or two at once. PBEM is perfect for the busy player. It is much quicker than PBM, but there is no pressure to make moves right away. If you get busy, the game is still there next week. Any takers? Jeff [email protected] (he said hopefully)Jim: >Then I do take issue with you, because I couldn't even follow for sure >that you understood the Bayesian point of view in this case, let alone >that you were a "true believer" about it. Don't take my attempts to >bring the reading audience around to what turns out to be your way of >thinking anyway so personally ;-) :-) Ok. Well, anyway, I guess I'd say that a win was "lucky" when: pr(I win | I played that particular strategy) < 1 The further that probability is from 1, the more 'humble' I ought to be about my win. If it were .00007, then I ought to be really humble, so much so that I should think pretty badly of myself. :-) My sense is that it is always rather a lot smaller than 1 (to give a silly amount of precision, let's say it is rarely higher than about 1/3), so that the degree of appropriate humility is always rather high. But on the bright side, at least *often* pr(I lose | I played that particular strategy) is often considerably less than 1, also, even when as a matter of fact I lost. This is always some consolation. :-) >Now here I was using unclear wording. You and I agree on everything >that follows. This was my extreme straw man to show the absurdity >of not thinking about this like a Bayesian. It was such a good >straw man that you burned it before you had a chance to read the >next paragraph. > >Jim "Hey there, scarecrow, need a light?" -Jamie p.s. I looked at that website. The formula given at the bottom is a 'true Bayesian estimate' of *what*?? I couldn't figure out what they meant.> Broadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'ghodstoo': > > Jim, > > I take an *entirely* Bayesian approach, as a matter of fact. I'm a True > Believer, a follower of Bayes. Insofar as I ever say anything unBayesian, > you must always interpret me as trying to make myself understood to > Heretics. :-) > Well, I'm not quite that doctrinaire, but I think that you have to think like a Bayesian first, and then decide it's not important when it isn't, but that's a whole other kettle of fish. > >I think both Hohn and Jamie confuse the issue with > >the words they choose (luck is too imprecise, for example). > > Oh, come on. It is silly to insist on incredibly precise terms in this > context. I doubt we'd have much trouble finding a really precise substitute > for 'luck' if we had to. But we know well enough what we mean to serve. > Anyway, I just haven't thought through everything carefully enough to > satisfy a math journal's standards! (Or the standards of _Theory and > Decision_, to take an example more relevant to both myself and this > context.) Then I do take issue with you, because I couldn't even follow for sure that you understood the Bayesian point of view in this case, let alone that you were a "true believer" about it. Don't take my attempts to bring the reading audience around to what turns out to be your way of thinking anyway so personally ;-) > > >If we play one game and Hohn wins, the raw probabilities (unadjusted > >for anything else that is secondary to this discussion) are Hohn=1.0, > >everyone else=0.0. > > What??? > That is the most unBayesian thing one could say about the case. > Now here I was using unclear wording. You and I agree on everything that follows. This was my extreme straw man to show the absurdity of not thinking about this like a Bayesian. It was such a good straw man that you burned it before you had a chance to read the next paragraph. JimOkay, forget the editing, since I see that Jamie has provided a nice place where my unedited, rambling thoughts can tail in. Just imagine, if you will, what you're about to read having been written much better and actually given a point that it drives towards and makes. Now try to keep that image in your mind as you wade through this: > Very, very briefly: > Diplomacy is like a very complicated, much more interesting version of > Scissor, Paper, Stone. There are no dice in Sc, Pap, Stone. But there is a > whole lot of luck. > Well, I'll jump in here, but I won't stay in. I like this analogy for as far as it goes, but I guess I would say that it applies best to NO-PRESS games. In Rock, Paper, Scissors, players don't usually promise what they will do on each turn. In Diplomacy, however, there is that element of promise and trust (and trust broken), and this, to my mind, nearly eliminates luck. Let's say that you have a four-player game of rock, paper, scissors. And let's say you "lose" a point each time your choice is "beaten" by another player's choice (scissors beat paper, etc., etc.). A set of Calhamerian players will always arrange for the game to be a tie. Whichever of the players who is currently leading will be "ganged-up on" by the other three, who would arrange before each turn (through negotiation) to each select the same choice, thus ensuring that the leader will lose three points while the trio stands to lose only one each per turn. This doesn't ensure that the leader won't win, of course, because there yet exists some luck. The trio could be consistently wrong, and each take a point "hit" on every turn until the end of the game. Now say that the game is not arbitrarily long, but that when each player loses, say, eighteen points, he is ELIMINATED. All of a sudden, the negotiated "catch-the-leader" trio is less stable. With each player knowing the (promised) choice of the others, the players are tempted to "stab" and cause an elimination. Now add three more players and make it so that each player's hand gesture can only affect a SUBSET of the other players. Now we're getting closer to Diplomacy. So what the heck is my point? Geez, I don't know. All it seems like I've done is taken Jamie's simple comparison and elaborated on it unnecessarily. The point I was trying to make was that it is my belief that luck is reduced significantly because the game turns now to psychology rather than to chance. Maybe some people, when stabbed or eliminated, feel unlucky, but I, at least, feel like I missed a psychological clue; that the turn of events against me was my fault. Much is involved with player personalities. If every power on the board starts the game thinking that their power stands no chance if England survives 1903, and if none are convinceable otherwise despite the best diplomacy anyone could come up with, then, yes, it is bad luck that you drew England (or good luck that you didn't). But if none (or at least a smaller number) of the players are dumb enough to be intractable in their openings, then it kind of like rock, paper, scissors with eliminations and with the "let's talk about what we'll do first, and watch it, because I'll be looking into your eyes the whole time!" If you lose, you should blame your ability to see into the other players' eyes. You shouldn't blame dumb luck. > -Jamie > >> >The game does its best to > >_eliminate_ random factors, and I think