|
Post by Dubber on May 1, 2008 7:43:59 GMT -5
Hah! Bio and dubber..those comments up there actually made me laugh out loud. Dubber...the old wizened bodhisattva master of all master warlocks, in disguise, constantly selecting the second best move. Dubber and which was your original account? <Reminiscing Alert> The really long-timers in Warlocks should be able to remember the days when ELO had first been implemented... I was 150+ ELO up on everyone for a good while -- then Taliesin, ExDeath and a bunch of climbers overtook me and never looked back </Reminiscing>
|
|
|
Post by vermont on May 1, 2008 9:10:29 GMT -5
Where do I submit my application for the top brawler's club?
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on May 1, 2008 9:55:09 GMT -5
Much high talks indeed. First, I don't know why ExDeath decided to mention me especially. I've had a moderate amount of success recently climbing to 1900 slowly, but xade, awall and Citanest (and Rycchus who's gone inactive again) did the same and they did it earlier and\or better... although I'm younger warlock then any of them, AFAIK. I'm still learning this game and I'm still making stupidest mistakes. Still I'll try my best to improve. Second, I'm no one to judge and make decisions on this topic, but if I were to call any active warlock "a Master", that would be Toyotami without any doubts. Given his experience and his achievements, this one should go without saying, and I hope that was what Slartucker was talking about when he mentioned 'increasing number of Masters'. Third, I have mixed feelings about ExDeath's arguments. I'm playing this game because I like how it challenges my mind, so I guess I'm not 'playing to win' type. I understand vilhazarog's and xade's position\opinion. Moreover, I think that if xade would limit himself to, say, 5 games at a moment, and retained amount of time he spends on the game, his skills would improve greatly. But he doesn't need this, and he is totally cool guy to play with now. I do enjoy realizing I'm good at something, however. So if I'll play a competitive game\tournament\set a competitive goal of reaching some ELO, I'll definitely be trying my best - that's where I agree to ExDeath. I guess the difference is whether one thinks of this game as of competitive game or as of fun game. Fourth, at least one of ExDeath's arguments isn't valid - about _every_ situation having the best move. While many situations do, some obviously doesn't. Counter-example from the top of my head: Player A's right hand is paralyzed
Smelly goblin Health: 1 Attacking Player A
Horrid goblin Health: 1 Attacking Player A
Player A Health: 2 - Paralyzed (1) 1234 xWPP x>>>
Player B Health X - Shield (1) 1234 WWPP FFFx
On the turn 4 (or 34), there is PURE 50\50 on which goblin to stab (for Player A), and which - to shield (for Player B).
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on May 1, 2008 11:02:19 GMT -5
I've often thought about the Toyotami question. When I started out Toyo's alt, Larry, was my most feared opponent (other than Tchichi). Toyo got better as I did and eventually we were neck-and-neck at a sort of neo-master status: noticeably better than second tier players (the second tier was a lot worse then) but noticeably below the masters. We were low 1900s with sizeable Elo gulfs to anyone else above or below. And since then he has levitated there, sometimes displaying play that is quite superb. And I do note that he is the only non-master to have broken 2000. The problem is that, as Toyo mentions, he still gets kicked around by tier one. It seems like the main qualification for 'master' status is dominating the ladder, and accomplishing it through conquest and not others' inactivity, which he hasn't done. So I have tended to think of Toyo as a 'neo-master'. Occasionally I am tempted to suggest this, but then he posts something completely absurd about strategy and I throw my hands up. Perhaps 'sake master' The comment I made was actually in reference to Awall, who I think is just about ready to break through. He's tended to play a lot of VFs, so he's been 1900-quality far longer than he's been ranked there. I played him several times in December and the games were very evenly matched. Bio, I have to say that I was very impressed with your Elo rise as well -- the jump from where you were when I disappeared, to where you are now, was quite noticeable. Nice work.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on May 1, 2008 12:18:20 GMT -5
I see that from flaming each other we've moved to praising each other ))
As for Toyo, my thought was that breaking 2000 is no small deal. But I see your point. I wonder, though, where were you going to "suggest" such "promotion". We don't have any kind Masters counsel as far as I know... Save maybe that 's-lect' coven mentioned on your Refuge.
