[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Game Courier Tournament #1. A multi-variant tournament played on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Excellent is for the tournament! If you have a game in mind that needs a Preset, reply by a comment. If you already know how to create Presets and just need help with minirules and posting, or details, send the URL of your Preset to me at my name link address. As time permits (and if feasible), I'll help -- in the order received, of course.
Aproval poll partial results must be visible in this page, I think
When there are several variants on the same preset (AKC I and II, Rococo and Rococo with mirror arrays, Takeover Chess and Takeover Chess on 64 squares), which one is chosen? (I doubt the first variant is always the one which is attracting the votes.)
In design contests, usually the main variant is assumed to be the game being considered. Personally, with regards to Takeover Chess, I think that the game in 64 squares is more interesting. However, this is not easy to clarify at this point. Perhaps if there is more than one variant the players should be able to choose the variant they wish to play.
When I begin the next poll, I will be listing variants by name instead of by preset page ID. Since the method of voting I'll be using is cloneproof (explained below), it isn't a problem to include multiple versions of the same game in the next poll. I already plan to exclude very similar games from both being played in the tournament. If a pair of very similar games both ranked highly in the next poll, only the higher ranking game would be included in the tournament. My reasoning behind this is that wanting one thing and wanting another doesn't always imply that you want both together. Presumably, we want a bit of variety in the tournament rather than close variations on the same game. So, for example, Shatranj and Chaturanga will not both be played in the tournament, and Yáng Qí and Eurasian Chess will not both be played in the tournament. However, I am not counting two games as very similar when one is a standard regional variant and the other is a variant of it. So, for example, Yáng Qí and Chinese Chess could both be played if they get enough votes. Here's the significance of a cloneproof voting method. Consider the Borda Count method, which is not cloneproof. It gives one point to each preference in last place, 2 points to each in next-to-last place, and so on going up. Using letters to consider preferences, consider these votes: 60 ABC 50 BCA A majority prefers A to both B and C, meaning that A should win. But B has a higher Borda Count than A. It has 270 points vs. A's 230 points. The reason it has so many points is because it is part of a clone-pair with C. Suppose that B and C are two very similar variants, such as Shatranj and Chaturanga, while A is something very different, such as Shogi. The votes come out like this, because those who like Shatranj also like Chaturanga nearly as much. This sort of thing would screw things up if the voting method wasn't cloneproof, but the method I'll be using is. Given these votes, it would give the win to A.
I had been thinking the same thing about Gothic and Grand Chess. They use all the same pieces, and they differ only in board size, setup, and rules concerning Pawn movement and castling. They're more alike than Eurasian Chess and Yang Qi. Barring any serious objections, I'll add this pair to the list of very similar games.
Any thoughts on how many games it is reasonable to expect each person in the tournament to play? Let me offer a suggestion and get feedback. The tournament could be set up so that each entrant will play in five subtournaments, each subtournament consisting of eight players. With eight players to a subtournament, each subtournament would have three rounds, with four eliminations in the first round and two in the second round. If each entrant played in five subtournaments, his games would fall between a minimum of five and a maximum of fifteen. As for the logistics of deciding which games entrants would play, the top five ranked games would be played by everyone if exactly eight people signed up. If more than eight signed up, then there would be additional subtournaments, but not everyone would play in each one. Assignments to subtournaments would be made based on a list of ranked preferences from each entrant. Anyway, deciding the exact logistics of the tournament is not as important right now as it is to decide on a reasonable number of games to be played. A minimum of five, a maximum of fifteen, and an average of ten seems fine to me. But I would like to know what other people think.
After doing a bit of math, it looks like the subtournaments method of running the tournament wouldn't work out well unless we had exactly eight people in the tournament. For example, if we had nine people, we could not evenly distribute people among six eight-person subtournaments. At best, six people would each play in five subtournaments, and three would play in all six. One possible alternative is to stick with subtournaments but to put seven people in some subtournaments. In the case of nine people, three of the subtournaments could have seven. The one drawback to this alternative is that some people would have to sit out the first round in a subtournament, then play against one of the three winners in the next round. A second alternative is to have some preliminary elimination rounds that reduce the number in the tournament to eight, then let the eight people compete in a few subtournaments. A third alternative is to forego subtournaments and do something else. One possibility is to just have everyone play so many games, each against a different opponent, moving first and second in an equal number of games. Points would be given for wins or draws, and the tournament winner would be whoever gets the most points. Ties would be broken with an extra game. These alternatives have been for eight or more. If we get exactly eight, a set of subtournaments would work well. If we get fewer than eight, then it may be best to just have everyone play everyone else at something, then total up points. Depending on how many signed up, people might play two or three games with each of the others.