it has done an admirable job > >in doing so. > > Right, we certainly do disagree about this. > > I think I have a Diplomatic Pouch article about this. Don't I? Manus? Shall > I post it here, or give the URL? > Here it is: http://devel.diplom.org/DipPouch/Zine/S1995M/Dreier/NoTheory.html [Had a contribution to the whole "there's luck, no there's not" thread, but it needs some editing first...] ManusJim, I take an *entirely* Bayesian approach, as a matter of fact. I'm a True Believer, a follower of Bayes. Insofar as I ever say anything unBayesian, you must always interpret me as trying to make myself understood to Heretics. :-) >I think both Hohn and Jamie confuse the issue with >the words they choose (luck is too imprecise, for example). Oh, come on. It is silly to insist on incredibly precise terms in this context. I doubt we'd have much trouble finding a really precise substitute for 'luck' if we had to. But we know well enough what we mean to serve. Anyway, I just haven't thought through everything carefully enough to satisfy a math journal's standards! (Or the standards of _Theory and Decision_, to take an example more relevant to both myself and this context.) >If we play one game and Hohn wins, the raw probabilities (unadjusted >for anything else that is secondary to this discussion) are Hohn=1.0, >everyone else=0.0. What??? That is the most unBayesian thing one could say about the case. If you mean, the probability that Hohn won the game *given the information that Hohn won*, is 1.0, then that is certainly true but of no particular interest! The interesting question is rather, what is the probability of (Hohn wins) given the information that Hohn adopted these certain strategies. Obviously that is the question! And that posterior is not going to be 1.0, that's for sure. > I think everyone would agree that the "true mean" >performance for everyone is not well served by that estimate. >As performances are added to the database, "regression to the mean" >would occur toward the "true" expected performance for each player. >Bayesian posterior probabilities are ways of obtaining estimates >of these true means. Standard frequentist statistical approaches >operate off of the "law of large numbers" when sample sizes become >really large (in the sense of Diplomacy games), but even there, >if sample sizes vary (as they will in reality) Bayesian methods >are still desirable. An ideal Diplomacy rating system will have >Bayesian methods built into it. I can certainly agree with all of this. Look, my point then, is this. If we want to award points proportional to 'goodness of play', and we think that 'goodness of play' is nothing other than 'probability given this strategy of winning' (I'm afraid I am just avoiding the issue of awards for draws relative to awards for wins), then there is an *a priori* guarantee that the expectation of reward will be exactly what it should be if we simply award points for wins and nothing at all for 'near wins', or center counts, or anything else like that. So if a player chooses a strategy to maximize expectation of reward, then he will be choosing the strategy with the highest 'goodness of play', if rewards are meted out by my suggestion. And the work of de Finetti shows that the long run must vindicate my estimator, independent of what priors we assign. That is the ultimate test for a Bayesian. "Credo in unum deum, Bayes, et discipulo, San Bruno." >For a neat application of Bayesian thinking on the Internet, look >at the "movie rating" voting system in the Internet Movie Database >http://us.imdb.com/top_250_films I will have a look at that. -JamieI suspect that in order to make a better case than I have, I will have to think more carefully about how exactly to present my view very systematically and more formally. I don't think it's wise for me to try to do that in this forum. So I intend to let this discussion wind down now, and quite possibly attempt to write something more complete another day for inclusion in a future Diplomatic Pouch. But I'll respond at length this one last time (no, no, don't thank me!). (Jamie) > First, chess is a two-player game. Ok, I agree! But I don't see why that is > relevant. (Rick) >I see that as very relevant. View Diplomacy as a series of >player-to-player challenges. One may overcome a few obstacles and >achieve a larger size, only to be stopped later. I view that as a >greater achievement than being immediately crushed. (I would imagine >most players would agree with this point.) In chess there is no >series of challenges, as each game has only one opponent. Well, there are two different features that might be at issue here. One of them I think really isn't a disanalogy at all, but the other is. First, of course there is such a thing as doing very well in the opening of a chess game, but then being outplayed in the midgame. It certainly seems to me that this is in some sense a greater achievement than being slaughtered in the opening and having a hopeless position at move 14. So there is no disanalogy there. On the other hand, there is this fact (which, it suddenly occurs to me, once came up in an r.g.d. discussion included me, Rick, and Dan Shoham, and if I'm not mistaken Dan and I were on one 'side' and Rick was on the other). Since there are initially seven players in Diplomacy, there is a special kind of progress you can make: eliminating other players. This is special because there is an absolute 'ratcheting': once a player is eliminated there is no comeback. Increasing number of supply centers is not like that at all. And there is nothing like that in chess, either. For this reason, I agree that the number of powers eliminated at any stage of a Diplomacy game is a special measure, important in a way that no measure is ever important in chess. In chess there is no 'series of challenges' like that. But I don't see how this supports Rick's general position. >The (imperfect) analog would be a single-elimination chess tournament, >where one needed to beat a series of players to win. Surely the loser >of the finals would (skewed seeding aside) be more respected that a >player who lost in the first round? > >Or are the Cleveland Indians, who made it to extra innings in game 7 >of the World Series, no better than the Oakland A's, the worst team in >the AL? Right. No, I agree about these examples. But now I see that this is a sort of disagreement about which my arguments so far have been essentially irrelevant. This is a disagreement about whether we ought to see a single game of Diplomacy as more like a single baseball game, or more like a tournament or season. And I am inclined toward the former, and Rick toward the latter. Off hand I am inclined to say that we should just admit that there are different ways to see it, and different rating systems all of which might be perfectly reasonable. > Second, you think you can't meaningfully say that one player played better > than another unless the player achieved victory. > >Sure I can. Uh, no, wait. I thought I was quasi-quoting you. I can't quite remember the context. Oh, sure I