As for me, getting from 1800 to 1900 in months nowadays isn't _that_ big deal, thanks to most 1900+ players gone. Should I accomplished all this ripping ELO off you masters, that would be definitely a thing to be proud of.
|
|
|
Post by awall on May 1, 2008 12:48:32 GMT -5
The comment I made was actually in reference to Awall, who I think is just about ready to break through. He's tended to play a lot of VFs, so he's been 1900-quality far longer than he's been ranked there. I played him several times in December and the games were very evenly matched. Really? I'm not sure about that. I don't think I devote quite enough time/energy to this game for me to really do justice to the term. If a "Master" is one who dominates the Ladder and Elo for a significant period of time, then given the current caliber of players out there one would have to spend a significant amount of time on each of his moves to reliably be able to beat all of them, and I think ExDeath is the only player around who is willing to do that. I'm much more adept at playing by the seat of my pants; I have a fairly good intuitive ability to look at a situation and understand what the effects of each move will be, but I suck at actually sitting down and analyzing more than a move or two ahead. Another characteristic of "Masters" is the ability to contribute something new to the strategic landscape of the game through static analysis, which I absolutely suck at. Exdeath was the one to shoot down S/W, Slarty brought out D/W, and I'd imagine that there was at least one Master involved in working through the D/P mirror match. Bio credits me with the DPPWP/PSDWF response to SWDDC/PSDDC, but given that 1) the S/P side was already at a disadvantage even with the existing DPPWS/PSDWS line; and 2) I'm sure I wasn't the first person to think of that, I'm not sure that really counts.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on May 1, 2008 13:57:03 GMT -5
In your eyes then, I will remain an ignoramus who's climb to the top has been sheer luck. But we all know deep down the reason why you won't play me..... YOU'RE NOT AT THE TOP!!!! That is my whole point! There are 6 active warlocks with Elo higher than yours! You currently occupy a spot between Vermont and ratpfink..now no disrespect to those players, Vermont was on my fantasy team, but I don't think either of those players would be shouting for a chance to face me because they've "climbed their way to the top". You've achieved nothing. Ladder score is, and has always been (since the invention of Elo) meaningless. If all of the friendlies you play were ladder matches you would not be #1 on the ladder (TIED, by the way, with a player who has a higher Elo than you!). If you someday show yourself to be better than everybody else by climbing up close to my rating, then I will take you seriously, but right now you've got 200 points to go, whereas many of the folk you've "climbed" over have only about 100. When somebody does eventually issue me a legitimate challenge, I don't think it will be you. Re: BioLogIn That situation is only a 50/50 if you flip a coin to determine what to do. Over the years, I have definitely been at least 60-65% on decisions like those, because I play a lot of RPS-type games that hinge on mental outleveling. But of course this advantage could be easily nullified.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on May 1, 2008 14:29:51 GMT -5
ExDeath True. By the way, I've been digging through this forums and I've found some interesting stuff: Here you state that there is considerable psychological part of Warlocks ExDeath, Warlock AI thread: "Warlocks is not "solveable", and I would make sizeable ($50,000+) wagers that I could defeat any AI you may think has solved it" And here you state that you can arrive to "the best move" meaning you're not trying to outguess opponent, but calculating possibilities instead: ExDeath, this very thread: "Warlocks is much closer to being solved than chess is; I usually feel that I arrive at the best moves on every turn of most games" Isn't there a contradiction? Or did your views changed over time? Or did I simply misunderstood something? ) And interesting thread about game styles, linking the page 2 for some interesting reading: slarty.proboards56.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=warlocks&thread=40&page=2
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on May 1, 2008 14:39:12 GMT -5
Mental outlevelling, that's a good phrase. I'll have to assimilate that.
I'm not sure I buy that the rankings are undominatable right now. Not to keep using Prioli as an example, but he pushed past Tchichi, ExDeath, Yaron, AND Taliesin. It's entirely possible that their level of play in 2004 was not as good as Toyo, Citanest and company are today -- in fact that's certainly true in at least a few respects -- but there are also more tools available for you (or whomever) today, than in 2004. Their level of play was so intimidating to others that somebody spontaneously invented the 'master warlock' term and imbued it with a level of intense meaning that is really pretty surprising, looking at it objectively.