Ideally, everyone would get to play everyone else. This is desirable from a social perspective, because it allows everyone to meet everyone. It is also desirable from the perspective of fairness, because it is more fair to declare someone the winner if he has played everyone else. This means that he has played the same opponents as others and that he has played against each of the losers. With large numbers of players, having everyone play everyone else becomes less desirable, because it may overload the players with too many games to play. In that case, the social goal may be compromised, since it is not critical. Instead of fully meeting it, it may be maximally met by giving a player a new opponent for each game. But the goal of fairness still remains as important as before, and it should not be compromised if at all possible. The advantage of the subtournament method is that it works best for maximizing the fairness of the tournament. But since it is not doable with most numbers, I have proposed a different method for more than eight players. It is a three-round method with eliminations after each of the first two rounds. Four games are played in the first round, four more in the second round, then three in the last round. The first round reduces the players to eight, and the second round reduces the players to four. In the first round, it would not be fair to immediately give the win to the highest scoring player, because there would be some players who have not played each other, including some who have not played the highest scoring player. But it does seem fair to eliminate all but the top eight players. Odds are good that the best player will be among these eight. In the second round, players play four more games, as much as possible against new opponents. At the end of this round, it is still possible that some of the players in the second round have not played each other, though it is no longer an inevitability. So, while it may not be fair to declare the highest scoring player in this round the winner, it does seem fair to eliminate the four lowest ranking players. Finally, in the third round, all remaining players play each other at one game apiece, and the winner of the tournament is the winner of this round. This method is also described in the text I am adding to this page, and it includes details on tie-breaking, which I have not included here. In the comments section, I am focusing more on the justification for this method.
I agree that players should be given a choice of games in the first round. If we go with the three-round method I described, then I would recommend letting players rank their preferences among the top 11 games, then do my best to assign everyone his top four games in the first round. Assignment of opponents would be based on who shares your top choices. As players continued through the rounds, they would eventually have to play some of their less preferred games. To retain some choice of games in the last round, each pair of players would have the option of playing any game they had both won against other players in the tournament. This option could even be given during the second round. Before the tournament begins, I plan to make Game Courier keep track of how much time each player has taken. This could be done by creating a timestamp list that parallels the movelist. I could also create a timelimit function that causes a player to automatically lose when his time runs out. So that all games in the tournament could be manually checked to see whether the timelimit function was being used, I would also include information on its use in View move. As for the timelimit itself, how about 30 days per player. If both players kept an even pace, this would allow a game to last as long as 60 days. Then, each round would be given two months to finish. If everyone happened to finish the round sooner, then the next round could begin sooner. With three rounds, the tournament would last up to six months but could take less time. I think four games at once may be doable. Game Courier makes it easy to play multiple games at once, but most people will be playing in their spare time, and they shouldn't be too overloaded with games. Playing four games at once, most people may be able to manage a pace of two moves a day in each game.
Fergus wrote, 'most people may be able to manage a pace of two moves a day in each game.' Most, but not all. I work strange hours, and am usually online between 23:00 and 01:00, when most honest folk have gone to bed. That makes more than one move per day problematic. From my point of view, more simultaneous games (say, 8) on a slower time control would be better.
I will note that itsyourturn.com normal tournaments allow 48 hours to respond to a move for normal tournaments, and 28 hours for fast tournaments (with the clock off on weekends). Some of us have fairly full lives, and two moves per day in multiple games is flatly unreasonable. I do not play from work, and I do not usually play until the kids go to bed. That gives me time generally for one set of moves per day, if I am not (as it occasionally happens) completely exhausted.
The focus has been on Fergus' comment about making 2 turns per day in four games. I think that the overall time-limit idea is very valid. This is parallel to the idea of a chess clock, of course. From what Fergus says, it seems each game has its own time limit. 30 days per game may be a bit tight, how about allowing 60 days, or maybe even 75? Many games end in about 30 moves, so that means that a pace of a move every 48 hours, as Peter suggests, may be doable. On an active day, one can pick up the pace. On a slow day, or week, run the clock a bit. Some games may take longer to resolve than 30 moves, for example the larger games, so a more liberal time limit would be adviseable. Also, chess variants players are a select group, let's not force players out by overstressing the time limit. Its better to have players than a fast tournament. Note that up to now CVP tournaments have had at most 5 registered entrants! The 14 current voters is a fantastic possibility. They should be encouraged to participate by allowing ample time to play.
I would like to add an 'excellent' for the proposed ability to clock games in Game Courier!
I would vote for time controls on the order of one move per day, and maybe a bit on the lenient side of that. On any given day, I shouldn't have much trouble making one move in each game, but making two moves or more would require my opponent and me to be online at roughly the same time. With the variety of schedules and time zones represented here, I don't think we can count on that happening in every game. Aside from the question of exactly how much time should be allowed, I think there is a problem with the idea of a time control as simple as 30 (or 60, or whatever) days. Suppose that my opponent and I are able to make one move per day, but our schedules work out in such a way that I move at 12:00 and he moves at 18:00. Then my clock would lose 18 hours each day, and his only six, even though we are both playing at the same rate. This hardly seems fair. I think a better idea would be to add a time increment to each player's clock with each move (maybe an initial time allotment of 15 days plus an increment of one day per move, just to pull some numbers out of a hat) or else a version of the system of time units used in last year's Multivariant Tournament.
Some of us may have some problems for make a move certain days, but it can be compensated with more moves other day, if both players agree. The idea of clocks is a good one, but it may need some adjusts to reallity, I think.