can, you were talking about chess. I went on to say that in one sense I thought this was true of both Dip and chess, and in another sense it was true of neither. > Are you really contending that Hohn did not play a better >game here than Pitt? Or just that he did not play a better game than >you? Neither! I am making no judgment about how well the various parties in Ghodstoo performed. I could do that, but my judgment would not be derived from the outcome of the game, it would be derived from the internal features that I happen to know about, and I would know very well that my judgment was highly fallible, since I lacked important information. So, in sum, I say that you can't tell who played the better game from the outcome. (You can't tell that Pitt didn't play a better game than Hohn, you can't tell that Edi didn't, you can't tell that Mark didn't, or that Cal didn't.) However, as I hope I've made clear, Hohn's finish is *evidence* that he played a better game than any of the rest of us, I am happy to say that. It's just "defeasible evidence" (as I said in response to Hohn, "rebuttable evidence", which insofar as I understand legal jargon means the same thing). (Jamie) > To forestall misunderstanding: I do certainly think that there is a pretty > high correlation between center count and likelihood of winning! But > similarly there is a high correlation between the amount of material a > player has on the board in chess (using the standard accounting system, > with pawns one point, knights and bishops three, etc.), and progress toward > victory. But I would very strongly object to a tournament scoring system > that awarded more points to white in a draw if white had more material on > the board at the end of the game. (Rick) >Again, the chess analogy fails. As my chess-playing superiors tell >me, position is more important than material in chess. Which is also >true in Diplomacy to some extent, but not in the same way. To say that 'position is more important than material' in chess is very much like saying that 'defense is more important than offense' in football. Strictly speaking, they are both contributors to the outcome, and which is 'more important' is highly context-sensitive. Context free, they don't seem to mean anything at all. In any case, I certainly agree that in some crucial sense position is vastly more important than material in Diplomacy, and in fact I think it is much more true than in chess (which is kind of perverse of me, since I just said it doesn't mean anything outside of a context! but my context is: in the large majority of actual Diplomacy games). >I don't see how you can say participation in a four-way draw is worse >than participation in a three-way draw without letting me say that >finishing with 17 SCs is better than finishing with 1 SC. Well, they seem to me largely independent of each other. I don't off hand know how to argue for the claim that a 3-way draw is a better result for participants than a 4-way draw. I guess I'd try to say something about the 'ratchet' effect mentioned above. But I know some people just don't see it that way--Edi said he doesn't. >I would certainly say that the player who finished with 17 SCs in a >4-way draw 'probably played a better game' than a person who finished >with 3 SCs in a 3-way draw. Oh, so would I. I mean, statistically speaking, I am fairly sure it's true. >Again the chess analogy fails. You just do not get chess draws except >when two players are in essentially equal positions. With a >multi-player game, you can have coalition-based draws. The existence >of which changes everything. That is true, but why isn't a coaltion draw "essentially equal positions"? It won't generally be "essentially equal *material*", but that is also true in chess. Finally: >I would agree with this measure as being valid, but I think that with >it, you would need a larger sample of games to ensure that players >gravitated to their norms. By throwing away information (SC counts) >you are forcing a larger sample size to achieve the same information. > >Since a well-played Diplomacy game might take a year of real life to >play, and since the Central Limit Theorem requires a large number of >samples to kick in meaningfully, I would prefer the rating system >which did not need quite so many samples to be more 'accurate'. Hmmm. Listen, if there were a theorem that showed that a certain sc-count-sensitive scoring system would be bound to approach the same result as my measure would at the limit, but that the sc-count-sensitive system would tend to approach the result faster, then I would be in favor of that system. I doubt that there is any such system, but I agree that in principle it would have a strong pragmatic advantage. (At least I agree to that right now, I might change my mind if I thought about it some more, which I will do. Think some more, that is, not change my mind.) -JamieJamie said: (in response to Hohn) >... I was not proposing that points be awarded to players based on what chance of winning each had achieved. I was saying that whatever chance of winning player X achieves, player X's reward is precisely *to have that chance of winning*! So nobody has to make the judgment. The game does it for us! (I have to add that this had never occurred to me before we started arguing about it.) I would agree with this measure as being valid, but I think that with it, you would need a larger sample of games to ensure that players gravitated to their norms. By throwing away information (SC counts) you are forcing a larger sample size to achieve the same information. Since a well-played Diplomacy game might take a year of real life to play, and since the Central Limit Theorem requires a large number of samples to kick in meaningfully, I would prefer the rating system which did not need quite so many samples to be more 'accurate'. RickI realize this debate has been taken elsewhere (to some extent) but the message below sums up a great deal of this issue. I think one of the keys to thinking about the problem properly is to think like a Bayesian -- specifically in terms of how you treat small samples (VERY small samples in many cases) and regression to the mean. I think both Hohn and Jamie confuse the issue with the words they choose (luck is too imprecise, for example). If we play one game and Hohn wins, the raw probabilities (unadjusted for anything else that is secondary to this discussion) are Hohn=1.0, everyone else=0.0. I think everyone would agree that the "true mean" performance for everyone is not well served by that estimate. As performances are added to the database, "regression to the mean" would occur toward the "true" expected performance for each player. Bayesian posterior probabilities are ways of obtaining estimates of these true means. Standard frequentist statistical approaches operate off of the "law of large numbers" when sample sizes become really large (in the sense of Diplomacy games), but even there, if sample sizes vary (as they will in reality) Bayesian methods are still desirable. An ideal Diplomacy rating system will have