Best Hand AI or UI?

[Leo LaSota]

Well, when it impacts the games I choose to play in (BKOs, and my attempt to beat MP inflation enough to ever get out of flight C), then maybe.

 

What if it turned out (I realize this is facetious) that bridge computers could play at the level of chess computers (i.e. better than all but the best humans, or possibly better than all humans)? What if owners and makers of bridge computer software found it more fun to enter games where they were allowed computer assist? Should we still be awarding masterpoints, because it's still the "best of all worlds"?

 

I don't believe that the ACBL is *not* serving its constituency by carefully (albeit perhaps glacially) reviewing whether bridge-and games are "bridge" enough to be rated the same way that 4-people sitting around a table bridge is rated - and even saying "no, this is too far". While I'm sure that robot games for monsterpoints are popular, and you have the statistics I don't have, I still bet that less than 10% of ACBL membership (I'll even go as far as to say < 10% of *active* ACBL membership) has ever played one.

 

It's a measure of skill, sure. It has correlation - perhaps even close correlation - with bridge skill. It might be even harder than an equivalent game of bridge. Should the ACBL be awarding monsterpoints for success in this game? Not necessarily. Maybe they should set up a separate ladder/rating, like the chess world does with separate blitz chess and real chess rankings. Frankly, I'd rather they pay attention to the long-term, well-known issues that exist in GCC FtF bridge than anything doing with games that don't involve 4 humans at a table; but I'm just as biased as everybody else here to my own preferred fun levels.

 

As far as Bridge Plus goes, I wouldn't have a problem with Robot-assisted ACBL masterpoints if they were limited to 5, either. Frankly, as long as it helps 4-humans-at-a-table bridge, I don't care if you award 5 MPs for playing poker well :-).

 

ACBL does setup a "separate ladder/rating" by disallowing any online "monsterpoints" earned from counting in certain trophy races (Mini-McKenney, Barry Crane Top 500 for example).

[Leo LaSota]

 

 

In addition to that, it has become clear from reading various threads here that the ACBL use these MPs for seeding purposes. Do you not think that seeding should be based on performance playing Bridge and not various bridge-related games?

 

The ACBL does not use these MPs for seeding purposes, with the exception of the miniscule impact potential on a team entering into a Vanderbilt or Spingold of being seeded higher because a member of the team has alot of MPs from ACBL best hand robot tournaments.

 

In pairs events in which seeding is based on another individual's relative rankings of various expert partnerships entering into the event, an individual that earns a large number of masterpoints through robot tournaments is given a lower relative seed as a result.

[barmar]

What if it turned out (I realize this is facetious) that bridge computers could play at the level of chess computers (i.e. better than all but the best humans, or possibly better than all humans)? What if owners and makers of bridge computer software found it more fun to enter games where they were allowed computer assist? Should we still be awarding masterpoints, because it's still the "best of all worlds"?

Since none of those things is even close to happening, we don't have to worry about it.

 

The "slippery slope" argument doesn't hold water -- allowing best-hand robot games doesn't mean we open the floodgates to all bastardizations of the game.

[mycroft]

Leo: it also applies to bracketing in KOs, and stratification in other games. Which means that the creep from "strat C 0-500, then 0-750, then 0-1000, then 'by average'" is affected. In other words, in the games I want to play.

 

barmar: no slippery slope, just a "clearly, obviously, on the other end of the 'should this be allowed'" spectrum. Many people - obviously by the discussions in the BoD over the last three years - think we've gone past that point already; it's clear you don't think so (personally or professionally); I don't know where I land (except, of course, for my own selfish issues about "I don't like the idea or the game; I don't feel I should have to play in these just to keep my count ticking over to get into real brackets, or to avoid winning strat C (and denying the points to real C players) with a crappy game").

 

It's just that "best of worlds" in terms of the players wanting to play it is orthogonal to whether the ACBL should be awarding points for it.

[jeffford76]

or to avoid winning strat C (and denying the points to real C players) with a crappy game").

 

It would be interesting if you were allowed to declare your flight in a stratified event (obviously not to lower it) so you could just remove yourself from flight C if you wished. I suppose that would just lead to people declaring high to avoid winning points to stay in flight C for the things that award money.

[Bbradley62]

Which means that the creep from "strat C 0-500, then 0-750, then 0-1000..."

Is there really any such thing as 0-500 any more?

 

Edit: Haven't played ACBL events in 14 years. Just curious.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Bbradley62

[Leo LaSota]

Leo: it also applies to bracketing in KOs, and stratification in other games. Which means that the creep from "strat C 0-500, then 0-750, then 0-1000, then 'by average'" is affected. In other words, in the games I want to play.