Thomas makes a good point. Even though both players might make moves at 24-hour intervals, the time that each chooses to move may favor one over the other. This would be unfair to one of the players. So the method I proposed for enforcing time controls is not a good one. The main goal behind time controls is to get games to finish in a timely manner, and a secondary goal is to get all games to finish by a specific deadline. The method I proposed meets both these goals, but it's unfair. The method used in the last multivariant tournament meets the main goal but does not meet the secondary goal. I suspect that there may be no fair method that meets the secondary goal, but if anyone can think of one, I would be pleased to hear it. I like the idea behind the one used in the last tournament, but it strikes me as being too liberal. Let me suggest this in its place. Each move that takes more than 72 hours costs a time unit plus one more time unit for each 24 hours beyond the initial 72, and a player would forfeit a game if he ran out of time units. I chose 72 hours, because it accomodates the person who plays from work and doesn't have access to the web over the weekend. As for the initial number of time units, 14 might be a good choice. One possible modification to this method would be to reward players for picking up the pace. For example, a player might get an extra point for making at least seven moves within a week's time. In that case, it might be okay to initially allot fewer time units to each player. I'm really not familiar with what other PBM systems do for timing tournaments. If there are some good methods I should know about, please report them here.
Given that the timing method I previously proposed was unfair, it has now become a moot point whether players are given 30 days or 60 days. The best timing method seems to be one that expects players to move within a particular time frame, and such a method is open-ended regarding the total time allowed for a game. Instead of allowing as much as 72 hours to make a move, as I previously suggested, something like 28 hours could work if combined with rewards for occasionally picking up the pace. In that way, people could make up for long interruptions by playing more quickly at other times. However, I'm thinking that this could be open to abuse by players who aren't subject to the same interruptions of time. For example, one player may be unable to play on the weekend, and the other player could take advantage of this by refusing to cooperate in picking up the pace during the week. This might be avoided by giving global time unit rewards that can be used in any game, but that may be too difficult to automate, and it would work best if it were automated. So I'm open to other suggestions how to handle time limits.
A nice simple formula for time control of the tournament: (maximum time length of tournament)/(maximum number of moves allowed in the particular game)=(maximum alloted response time) (number of moves allowed)=(total number of full turns allowed)*(number of players in the particular game) If a player fails to respond within the alloted time, they would automatically forfeit the game regardless of their current position or material gain. You've got to be cruel.
I agree that time limits are needed. Excessively liberal limits would lead to neglect. However, if the time limits are too rigid we may get few registrants. This kind of tournament does not attract a lot of players to start with. 14 voters is by far the best response the CVP has had for a tournament -- let's keep it! Besides that, I would venture to say that with rigid limits, the tournament might get lot of forfeitures, particularly as the tournament gets into its second or third month and longer. There is also the issue of enforcement, who is going to call a forfeit? Here's a thought, once the registrations are in offer various time limit alternatives, such as those suggested in these comments, to the registrants for selection by voting.
Okay, let's be nice. You could allow players to accumulate time during the tournament. Any time that they do not use to make a move would be alloted for their discretion in the subsequent moves. So a player who made short early moves at the beginning of the game could then use that excess time with later moves.
Whatever method is used for time controls, it will be an automated method. I will not be looking over each game making individual judgements on whether time limits have been exceeded. Instead, I will just program whatever method gets used into Game Courier before the tournament begins. As you make suggestions for how to handle time limits, keep this in mind.
I've since had more thoughts on how time limits could be handled. Generally, the idea behind the method used in the last tournament was a good one, but that particular method was designed for manual enforcement in games that were played strictly by email. At that time, the games in the tournament were played mainly through the old PBM system or by mailing ZSG files back and forth. Because of this, it made sense to use gross measurements of excess time. Since all games in this tournament will be played with Game Courier, which logs all games and doesn't depend upon email, it is possible to use precise measurements of time. Taking into consideration matters of fairness raised in previous comments, here is what I now propose. Each player will begin with a buffer of extra time equal to 24 days but measured in seconds, a total of 2073600 seconds. After your opponent moves, you will have a grace period of 24 hours, precisely 86400 seconds, to make your next move without any time penalty. If you take more than 24 hours to make your next move, each second you take beyond the free 24 hours will be subtracted from your buffer of extra time. If you use up your buffer of extra time, then you will automatically lose the game. Here is my rationale for this method. First, it encourages, without strictly enforcing, a pace of at least one move per day. As long as you check your games at the same time each day, making moves in any for which it is your turn, you should be able to play indefinately without incurring any time penalities. Second, it accomodates people who can't play on weekends by giving you enough extra time to play only on week days for a period of at least 12 weeks. If you make your moves at the same time Monday through Friday, there would be 72 hours between your Friday move and your Monday move. Your cost for skipping the weekend would be 72 hours minus the free 24 hours and whatever interval there was between your Friday move and your opponent's next move. So skipping the weekend would normally cost something close to but under 48 hours of time. A buffer of 24 days should also be ample for people who normally move regularly but have situtations that take them away from the web for a while, such as vacations, lots of homework for students, lots of grading for teachers, hospital stays, or whatever. It's important to allow for such things, but it's also important to set limits on how long anyone can hold up the tournament. An alternative way of doing this would be to initially offer a smaller buffer of extra time, then to reward players with extra hours of time each time they made a move within the grace period. For the sake of fairness, this reward would have to be the same amount no matter how late into the grace period a player moved. This may encourage players to quicken the pace when they are able.
Another matter we should discuss is the entrance fee. In the last tournament, it was $5.00. Although a small entrance fee may discourage fewer people from entering, a larger entrance fee would allow for bigger prizes, and that might encourage more people. What would you think about a $10.00 entrance fee?