Bayesian methods built into it. For a neat application of Bayesian thinking on the Internet, look at the "movie rating" voting system in the Internet Movie Database http://us.imdb.com/top_250_films Now, given that discussion, read Hohn and Jamie's statements again. I think they are both making Bayesian arguments from different starting points. Jim > Broadcast message from [email protected] as Turkey in 'ghodstoo': > > Jamie wrote: > > Naturally, it may not give the 'true' ranking just after one game, because > > (and this is a good time to remind us all of this point!) performance in a > > single game is apt to be due a *great* deal to luck, and only a little bit > > to talent. I have always thought this was quite obvious, myself. It's one > > way I manage not to get depressed when I'm eliminated, and not to feel too > > impressed with myself when I win. In any case, the only sensible test for a > > [Forgot to address this, even though I'd meant to.] > > I cannot disagree with you more strongly here, Jamie. As Edi said, > every player has their "buttons." The key is to find those buttons. > Barring irrational prejudice (most of which can be eliminated by the > gunboat provisions of PBEM), I believe that luck has very little to do > with a good performance in a Dip game. The game does its best to > _eliminate_ random factors, and I think it has done an admirable job > in doing so. > > Hohn >Broadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'ghodstoo': Rick, >There is a substantial difference between my reasoning and yours. I >favor players who are playing well, making strides toward victory. >You favor players who decide to, for no reason except their own ego, >to arbitrarily impose constraints upon their play. That is question-begging. You count increased sc index as 'making strides toward victory' and 'playing well'. I am willing to count them that way *sometimes*, but I don't agree that it's a good *measure* of playing well. I believe it is a good measure of playing well. I gave my silly analogy because you seemed to be saying that the reason you changed your mind was precisely that you found yourself having an easier time participating in draws as a 3-center power (e.g.) than as a 16-center power. I was only pointing out that difficulty is no measure at all here. You took the concept of difficulty in an orthogonal direction. I don't consider it a greater achievement for a person to overcome artificial, self-imposed constraints. But there is a direction in which each player is expected to try to go. To make progress in that direction is difficult. To make more progress in that direction in that direction is more difficult. Furthremore, it is relevant. >Analogies with chess fail for many reasons. Chess is a two-player >game where you cannot really meaningfully say that one player played >better than another unless the player achieves a victory. In Master >play, a significant advantage usually translates into a victory. Naturally, there are a heap of important disanalogies between chess and Diplomacy. As you certainly know, it's like that with each and every analogy ever constructed. So let's see whether the disanalogies you note are relevant. First, chess is a two-player game. Ok, I agree! But I don't see why that is relevant. I see that as very relevant. View Diplomacy as a series of player-to-player challenges. One may overcome a few obstacles and achieve a larger size, only to be stopped later. I view that as a greater achievement than being immediately crushed. (I would imagine most players would agree with this point.) In chess there is no series of challenges, as each game has only one opponent. The (imperfect) analog would be a single-elimination chess tournament, where one needed to beat a series of players to win. Surely the loser of the finals would (skewed seeding aside) be more respected that a player who lost in the first round? Or are the Cleveland Indians, who made it to extra innings in game 7 of the World Series, no better than the Oakland A's, the worst team in the AL? Second, you think you can't meaningfully say that one player played better than another unless the player achieved victory. Sure I can. Are you really contending that Hohn did not play a better game here than Pitt? Or just that he did not play a better game than you? >The task for a Diplomacy player is significantly harder. He must >achieve an advantage over all of the other players. Partial progress >towards this goal is observable and can be rated. And, IMO, would >represent superior play. I don't believe it. If by 'advantage over all the other players' you just mean having the largest number of centers, then I do not believe that is itself progress toward victory. By 'advantage over all of the other players' I mean achieving a majority of SCs. That is why I phrase my points in terms of partial progress. If it were, we would never have to worry about Early Leader Syndrome. To forestall misunderstanding: I do certainly think that there is a pretty high correlation between center count and likelihood of winning! But similarly there is a high correlation between the amount of material a player has on the board in chess (using the standard accounting system, with pawns one point, knights and bishops three, etc.), and progress toward victory. But I would very strongly object to a tournament scoring system that awarded more points to white in a draw if white had more material on the board at the end of the game. Again, the chess analogy fails. As my chess-playing superiors tell me, position is more important than material in chess. Which is also true in Diplomacy to some extent, but not in the same way. >You are stubbornly sticking to the viewpoint that Diplomacy play >should be judged as a 0-1 phenomenon. Or, perhaps, a 0-1-2 >phenomenon, as you can win, lose, or draw. Yes, I am. More and more I think that is the reasonable approach. > (I suppose the logical >conclusion to this thinking is that all draws are equal, no matter the >number of players involved.) I think there is more than one way to count draws reasonably. I suggest we leave this issue aside for the present. But a quick comment for now, I can't resist. What would it mean to count all draws equally? Would it mean that a given player gets the same number of points for participating in a six-way draw as he gets for participating in a two-way? That's what it would mean. I don't see how you can say participation in a four-way draw is worse than participation in a three-way draw without letting me say that finishing with 17 SCs is better than finishing with 1 SC. I would certainly say that the player who finished with 17 SCs in a 4-way draw 'probably played a better game' than a person who finished with 3 SCs in a 3-way draw. >I think that this is only the beginning >of the information available to a rating system. I think it would be >appropriate for rating systems to use information from the course of >play, such as SC count, and also information about the players in >rating a game. I do not. No more for Diplomacy than for chess. Again the