'Domination' doesn't mean winning 80% of your games, it means consistently winning more than 50% against the top competitors, so that over the course of a few months you can overtake them on ladder and Elo and maintain those leads. What it requires is having some kind of edge that pushes you to that point. Pig and Tchichi were pioneers in choosing the highest percentage option, Taliesin was tactically brilliant, ExDeath and Prioli understood the nature of risk better, and Yaron and I were adept at synthesizing and improving on the tactics of others. You just need to have enough to swing things in your direction for 3 or 4 months.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on May 1, 2008 14:58:49 GMT -5
Bio:
That is a good point, it does look like I went all John Kerry on this issue. I guess I feel like, no matter how much you analyze the weaves, there will always be guesswork involved and mental outleveling as I stated earlier. Computers are going to either take the safest course, or use a predetermined mix of taking one course X% of the time and another course Y% of the time. Both of these are exploitable by a human opponent. The game can really only be solved if you make perfect guesses, which I feel I have done while at the top of my game. But I suppose nobody guesses right 100% of the time.
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on May 1, 2008 16:17:03 GMT -5
If a "Master" player created a new account for every single game s/he played (starting at 1500 ELO and 0 Ladder points), would they still be considered a "Master"?
Ponderous.
|
|
|
Post by Citanest on May 1, 2008 17:57:11 GMT -5
Personally, I feel that two Warlocks not mentioned so far are better than Toyo, me, or anyone else active now - Justix and Zugzwang. When they were playing hard they were absolutely unstoppable.
|
|
|
Post by succat on May 1, 2008 20:32:10 GMT -5
YOU'RE NOT AT THE TOP!!!! That is my whole point! There are 6 active warlocks with Elo higher than yours! You currently occupy a spot between Vermont and ratpfink.. Ratp.. who?? Vermont I know, but who's this rat guy? Yeah, Ok, Agreed. I'm not officially at the "top", but I cannot agree with your statement about the ladder score not meaning anything. Surely it means something, just like Elo means something. Nobody climbs to the top of the ladder without some sort of skill, come on, really. There are many factors at play -- Elo is one of them -- a huge one, apparently. Ladder is another one. Activity is one, or in your case: "inactivity". You could have the highest Elo, but how accurate is that gonna be when the Era you played in IS NO LONGER? I (reluctantly) agree with Derfel on his point about the game evolving with newer players that could now pose a threat to the ancient ones, if they were to ever come back in all their might and glory. We don't know for sure the answer to that because none of the ancient ones appear to be coming back in full force, at least that I'm aware of. For the ones still sitting atop the ladder who haven't played in eons, can you say they are currently deserving of their "rank(s)"? Are their Elo and Ladder Scores accurate at this point in time, or have these ancient ones sat for so long now that you'd have to dust the cobwebs off of them because they've turned into statues? I mention these inactive warlocks since you mentioned the "Rat". Now, for the "current" warlocks who have a higher Elo than mine... You could almost equate that to Taliesin having a higher Elo than you!! Does it mean that he's better than you? I don't know because I haven't looked at your games, but we're talking about Elo and Ladder here, so for the sake of argument, how could I say that Taliesin is indeed better than you because his Elo is higher, and you are inferior to him even though you sit above him (on the inactive throne, of course) ? Is any of this registering with you at all, or will you continue to say that I have "no skill" based on your lousy analysis of the facts which I have just layed out before you, O' Sire? btw, as for the "top" I mentioned in my previous posting, I was referring to the "active" warlocks "top" (ladder) in this "present" time, just in case that wasn't obvious to you. I pay no attention to these "Rats" and "Pigs" I keep hearing about, who have no bearing in this "current" and "present" Era. (And no disrespect to the animal kingdom -- I'm simply making a point... which I'll soon be adding to my Elo if it pleases Thee, Sire ;D [EDIT] I just checked the "active" warlocks, and I stand corrected... The Rat has returned!
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on May 1, 2008 22:14:07 GMT -5
You know, ELO decay would solve this in an instant. Lose 10 ELO for every 30 days of inactivity, or not playing a ranked game. I'm assuming that's been suggested before?
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on May 1, 2008 22:25:54 GMT -5
Derfel: Yes, you suggested it before and I attacked it viciously. :-D
Succat, to answer your Elo question in (I guarantee) a different way than ExDeath will: yes, it does mean that Taliesin is better than ExDeath. Obviously Elo is not the word of god, but given reasonable conditions, the plus or minus factor on its accuracy is far below 100 points.
Also, ladder score is not meaningless, but it is definitely less meaningful than Elo. Elo correlates reasonably directly with player skill. Ladder correlates with player skill too, but with much more room for noise in the data, particularly below 10 points or so. (However, ladder score is also definitely MORE meaningful than win percentage.)
|
|