David Howe wrote on Wed, Jan 21, 2004 02:07 AM UTC:I dropped the ball on that one. We have $25 from the entrance fees, and I'll pony up another $75. That makes $100 in prize money. Mike Howe, the 1st place winner will receive $70, John Lawson, the second place winner will receive $30. Both will receive award certificates. I apologize for dropping the ball on this. Hopefully my lack of action on this issue won't discourage others from joining in on other tournaments.
The kind of thing Michael proposes would be fine with me. David shouldn't have to kick in his own money.
I also think that a qualifying round of eight games is better than two qualifying rounds of four games, because a) it insures every player will play at least eight games b) it gives the players more flexibility for entering each move, say five days before beginning to consume time units c) all games retain full weight (in the proposed scheme, players are induced to keep their favorite games for the second round, when the qualifying spots will be much harder to secure, especially if there are nine or ten entrants).
Should I make an eight-game minimum a standard part of the tournament no matter how many people enter? What do the rest of you think? With nine or more players, it is easy to do this. Just loop the list of players, and have each person play the four before him and the four after him. With eight or fewer people, only some numbers easily allow eight games apiece. With two entries, the two players could play each other eight times. With three entries, each player could play each of the others four times. With five entries, each player can play every other player twice for a total of eight games. But for four, six, seven, or eight entries, a single round of eight games would not be as doable. With four players, everyone could play everyone else three times for a total of nine games. With six players, everyone could play everyone else twice for a total of ten games. With seven players, it might be better to have one round of six games, eliminate some players, then have another round. With eight players, it might be best to have a first round of seven games.
With the help of Stephen Eppley, the code for counting votes with the MAM method now works accurately. My own code handled some things wrong, but Stephen Eppley, the inventor of MAM, fixed what was wrong with it. There is one day left to vote in the poll. The deadline for any last minute votes or changes is Saturday night at midnight, Eastern Standard Time. After that time, the script will automatically refuse any new votes.
The 'Review votes' button tells me, 'There is no record of your votes.' Does this mean that my votes didn't go through, or simply that there is something wrong with the review function?
Judging by what the code says, it means that your password and userid both checked out, but your userid could not be matched with any ballot. Your ballot does exist. I saw crazytom.php in the directory for the ballots. My best guess is that you did not type your userid in all lowercase. When I capitalized my userid as an experiment, it gave me the same error message.
To prevent the possibility of multiplying votes by entering your userid in various mixed-case forms, I have now added code that converts every userid to lowercase. This will also allow you to enter mixed-case forms of your userid without getting an error message.
I have begun work on implementing time controls, but I have not completed it yet. Since there was more silence than discussion on the subject here, I expect I will use the method I last described. Let me know if it poses any problems for you.
<P>Here is how the time controls will work. The time controls will have three parameters. These are $timelimit, $gracetime, and $bonustime. All of these will be measured in seconds. $timelimit is the total amount of time you will initially be given for making your moves during a game. Each time you move, the amount of time you have left will be calculated. At the beginning of the game, your time left will be equal to $timelimit. On the first move, the time difference between your first move and the creation of the log will be calculated, and for each subsequent move, the time difference between that move and the previous move will be calculated. This difference will then have $gracetime substracted from it. When this result is greater than zero, it will be subtracted from the amount of time left for the current player. When it is less than or equal to zero, the value of $bonustime will (assuming time has not already run out) be added to the amount of time left for that player. In this manner, the amount of time left for a player could grow greater than the value of $timelimit. Once time runs out for a player, that player will lose the game and be unable to increase his time left.</P>
<P>Here are the values I propose for the time control parameters:</P>
<PRE>
$timelimit = 2073600; // 24 days
$gracetime = 86400; // 24 hours
$bonustime = 21600; // 6 hours
</PRE>
<P>And here is the code I've written for enforcing time controls:</P>
<PRE>
// Check time
// The parameters used for time controls are $timelimit, $gracetime, and $bonustime. A record of the times
// when the game begins and when each player moves are stored in $timeline. $timestamps is an array of the
// values in $timeline, and $timeleft is an array of how much time is left for each player. The values for
// both these arrays are calculated fresh each time and are not stored in the log.
if ($timelimit > 0) {
if ($submit == 'Send') {
$now = time();
$timeline .= ' {$now}'; // $timeline was previously initialized to the log's creation time
}
$timestamps = explode(' ', $timeline);
// 1 = odd number, used for first player
// 0 = even number, used for second player
$timeleft[0] = $timeleft[1] = $timelimit;
for ($i = 1; $i < count($timestamps); $i++) {
$timeused = ($timestamps[$i] - $timestamps[$i-1]) - $gracetime;
$timeleft[$i & 1] -= $timeused;
if (($timeleft[$i & 1] < 0) && ($submit == 'Send')) {
// First player has run out of time && it is first player's turn := opponent wins
// First player has run out of time && it is second player's turn := player wins
// Second player has run out of time && it is first player's turn := player wins
// Second player has run out of time && it is second player's turn := opponent wins
$status = sprintf ('%s has won.', (($i & 1) ^ ($side != $first)) ? $opponent : $player);
break;
}
if (($timeleft[$i & 1] >= 0) && ($timeused <= 0))
$timeleft[$i & 1] += $bonustime;
}
}
</PRE>
That sounds fair. The system is much the same as is used in the Internet Chess Club under certain options.