chess analogy fails. You just do not get chess draws except when two players are in essentially equal positions. With a multi-player game, you can have coalition-based draws. The existence of which changes everything. [FIDE-type discussion deleted] [football discussion deleted] -JamieIt seems to me that the debate centers on an impossible question, ie, measuring quality of play. A victory is clear-cut and, in Diplomacy, almost invariably indicates superior play, because it is so hard to achieve. Other than that one outcome, no clear criteria emerge. In retrospect, we can say that a player who was eliminated played better than one who shared in the draw, or a small survivor played better than a large survivor. Any judgment is possible. The question is what you did with the hand you were dealt, and that's completely different in every game. We can discuss, debate, and maybe even reach consensus on who played well and who played badly in a given game, but no measures exist that would take account of all the variables making up good play from one game to the next. The current HOF scoring system is simple and does about as well as can be asked, given the inherent subectivity in making such judgments. A rating system is a statistic. It can provide interesting information without pretending to have a full understanding of the 'real value' of each power in each board position. I don't really like the idea of subscribing to the 'we-can-know-nothing' philosophy. It seems to let analysis off the hook. Subjectivity is overrated. Our inability to get an exact picture should not completely deter us from attempting to gain any information. RickJon, >It seems to me that the debate centers on an impossible question, ie, >measuring quality of play. A victory is clear-cut and, in Diplomacy, >almost invariably indicates superior play, because it is so hard to >achieve. Other than that one outcome, no clear criteria emerge. In a sense, this is *exactly* the premise of my arguments. > In >retrospect, we can say that a player who was eliminated played better than >one who shared in the draw, or a small survivor played better than a large >survivor. Any judgment is possible. The question is what you did with the >hand you were dealt, and that's completely different in every game. We can >discuss, debate, and maybe even reach consensus on who played well and who >played badly in a given game, but no measures exist that would take account >of all the variables making up good play from one game to the next. The >current HOF scoring system is simple and does about as well as can be >asked, given the inherent subectivity in making such judgments. I agree. My suggestion, which is really nothing other than the status quo, is to let the internal features of the game take care of all these subjective judgments for us. It seems to me that we ("we participants in email Diplomacy", I guess) have inadvertantly hit on the best possible solution to the difficulties. I do think the issue of relative rewards of draws and wins remains open and intelligently debatable, though I don't have anything to contribute at the moment. -JamieHohn, >Jamie wrote: >> Naturally, it may not give the 'true' ranking just after one game, because >> (and this is a good time to remind us all of this point!) performance in a >> single game is apt to be due a *great* deal to luck, and only a little bit >> to talent. I have always thought this was quite obvious, myself. It's one >> way I manage not to get depressed when I'm eliminated, and not to feel too >> impressed with myself when I win. In any case, the only sensible test for a > >[Forgot to address this, even though I'd meant to.] > >I cannot disagree with you more strongly here, Jamie. As Edi said, >every player has their "buttons." The key is to find those buttons. >Barring irrational prejudice (most of which can be eliminated by the >gunboat provisions of PBEM), I believe that luck has very little to do >with a good performance in a Dip game. The game does its best to >_eliminate_ random factors, and I think it has done an admirable job >in doing so. Right, we certainly do disagree about this. I think I have a Diplomatic Pouch article about this. Don't I? Manus? Shall I post it here, or give the URL? Very, very briefly: Diplomacy is like a very complicated, much more interesting version of Scissor, Paper, Stone. There are no dice in Sc, Pap, Stone. But there is a whole lot of luck. -JamieHohn: >> A strategy that gives you a >> 30% chance of winning by laying low with just five centers for most of the >> game is most definitely better than one that gives you a 20% chance of >> winning by running out to sixteen centers and hoping the other powers don't >> gang up to stop you. If a good scoring system is to reward good play, then, >> it must reward proportionally to probabilities. > >First, I don't think it's possible to quantify possibilities as you >do above. It's all inherently speculative, variable, and thus is >glaringly inappropriate for any scoring system based on anything >resembling objective criteria. Ahhh. But this is the beauty of the thing! Ok, first of all, I do think it is *in principle* possible to quantify chances of winning, but in practice it is hopeless (with a few exceptions in relatively simple endgames). Second, I was not proposing that points be awarded to players based on what chance of winning each had achieved. I was saying that whatever chance of winning player X achieves, player X's reward is precisely *to have that chance of winning*! So nobody has to make the judgment. The game does it for us! (I have to add that this had never occurred to me before we started arguing about it.) >Second, all of the above is fluid until the end of the game. The 30% >guy, if he lays low without ever moving, hasn't really _done_ >anything, wiseness of laying low notwithstanding. If the 30% guy >eventually moves, and makes it to an almost-win before the game is >called, then the 30% guy will probably have more centers when all is >said and done. Hmm. Wait, we are comparing the guy who got himself a 30% chance of winning, with the guy who got himself a 20% chance of winning. You say, the guy with the 30% chance will probably have more centers at the end of the game. I think that's likely to be true. So where do we disagree? As follows. Suppose the guy with the 30% chance doesn't actually do anything, and the guy with the 20% chance is much more active. And as a result, the latter finishes with more centers. You seem to be saying that he played better, and deserves more points. I say not. I mean, look, by playing more actively he gave himself a lower chance of winning! How could that possibly be smarter, better play? I can't understand that at all. Now back to the more common case, where the guy with the 30% chance ended up with more centers. Ok, I say: this guy had a better chance to win. If we award points only for wins, then his expectation was higher than the other guy's. I say this is sufficient reward. You want to give him extra points at the end for having more centers. I say, you are