 

barmar: no slippery slope, just a "clearly, obviously, on the other end of the 'should this be allowed'" spectrum. Many people - obviously by the discussions in the BoD over the last three years - think we've gone past that point already; it's clear you don't think so (personally or professionally); I don't know where I land (except, of course, for my own selfish issues about "I don't like the idea or the game; I don't feel I should have to play in these just to keep my count ticking over to get into real brackets, or to avoid winning strat C (and denying the points to real C players) with a crappy game").

 

It's just that "best of worlds" in terms of the players wanting to play it is orthogonal to whether the ACBL should be awarding points for it.

 

No idea why you seem to be getting angry at me in your follow up response. I was simply responding to Zelandakh's statement, "In addition to that, it has become clear from reading various threads here that the ACBL use these MPs for seeding purposes. Do you not think that seeding should be based on performance playing Bridge and not various bridge-related games?"

 

Seeding is a term used when top level expert teams/partnerships are essentially pre ranked at the beginning of an event in order to fairly distribute the top teams/pairs.

[Vampyr]

 

Also, since you seem to feel this game is better than bridge as it's similar but lacking in misunderstandings, grumpy opps, and TD rulings, you should consider it a good thing that this game is becoming more popular.

 

I'm not sure anyone has suggested that this game is "better than bridge". It is certainly easier to participate in, but while it lacks some of the challenges of bridge it also lacks most of the rewards. The same could be said about reading a good bridge book, and the same arguments could be made about certain bridge skills improving as a result. I await the day when completion of books (combined, perhaps, with a quiz on the contents) can earn masterpoints.

[mycroft]

No idea why you seem to be getting angry at me in your follow up response. I was simply responding to Zelandakh's statement, "In addition to that, it has become clear from reading various threads here that the ACBL use these MPs for seeding purposes. Do you not think that seeding should be based on performance playing Bridge and not various bridge-related games?"

 

Seeding is a term used when top level expert teams/partnerships are essentially pre ranked at the beginning of an event in order to fairly distribute the top teams/pairs.

I'm not getting angry at you. I apologize if it comes across that way.

 

Yes, Zelendakh was talking about seeding, and technically, you are correct about what seeding means. But less technically, bracketing is "seeding", and sure and that matters to me and not just the big events. And in real life, never mind seeding, it matters for flighting, too. And I'm guessing that Zelendakh meant my expansion when he said "seeding".

 

If I'm annoyed at you, it's about your response to me that online points don't count for certain races - which (you probably don't realize, but could probably guess) I also don't care much about. My concern is that unlike say a blitz chess rating, which doesn't affect *anything* involved with regular chess rating, online points do affect almost all regular tournament events, in flighting/stratifying/bracketing the event (and let's not get into the "bracketed round-robin 'Swiss' teams" abomination). But of course, that's something I should apologize to you for sounding upset at you about, as well.

 

But that's where this issue with "bridge-related games" that I have no interest in playing affects me. I'm sure it's fascinating, and I'm sure I'd love it eventually, but some people love gold farming, too. As it is, it doesn't much matter; but should this get to a 40, 50% level of participation, rather than a 10% level, I would almost have to join it just to keep up, otherwise I end up back in the games that I'm embarrassed to win, and even more embarrassed if I don't.

[Leo LaSota]

I'm not getting angry at you. I apologize if it comes across that way.

 

Yes, Zelendakh was talking about seeding, and technically, you are correct about what seeding means. But less technically, bracketing is "seeding", and sure and that matters to me and not just the big events. And in real life, never mind seeding, it matters for flighting, too. And I'm guessing that Zelendakh meant my expansion when he said "seeding".

 

If I'm annoyed at you, it's about your response to me that online points don't count for certain races - which (you probably don't realize, but could probably guess) I also don't care much about. My concern is that unlike say a blitz chess rating, which doesn't affect *anything* involved with regular chess rating, online points do affect almost all regular tournament events, in flighting/stratifying/bracketing the event (and let's not get into the "bracketed round-robin 'Swiss' teams" abomination). But of course, that's something I should apologize to you for sounding upset at you about, as well.

 

But that's where this issue with "bridge-related games" that I have no interest in playing affects me. I'm sure it's fascinating, and I'm sure I'd love it eventually, but some people love gold farming, too. As it is, it doesn't much matter; but should this get to a 40, 50% level of participation, rather than a 10% level, I would almost have to join it just to keep up, otherwise I end up back in the games that I'm embarrassed to win, and even more embarrassed if I don't.

 

 

The total number of points won by participation in this "bridge-related game" cannot possibly have a large effect on stratifying or bracketing since you state that this has such a low level of participation.

[mycroft]

Now *that's* a slippery slope argument I can get behind. What's the goal of this? It's sure not to have these games limited to 10% of the population...