I'm working on changes to the time control methods I previously described. One cosmetic change is that $timelimit has been renamed $sparetime. One minor change, which probably won't affect the tournament, is that getting bonus time will be dependent on moving within a specified bonus period instead of within the grace period. I say it probably won't affect the tournament, because I plan to set the bonus period equal to the grace period. I am just making them different for the sake of more flexible time controls. The more significant change is the addition of extra time. This is an amount of additional time that is unconditionally added to a player's total time for each turn into the game. In summary, the time controls will use four types of time keeping. These are spare time, grace time, extra time, and bonus time. And here is how I'm thinking of assigning them. $sparetime = 7 days $gracetime = 24 hours $extratime = 24 hours $bonustime = 24 hours for moving within 24 hours. I'll first point out that this is more liberal than what I posted last time. $gracetime remains the same, while bonus time is now more generous. Although $sparetime has shrunk considerably, this is more than made up for by 24 hours of extra time for each move. In any game of average length, all the spare time I trimmed off will be given back as extra time, and there will be more extra time besides that. These time controls will allow an average pace of 2 to 3 days per move while encouraging the faster pace of one move per day. They should also accomodate players who need to take several days off from time to time. I'll post more details when time controls are fully implemented and documented.
<P>Time controls are now described in the User's Guide. Here is what the code for checking time presently looks like:</p>
<PRE>
// Check time
// The parameters used for time controls are $sparetime, $gracetime, $extratime, $bonustime, and $bonusperiod.
// A record of the times when the game begins and when each player moves are stored in $timeline.
// $timestamps is an array of the values in $timeline.
// $timeleft is an array of how much time is left for each player.
// The values for both these arrays are calculated fresh each time and are not stored in the log.
// $yourtime is the amount of time left for the player who is moving.
if (!empty($timeline)) {
if ($submit == 'Send') {
$now = time();
$timeline .= ' {$now}'; // $timeline was previously initialized
}
$timestamps = explode(' ', $timeline);
// 1 = odd number, used for first player
// 0 = even number, used for second player
$timeleft[0] = $timeleft[1] = $sparetime;
$stamps = count($timestamps);
for ($i = 1; $i < $stamps; $i++) {
$timeused = ($timestamps[$i] - $timestamps[$i-1]);
$timeused = max(0, $timeused - $gracetime);
$timeleft[$i & 1] -= $timeused;
if (($timeleft[$i & 1] < 0) && ($submit == 'Send')) {
// First player has run out of time && it is first player's turn := opponent wins
// First player has run out of time && it is second player's turn := player wins
// Second player has run out of time && it is first player's turn := player wins
// Second player has run out of time && it is second player's turn := opponent wins
$status = sprintf ('%s has won.', (($i & 1) ^ ($side != $first)) ? $opponent : $player);
break;
}
// The $extratime and $bonustime you get for a move are awarded after your move.
// So they do not figure into determining whether you have run out of time.
$timeleft[$i & 1] += $extratime;
if ($timeused < $bonusperiod)
$timeleft[$i & 1] += $bonustime;
}
$yourtime = ($submit == 'Send') ? $timeleft[($stamps - 1) & 1] : $timeleft[$stamps & 1];
}
</pre>
The suggested mechanism looks fine, but just in case some players feel swamped, it might be worthwhile to let them propose their opponents a common raise of $sparetime, perhaps limited to $sumofcommonraisesinagame. Surely some of these would accept the offer. It also depends on how many games we play simultaneously, of course. And what about illegal moves? Three days for the opponent, loss on the third offence?
<P>I've done some tweaking to the time control setting I previously proposed. After running through some examples, I consider the following setting to be good for setting an average pace of 3 moves per week.</P>
<PRE>
Spare Time: 7 days
Grace Time: 32 hours
Extra Time: 24 hours
Bonus Time: 8 hours
Bonus Period: 24 hours
</PRE>
<P>These settings will accomodate a pace of three moves per week, so long as each move is made on a different day. It will work for three adjacent days, such as Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, or for three nonadjacent days, such as Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Let me explain how it works for each example. If someone moves Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, he can gain enough time to coast until next Friday. He will need five days of time. He uses 1 1/3 days in grace time, gets 2/3 in bonus time, and gets 3 in extra time. These add up to 5 days. If a player moves Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at the same time each day, grace time and extra time for a single move are sufficient for the two 48 hour intervals, and there will be at least 16 hours of extra time left over. Combine this with 32 hours grace time and 24 more hours of extra time, and you have 72 hours, enough time to go from Friday to next Monday. These calculations all presume that your opponent moves immediately after you each time. Odds are good that this won't happen, which will allow you to maintain this pace with time to spare or to move at a slower pace. Also, if you keep up a pace of at least 4 moves per week, you will gain time every week.</P>
<P>Antoine proposes that players should have the option of mutually raising their sparetime. I don't think this is necessary. If two players in a game are both in need of more time, they can cooperate together to both use their time more efficiently. For example, if each player made full use of his gracetime and extratime for each move, they could reduce their pace to 1 move every 4 2/3 days.</P>
<P>Regarding illegal moves, I don't think it is necessary to make any special provisions for them. First of all, Game Courier makes it easy to take back an illegal move. Second, given that you don't have to think long about your move when you're taking back an illegal move, the person who makes an illegal move is the one more likely to lose time. Therefore, there is no incentive for intentionally making an illegal move.</P>
<P>While on the subject, there should be a rule against taking back a move unless it is an illegal move. After all, this will be a tournament.</P>
Antoine's idea for increasing $sparetime gave me another idea, which I went ahead and implemented. This idea is to treat $sparetime like an insurance policy. I've added a new time control, called Pace. When you set a pace, any player who maintains that pace has his reserve time protected against going below $sparetime. It works like this. At the end of a player's turn, so long as the player hasn't run out of time, a player's reserve time is compared with the spare time. If it is lower than spare time, and if that player is currently maintaining the desired pace, it is set equal to $sparetime. With this in play, there are two ways to run out of time. One is to fail to keep the pace and gradually use up one's remaining time. The other way is to delay moving so long that even having the full spare time isn't enough. What this insurance protects against is gradually running out of time while maintaining the desired pace. Here's an example of what I mean. Let's suppose that time controls are what I gave in my last message, and a player makes three moves each Sunday but never moves any other day. This player is keeping the pace of three moves a week, but the other time controls are such that he will gradually lose time. But by using $sparetime with pace setting, this player can maintain a reserve of 7 days even though the other time controls don't facilitate this. Fuller details are provided in the User's Guide.