double-counting now. His expectation was already higher, and now you want to boost it even more. This will provide a bad measure in the long run. >I dislike this analogy because it introduces elements of random chance >into a game which in its elegance (and indeed, is one reason why I >love the game) attempts to eliminate such things from the game. Oh, well, that is a very fundamental disagreement that we have, then. I believe that Eric Calhamer's comment that chance is eliminated from Diplomacy (except for the initial distribution of powers) is way, way off. Briefly: Diplomacy is a game of imperfect information, and all games of imperfect information have a significant chance element. >Jamie, in my opinion, you've just conceded a critical point. > >To use a legal example, relevant evidence is any evidence which is >probative of a material issue, i.e. any evidence which tends to make >something more likely or not. Clearly, good play in any particular >game is a material issue to any scoring system. If a particular, >piece of evidence (namely centers) is "probably" indicative of good >play, that evidence should be admitted. This is especially true when >the evidence in question is objective and readily quantifiable, such >as center count. Yes, I am willing to use it for that purpose. So, for example, I think that anyone looking at the public record of Ghodstoo would be reasonable in concluding that Turkey probably played a better game than England. I accept that point. I do not think this is a good reason to give Turkey a higher score, though. Chess analogy: It is reasonable to suppose that the player with more material on the board is playing better. (As with Dip., it is not universally true, but it is probative evidence. Rebuttable, but probative.) However, it would be a bad idea to award players tournament points on the basis of how much material they had on the board at the end of the game. >> >But when it comes to scoring, you need to look at the particular game. >> >And if you do that, _anyone_ can subsequently establish trends and >> >generate a general index/player rating system. And I suspect it'd >> >still be pretty consistent with what we have now, to be honest. >> >> I'm not following you here. Anyone can do what? Look at the particular game >> and subsequently establish trends and... I just don't understand what >>you mean. > >Put it this way. How would taking center count into consideration >_fail_ to similarly establish viable trends regarding play and >ability? If as you admit above, center count _probably_ indicates >that a player has played a better game, than extending that over large >trends, you cannot help but get a more accurate picture and projection >regarding play and ability. Oh. Well, I think that method is a kind of double-counting. Just as it would be double-counting to award the chess player with more material some extra tournament points. >> scoring system is how it performs over the long run. Fortunately, a system >> that follows my view about rewarding players for increasing their >> *probability* of success is extremely likely to 'rank truly' in the long >> run. (The Law of Large Numbers says so.) > >No, by your own admission, the addition of the center criteria is more >likely to rank true. No! It is definitely not more likely to rank true. I'll put this very simply, so simply that I risk sounding paradoxical, or trivial: The very best way of measuring likelihood of success, in the long run, is to count up relative frequency of successes in the long run. *ANYTHING* that dilutes this measure is going to be misleading, either by double-counting or under-counting. -JamieIt seems to me that the debate centers on an impossible question, ie, measuring quality of play. A victory is clear-cut and, in Diplomacy, almost invariably indicates superior play, because it is so hard to achieve. Other than that one outcome, no clear criteria emerge. In retrospect, we can say that a player who was eliminated played better than one who shared in the draw, or a small survivor played better than a large survivor. Any judgment is possible. The question is what you did with the hand you were dealt, and that's completely different in every game. We can discuss, debate, and maybe even reach consensus on who played well and who played badly in a given game, but no measures exist that would take account of all the variables making up good play from one game to the next. The current HOF scoring system is simple and does about as well as can be asked, given the inherent subectivity in making such judgments.Rick, >There is a substantial difference between my reasoning and yours. I >favor players who are playing well, making strides toward victory. >You favor players who decide to, for no reason except their own ego, >to arbitrarily impose constraints upon their play. That is question-begging. You count increased sc index as 'making strides toward victory' and 'playing well'. I am willing to count them that way *sometimes*, but I don't agree that it's a good *measure* of playing well. I gave my silly analogy because you seemed to be saying that the reason you changed your mind was precisely that you found yourself having an easier time participating in draws as a 3-center power (e.g.) than as a 16-center power. I was only pointing out that difficulty is no measure at all here. >Analogies with chess fail for many reasons. Chess is a two-player >game where you cannot really meaningfully say that one player played >better than another unless the player achieves a victory. In Master >play, a significant advantage usually translates into a victory. Naturally, there are a heap of important disanalogies between chess and Diplomacy. As you certainly know, it's like that with each and every analogy ever constructed. So let's see whether the disanalogies you note are relevant. First, chess is a two-player game. Ok, I agree! But I don't see why that is relevant. Second, you think you can't meaningfully say that one player played better than another unless the player achieved victory. I think that the situation is exactly the same in Diplomacy. In one sense, you can certainly say that one player played much better than the other even though he didn't win. Grandmasters say this sort of thing all the time in analyzing world championship play. In another sense, I would agree that in the end the overall play is *not* better unless it leads to a win (ignoring this quibble: that black begins with a disadvantage, to superior play by black will often lead to a draw). >The task for a Diplomacy player is significantly harder. He must >achieve an advantage over all of the other players. Partial progress >towards this goal is observable and can be rated. And, IMO, would >represent superior play. I don't believe it. If by 'advantage over all the other players' you just mean having the largest number of centers, then I do not believe that is itself progress toward victory. If it were, we would never have to worry about Early Leader Syndrome. To forestall misunderstanding: I do certainly think that there is a