Comments on: Losing a Match to Win the Tournament

By: Jesper

Jesper — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:44:18 +0000

@Peter Fair point. I think that it does up against the widespread intuition that tournament systems should never encourage players to lose (or tie).
And a lot of that seems to be about wasting the time (or money) of spectators.

But is anyone calling for changing the Swiss Tournament system?

By: Peter Christiansen

Peter Christiansen — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:53:55 +0000

@Jesper I think that depends on what criteria you’re judging the effectiveness of the tournament. Chess players are already accustomed to sacrificing tangible assets (pieces) for less tangible advantages (better positioning). If the tournament is just an extension of the board game, a meta-game to make things more interesting, then the Swiss Gambit is not very different from any other gambit. The player simply sacrifices something tangible (number of wins) for a less tangible advantage (playing “weaker” opponents).

As to whether this practice speaks against the tournament system, it depends on how we view the purpose of the tournament. Tournaments themselves are just games, with players and rules. The question is whether or not the tournament meta-game should be treated differently. In chess, sacrificing pieces, trying to mislead your opponent and using unconventional strategies is generally looked at favorably. Some people clearly see these acceptable tactics in the tournament, while others do not.

I suppose the real question is whether chess tournaments should reward good chess players, or good chess-tournament players.

By: Links for August 10, 2012 | Andrzej's Links

Links for August 10, 2012 | Andrzej's Links — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:18:04 +0000

[…] The Ludologist » Losing a Match to Win the Tournament […]

By: Jesper

Jesper — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:28:44 +0000

@eclectic Good point, but it wasn’t just Chinese players being banned, and is it wrong to help your team- or country-maters?

@Andrew Only just now saw Sirlin’s discussion. His main argument is that the fault lies with the tournament organizers. http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2012/8/1/playing-to-win-in-badminton.html

@Peter Doesn’t this speak against the Swiss-system tournament structure?

@Simon The Naniwa example is pretty obviously bad manners as you say, since he wasn’t trying to achieve *anything*.

By: Simon Dor

Simon Dor — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 03:46:10 +0000

That is really interesting, and shows how clear rules should be for players. Type 4 really illustrates David Sirlin’s idea of “Playing to Win”: if you choose not to play to win and decides to respect a certain code of conduct in a game (a “loyal” play, a “fair” play, an “intended” play, etc.), you end up to put barriers for winning. I tend to agree that if the rules of the games are somehow “broken”, then BWF should have fixed them! But I find really interesting the idea that spectatorship is an important aspect of “gameplay” in sports in general.

That reminds me of an interesting example of such “bad manners” in videogames. In a StarCraft II tournament, Naniwa had to play a game with no chance of winning the tournament and decided to forfeit with an unviable all-in (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eyH_kBa0uo). He lost some respect from fans and lost an “invitational” place in other tournaments as well.

By: The Ludologist » Actually, I crashed on Purpose

The Ludologist » Actually, I crashed on Purpose — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 19:59:59 +0000

[…] I crashed on Purpose More sportsmanship discussion from the Olympics, here is gold-winning British cyclist Philip Hindes publicly admitting that he […]

By: Peter Christiansen

Peter Christiansen — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 18:24:23 +0000

The same kind of practice is surprisingly common in chess tournaments, where it is often referred to as the “Swiss Gambit.” The gambiteer intentionally stalemates one of his first games, giving him 0.5 points for that round. This ensures that she will never face the first-ranked player until the final round of the tournament.

Even though the Swiss Gambit is not generally forbidden, many players have found that the practice polices itself. If multiple competitors attempt it in the same tournament, they end up facing each other after their stalemates. Since two stalemates is no better than a loss, they have to frantically beat out all the other gambiteers who are also ranked lower than their abilities would merit, and the irony is rarely lost on the other competitors.

In the end, the problem turns into a kind of “Prisoner’s Dilemma” which, though perhaps not in the spirit of the game, certainly makes it interesting.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 18:18:47 +0000

I’ve read a lot of discussion about this on Dave Sirlin’s site, and there’s a theory there that both Chinese teams were formidable enough that they’d want to put off playing each other until the final even if they weren’t both Chinese – to have an easier ride to the final, hence a fitter team and a better chance of winning gold, or to have a better chance of getting to the final and winning at least silver. Such play has happened before, in other tournaments – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Tiger_Cup

By: eclectic

eclectic — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 17:57:15 +0000

The problem was that they weren’t trying to win the tournament. They were medal maximizing. It wasn’t about whether they would have a better or worse chance at a medal, it was about whether the two Chinese teams would meet in the final or not. Everyone else followed suit. However, is the game about winning or is it about Badminton? BWF went with the latter.

But that brings up another interesting question about games within games (i.e. the game of Badminton within the game of medal competition) and how they relate to one another.