I've begun to think about the procedure to use for pairing people up for games. Before describing the procedure, let me state its goals. One goal is to maximize the number of games played by everyone. Short of that, to maximize the number of people who play any game. Another goal is to maximize the number of each player's top n choices that he gets to play. Short of that, to keep each player's assignment of games in conformity with his preferences as much as feasible. Here is what I'm thinking of. I'll begin by getting a list of ranked preferences from each person of his top n+3 games. I'll mark any game that appears in everyone's top n games. Let's call the number of games everyone has in their top n m. Everyone will play these games, but I won't pair people up in them until I have paired people up for other games. I will first pair people up for the remaining n minus m games. Beginning with each person's top ranked unmarked game, I will try to find a partner who also ranks that game highly. Someone who ranks a game more highly will be favored over someone who ranks a game less highly. If an odd number of players rank a game among their top n games, precedence will be given to those who rank it higher. As much as possible, any player who has ranked a game on top will be given an opponent who has ranked it among his top n games. Whenever two people are paired up for a game, I will mark that game in their rankings. After pairing up opponents on the basis of top ranked games, I will repeat the procedure a rank lower, and repeat again until every player has been paired up for n-m games. If the procedure terminates without pairing everyone up on n-m games, I will repeat the procedure on the unmarked games of player's who haven't yet met their quota, but I will extend it to the full ranking. Then I will pair everyone up on the games everyone put in their top n games, pairing each person up with someone he hasn't already been paired up with. If anyone would be happy to play any game among the top n, saying so will make it a bit easier to pair everyone up for games they will be happy playing. If anyone ends up unhappy with his assignment of games, he can go read Green Eggs and Ham. If anyone has a better suggestion for how to acheive the same goals, I will be happy to hear it.
Will stalemating one's opponent at Glinski be worth 1, 3/4 or 1/2?
I wasn't aware of Glinski's rules concerning the points given for stalemate, but since those are part of the rules for that game, we should follow them.
Okay, I've done some additional thinking on how to pair people up. To maximize how many people get their full preferences met, it is important to pair people up for less popular games before pairing them up for more popular games. Also, if the tournament is played in multiple rounds, it will be okay to let people play the same game twice, so long as it is played for a second time in a subsequent round between two people who each won the game against other opponents in a prior round. This will help allow everyone to play only his preferred games. To better enable this option, it will also help to play the most widely preferred games during the first round. With these things in mind, here is how I propose handling this. First, make a list of how many times each game is included among someone's top n games. Next, make a table of which games are among the top n for each pair of players. Make an ordered list of all pairs of players, using the following criteria: Give precedence to the pair that prefers fewer games in common. When two pairs prefer an equal number of games in common, give precedence to the pair whose commonly preferred games includes the least popular game among both sets of commonly preferred games. In case of a tie, appeal to the second least popular game in either set, and so on. Go through the sorted list from the beginning, pairing each set of entrants together on the game that is least popular among all the entrants, for which neither entrant has already been paired up with someone else. In the event of a tie on this score, pair them up on the game most preferred by both. If there is no game most preferred by both, pair them up on the game most preferred by the entrant who has had fewer of his preferences met so far. If this process does not pair everyone up with everyone else, additional pairing may wait until the second round as long as each player has been paired up on enough games for the first round. On the next round, anyone who still needed to be paired up for some games could be paired up on games he and someone else each won in the first round. In some cases, two entrants who had been paired up for one game could be allowed to switch to a game both won in a previous round. This could free them up to play the game they had been paired up for against other opponents. In either case, this would help all players play only their preferred games. In the event that people still had to be paired up for the present round, the previous procedure could be repeated with everyone's top n+1 games. As needed, it could be repeated again with everyone's n+2 games and finally with everyone's n+3 games. At n+3, all games would be tied for overall popularity, and pairing would be based on overall preference between both players. In each case, someone would get to play one of his preferred games.