pretty high correlation between center count and likelihood of winning! But similarly there is a high correlation between the amount of material a player has on the board in chess (using the standard accounting system, with pawns one point, knights and bishops three, etc.), and progress toward victory. But I would very strongly object to a tournament scoring system that awarded more points to white in a draw if white had more material on the board at the end of the game. >You are stubbornly sticking to the viewpoint that Diplomacy play >should be judged as a 0-1 phenomenon. Or, perhaps, a 0-1-2 >phenomenon, as you can win, lose, or draw. Yes, I am. More and more I think that is the reasonable approach. > (I suppose the logical >conclusion to this thinking is that all draws are equal, no matter the >number of players involved.) I think there is more than one way to count draws reasonably. I suggest we leave this issue aside for the present. But a quick comment for now, I can't resist. What would it mean to count all draws equally? Would it mean that a given player gets the same number of points for participating in a six-way draw as he gets for participating in a two-way? Or would it mean that the total number of points to be divided among the drawers is the same no matter what the size of the draw? As we all know, we use neither of these systems. I like the current system, but I have not thought carefully about the alternatives. >I think that this is only the beginning >of the information available to a rating system. I think it would be >appropriate for rating systems to use information from the course of >play, such as SC count, and also information about the players in >rating a game. I do not. No more for Diplomacy than for chess. Ah, except I do think it would be appropriate to use information about the players, thus: >In chess, my rating will improve slightly if I beat a similarly-rated >player, while it will improve signficantly more if I beat a player >with a much-higher ranking. But with the HoF, a player can gain as >many points by routing a board of novices as by winning an expert >game. (And at least one of the highest-rated players got most of his >points that way, but I digress). A rating system which took this >greater set of information into account could provide a more accurate >measure of player level, and would thus have better predictive value. I certainly agree. >From time to time we have considered trying out a more FIDE-like scoring system for Diplomacy. It is very difficult to work out anything reasonable and practical. But I don't see what this has to do with rating on the basis of total number of centers controlled. It seems entirely orthogonal. >To conclude, I digress somewhat by referring to the college football >situation. For much of the year, Penn State was at or near the top of >the football polls. But the NY Times computer ratings placed them at >#11, 10 places lower than the writer's polls. Penn State recently has >been squeaking by lesser foes, and finally this Saturday they were >clobbered by Michigan. It seems they were overrated. It sure does. On the other hand, it has been obvious all year that Penn State *could* have run up the score against lesser opponents, the way Florida State likes to do, but that Joe Paterno just doesn't like to do that. So I'm afraid I don't see which way this digression cuts in the current debate. -JamieJamie wrote: > Naturally, it may not give the 'true' ranking just after one game, because > (and this is a good time to remind us all of this point!) performance in a > single game is apt to be due a *great* deal to luck, and only a little bit > to talent. I have always thought this was quite obvious, myself. It's one > way I manage not to get depressed when I'm eliminated, and not to feel too > impressed with myself when I win. In any case, the only sensible test for a [Forgot to address this, even though I'd meant to.] I cannot disagree with you more strongly here, Jamie. As Edi said, every player has their "buttons." The key is to find those buttons. Barring irrational prejudice (most of which can be eliminated by the gunboat provisions of PBEM), I believe that luck has very little to do with a good performance in a Dip game. The game does its best to _eliminate_ random factors, and I think it has done an admirable job in doing so. HohnJamie wrote: > Put it this way: there is exactly one measure of playing 'well': the chance > that your play gives you of winning the game. I disagree. In any game with quantifiable parts (such as supply centers), there is more than one way to measure good play. It's not just an all-or-nothing thing, IMO. You can recognize who played a better game without just boiling it down to end results. > A strategy that gives you a > 30% chance of winning by laying low with just five centers for most of the > game is most definitely better than one that gives you a 20% chance of > winning by running out to sixteen centers and hoping the other powers don't > gang up to stop you. If a good scoring system is to reward good play, then, > it must reward proportionally to probabilities. First, I don't think it's possible to quantify possibilities as you do above. It's all inherently speculative, variable, and thus is glaringly inappropriate for any scoring system based on anything resembling objective criteria. Second, all of the above is fluid until the end of the game. The 30% guy, if he lays low without ever moving, hasn't really _done_ anything, wiseness of laying low notwithstanding. If the 30% guy eventually moves, and makes it to an almost-win before the game is called, then the 30% guy will probably have more centers when all is said and done. > So, I say, let these higher probabilities *be* your higher reward. Of > course, sometimes you get unlucky, sometimes you have played especially > well, given yourself an especially high chance of winning, but you get a bad > break or two in the ending and don't win after all. That's ok, you got your > reward: your higher chance. Too many games end up in draws for this system to be desirable, IMO. The level of differentiation suffers. Moreover, see below. > (Think of how the NBA draft awards more lottery tickets, or pingpong balls, > to the teams with the worst records. When the team with the largest number > of tickets doesn't get one of the very best picks, that's the breaks--they > obviously can't complain that the system wasn't fair. It was fair. They > *were* given something valuable that the other teams didn't get.) > The reason I was talking about winning 'more often' is that speaking of long > run frequencies is often a good way of clarifying points about probabilities. I dislike this analogy because it introduces elements of random chance into a game which in its elegance (and indeed, is one reason why I love the game) attempts to eliminate such things from the game. > >With respect to one particular game, a person with 17 probably has > >played a better game than a person with one. More strategies were > >successful, better decisions were made, etc. etc. > > I'm afraid I just don't agree with you about that. It's like saying the > football team that gains more yards has played a better game. Not so -- > gaining yards is obviously important, but only insofar as it advances your > chance of victory. > Oh, now I see you said 'probably'. That may well be true. Yes, I'd have to > agree with you, the power with 17 centers is on average played better than > the one with two at the finish. Jamie, in my opinion, you've just conceded a critical point. To use a legal example, relevant evidence is any evidence which is probative of a material issue, i.e. any evidence which tends to make something more likely or not. Clearly, good play in any particular game is a material issue to any scoring system. If a particular, piece of evidence (namely centers) is "probably" indicative of good play, that evidence should be admitted. This is especially true when the evidence in question is objective and readily quantifiable, such as center count. > >But when it comes to scoring, you need to look at the particular game. > >And if you do that, _anyone_ can subsequently establish trends and > >generate a general index/player rating system. And I suspect it'd > >still be pretty consistent with what we have now, to be honest. > > I'm not following you here. Anyone can do what? Look at the particular game > and subsequently establish trends and... I just don't understand what you mean. Put it this way. How would taking center count into consideration _fail_ to similarly establish viable trends regarding play and ability? If as you admit above, center count _probably_ indicates that a player has played a better game, than extending that over large trends, you cannot help but get a more accurate picture and projection regarding play and ability. > scoring system is how it performs over the long run. Fortunately, a system > that follows my view about rewarding players for increasing their > *probability* of success is extremely likely to 'rank truly' in the long > run. (The Law of Large Numbers says so.) No, by your own admission, the addition of the center criteria is more likely to rank true. The cases where a player reaches a large center count while playing poorly will be limited, and effectively "smoothed out" over the longer course of events. > >How does the PBEM context differ, then? > > In tournament play there is often no time to play to an 18 center victory. > You have to have some substitute. > My *hunch* is that the idea Rick mentioned (I think it was Rick) of allowing > any coaltion that controls 29 centers together (or was it 23? twenty > something, anyway) to declare joint victory, is a better system than > counting centers. But I'd have to think about that hard to have any settled > view about it. I stand by my original contention. I haven't experienced the joint 29, so I'll refrain from commenting on that until I try it or think about it a lot more. HohnBroadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'ghodstoo': Rick, >I used to believe that it was more impressive to survive as a small >power in a draw than as a large power. Then I did it 20-25 times. >Now I'm of the completely opposite opinion. [silly arguments deleted] -Jamie [ironic smiley here] There is a substantial difference between my reasoning and yours. I favor players who are playing well, making strides toward victory. You favor players who decide to, for no reason except their own ego, to arbitrarily impose constraints upon their play. Analogies with chess fail for many reasons. Chess is a two-player game where you cannot really meaningfully say that one player played better than another unless the player achieves a victory. In Master play, a significant advantage usually translates into a victory. The task for a Diplomacy player is significantly harder. He must achieve an advantage over all of the other players. Partial progress towards this goal is observable and can be rated. And, IMO, would represent superior play. You are stubbornly sticking to the viewpoint that Diplomacy play should be judged as a 0-1 phenomenon. Or, perhaps, a 0-1-2 phenomenon, as you can win, lose, or draw. (I suppose the logical conclusion to this thinking is that all draws are equal, no matter the number of players involved.) I think that this is only the beginning of the information available to a rating system. I think it would be appropriate for rating systems to use information from the course of play, such as SC count, and also information about the players in rating a game. In chess, my rating will improve slightly if I beat a similarly-rated player, while it will improve signficantly more if I beat a player with a much-higher ranking. But with the HoF, a player can gain as many points by routing a board of novices as by winning an expert game. (And at least one of the highest-rated players got most of his points that way, but I digress). A rating system which took this greater set of information into account could provide a more accurate measure of player level, and would thus have better predictive value. To conclude, I digress somewhat by referring to the college football situation. For much of the year, Penn State was at or near the top of the football polls. But the NY Times computer ratings placed them at #11, 10 places lower than the writer's polls. Penn State recently has been squeaking by lesser foes, and finally this Saturday they were clobbered by Michigan. It seems they were overrated. RickRick, >I used to believe that it was more impressive to survive as a small >power in a draw than as a large power. Then I did it 20-25 times. >Now I'm of the completely opposite opinion. For the same reason, I now think that it is very impressive to draw in chess, as black, without ever castling. I have drawn many times as black when I castled, so I conclude this is too easy to be impressive. So I think black should be awarded 3/4 of a point, instead of 1/2, if he can draw without castling. Similarly, I think a player in Diplomacy should be given extra points for occupying every supply center whose name begins with a 'B' and no other center. -Jamie [ironic smiley here]Broadcast message from [email protected] as Master in 'ghodstoo': And Nick will have to let me know if I have to do anything to get the game result properly recorded. Just do nothing! I got a summary in my mailbox about 5 seconds after the game ended (as I do for about 10 games a day.). But how about that really old EP game you were still running???? It will be a relief to get this game off of my system. It takes up a large portion of my alloted space on world.std.com If the game went on for a REALLY long time, I don't know what I would have done. I hate to ask what on earth kind of system this would be. Sounds kinda archaic. Broadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'ghodstoo': >The game stays "open" for us to exchange end game comments for a bit? Yes. It will stay open as long as people keep sending messages. It will disappear if there are no signons for N days, where N is unknown to me.... N is generally equal to 7. Nick