Before the tournament begins, I am going to see what I can do about creating presets that actually enforce the rules of each game. I have already done Alice Chess, which seemed to be one of the easiest to do first. I'll continue with others that seem easier to do.
Rule-enforcing presets are now made for Grand Chess and Cavalier Chess. I plan to work on Eurasian Chess and Chinese Chess next. These will require a new function for checking for attacks from hopping pieces.
I have begun to implement a significant change to Game Courier, which is going to be made use of in the tournament. In the past, every preset was fully stored in a log file, and all settings were stored in forms. I am now implementing the ability to create and use separate settings files. My three main reasons for this are (1) to use less storage space, (2) to generate less bandwidth, and (3) to be able to debug automation code without interrupting a game. These three reasons all became more important once I began writing long pieces of automation for enforcing rules. The long code would have been needlessly duplicated in multiple logs and needlessly included in hidden form fields on webpages. Also, I would have had to edit individual log files to debug automation code that isn't working right. This way, we can use presets that enforce rules without worrying about bugs. If anyone finds a bug during a game, I can just update the appropriate settings file without touching anyone's log file. I will start uploading presets with settings files this evening.
I second Michael Howe's comments. Excellent is for the tournament and Fergus' outstanding work and continuing improvements to the Game Courier. I tried the new time controls in a test game and they work very nicely, giving players a current time balance. The Game Courier has done for game play on the Chess Variants Pages what the Comments system did for discussion. Both are great additions to the game description archives. Its nice to see so much activity on the game log page! Yes, the tournament will be a little demanding, but very much worth it, and enjoyable. Sign up!
Four days remaining. SIGN UP!. Enjoy this Tournement with us!
hi there. i've just noticed this. i've yet to play any of the variants yet, but can i please sign up for the tournament anyhow? a good way to learn i think!
Carlos Carlos, I think you can sign now. It is still one day and half left for closing the entering phase of the Tournement.
Yes, you have until the end of Monday to enter. If you can't use Paypal, send a check to David Howe and notify me that you have done so, since the check wouldn't arrive by Monday.
I've spotted an inconsistency in the details for how the tournament will be run. I said that 10-12 will be played round robin, and I said that 12+ will use elimination rounds. So I've said contradictory things about what we'll do with 12 people. I have now removed the inconsistency by going with round robin for 12 people with three rounds of four, four, and three games. This would allow everyone to play 11 games. Anything above 12 will keep the maximum number of games at 11, while allowing all the strongest players to play each other, by using elimination rounds. If we go with elimination rounds, I am considering making only the second an elimination round, allowing everyone to play at least 8 games. If 13 or more sign up, then I will let everyone in the tournament vote on the matter, with any abstention counting as a vote for what I originally said I would do.
Of the 14 games that may be played in the tournament, I have now created presets that enforce the rules for 10 of them. I expect I should be able to do Pocket Mutation Chess, but the remaining 3 -- Ultima, Maxima, and Takeover Chess -- may be too difficult for me to do.
thanks, i sent you email fergus.
There are a few rules that aren't clear to me, and these should probably be nailed down before the tournament begins. 1) In Eurasian Chess, if a pawn on the ninth rank is immobile due to a dearth of captured pieces, can it still give check? 2) The rules of Chessgi seem to allow dropping a pawn on the first rank, but they do not state how it may move from there. I can think of six sensible rules: a pawn on the first rank could step forward one, up to two, or up to three squares, and in any of these cases a pawn moving from the first rank to the second could either retain or lose the right to step forward two squares on its next move. Regardless of which rule is correct, I assume that the en passant rule is applied in the logical way. 3) There is also the issue of the precedence of victory conditions in Maxima, currently being discussed on that game's page.
The rules for Chessgi and Eurasian Chess have been programmed into the new presets. So, even if you were unsure of the rules, you couldn't move illegally. Michael Howe gave you an accurate answer for Chessgi. In Eurasian Chess, the rule is that a Pawn may not check a King unless it can promote. I originally based the promotion rules in Eurasian Chess on those in Grand Chess, and in programming both games in the same timeframe, I came to notice some disparities between them that I hadn't paid attention to before. In particular, in Grand Chess, a Pawn may check the King even if it can't promote. I'm considering changing the rules of Eurasian Chess to more exactly match the promotion rules of Grand Chess, including allowing optional promotion on the eighth and ninth ranks, but I'll let this tournament be a trial run with the original promotion rules of Eurasian Chess. As for Maxima, Roberto Lavieri can answer your questions.
Maybe there should be some feedback regarding the reception of preferences, such as a star in front of the name of the contestants, just in case one e-mail got lost.
Fergus, I'm not sure if you received my email. My preference is simple: I'd like to play a game of Pocket Mutation, as I invented it. Apart from that, all are good games and I would be happy to be assigned however works out the best for the tournament.
So far, I have the preferences for myself, Mark Thompson, Antoine Fourrière, Carlos Carlos, Roberto Lavieri, Mike Nelson, and Gary Gifford. A few days ago, I emailed everyone I hadn't gotten preferences from, plus Mike Nelson as an oversight.
I'm really looking forward to this tournament. Fergus has done a wonderful job organizing it and putting the infrastructure in place.
As of right now, 7:30 PM EST, I now have preferences from Michael Howe, Mike Madsen, and Thomas McElmurry. These are in additions to those mentioned previously.
As of right now, 4:00 PM EST, I have preferences from everyone except Tony Quintanilla.
It is 4:16, and I now have everyone's preferences. I will now begin to work on pairing people up for games.
I'm still not finished debugging the software for assigning games. In the meantime, if you're one of the people scheduled to play Shogi or Kamikaze Mortal Shogi, please let me know whether you prefer a checkered board, a plain board, or a marble board. Whichever board you prefer, you will be able to select your preferred piece set after the game starts.
Fergus, I don´t know the preferences of my adversaries in Shogi and KMS, but I like the Checkered Board, but if anyone prefer the Marble Board it is fine for me. The uncheckered Board has a green background color that shocks a bit on my eyes (I have some troubles with my vision, so this is not merely a capricious preference)
You have the same preferences as I do, Roberto. I prefer the checkered board, because it is easiest for me to visualize Bishop moves on it, and for whatever reason, perhaps the plainness of the plain board, it is the hardest one for me to visualize moves on. I prefer the marble board to it, because that board gives the playing area some visible terrain that helps me better distinguish the spaces from each other.
The tournament has now begun. I have assigned all the games for round 1. You should find your games on the logs page. I will later change the logs page to give the option of viewing only the games in the tournament.
The Tournement is developing nicely, players are using the time adds and gaining extra time, and many games are now in advanced stages. As I expected, some Grand-Chess games are in complex positions, and due the power of pieces, board size and central position of the King, material advantages are good, but not decisive. We have had two decisions at the present, both on Chinese Chess games, with victories of Antoine Fourriere and Michael Madsen, very strong players that must be deciding any of the top four positions at the end of the Tournement, in my opinion. Ultima games are being well played to the present, this is a notorious fact because this is the first experience for some players. Shogi and KMS are in intermedium stages, without great things to say yet. Glisky games are more or less pacific to the present, and many games are played in a conservative way. Good luck to everybody!
I would like to remind people about using the resign command when resigning from a game. To resign from a game, type 'resign' as your move. Don't just update the status field. When you enter 'resign' as your move, it will automatically update the status field for you, and it will make sure that there is a move that separates your comments from your opponent's last move.
I have not doubts, the popular classics are between the best playable and nice games, and its selection was a good fact. Grand-Chess, Shogi, Xiang-Qi, Ultima and Glinsky pass the proof without great effort, they are excellent!. We have to see the other games in scene... (including the modest contributions of some of us, many of them excellent too, in my biased opinion)
fergus, the info on how to resign should be added to the 'user's guide' page.
fergus, i sent you an email a while ago saying that i didn't jot down the payment details before you removed them from the site. did you get my email?
I remember getting an email of that nature, and I forwarded it to David Howe to answer. I no longer have any record of the address, but David should, because it is his address.
fergus, i dunno what your thoughts are, but i certainly don't mind if you stop the clock for mark thompson in our game.
The clocks will not be stopped for anyone under any circumstances. They were not designed to be stopped, and stopping them would defeat the purpose of using them. If I were to stop clocks, we may as well not use clocks at all and just play untimed games. The purpose behind timing games in the tournament is to keep the tournament as a whole from dragging on too long. This affects everyone in the tournament, not just those who can't play for a while and their opponents. Besides this, I designed the time controls to allow for the very sort of thing that has come up with Mark Thompson. He has already accumulated a good amount of reserve time in his remaining two games, and the very purpose of giving reserve time is to give a player the freedom to stop playing when emergency situations like this arise.
The first round is now down to two unfinished games. So odds are good that the second round will be starting sometime this month. I plan to focus this second round on the variants that are most likely to take longest to play. These would be the large variants plus Chessgi, because its drops may extend the duration of the game. By grouping these games together in the second round, it should help the third round go more quickly.
Fergus, I doubt the second round is going to begin at the end of this month, The game of Kamikaze Mortal Shogi that are playing Michael Howe and Ben Good may last many moves more, probably, and it is possible it is not going to finish as soon as you think.
If Ben and the two players of the other ongoing game agree, then I will start the second round before the first round ends.
Well, Ben would rather wait till the first round ends. I think Ben and Michael are playing an interesting game of Kamikaze Mortal Shogi, and in my opinion both are good players, so, very probably, this game is not going to be finished soon!. It means that the second round must wait...
Michael Howe has quit the tournament. The most straightforward way of proceeding would be to declare him the loser in all his remaining games without anyone actually playing any of them. It seems that this option may give an unfair advantage to anyone who hasn't played him yet, though, since he has won only one game, this would materially affect the score of only one player. A second option would be to not count any of his games toward scoring. This would put everyone on a level playing field against each other. It would also set a precedent of doing the same for anyone else who quits. It may seem innocuous right now, given that doing it right now would make a material difference for only one player, but if someone else quit after playing more games, it might not seem like such a fair thing to do. I think that some of the unfairness in the first option may be mitigated by the following consideration. It gives people who haven't yet played against Michael Howe the option of playing the game they were scheduled to play with him against someone else who has already won the game in this tournament. Although someone who has beaten him at a game will have to play and win one more game to score just as well as someone who hasn't played against him, someone who has beaten him has better odds of being the better player for the particular game he has beaten him at. Whichever option we go with, there is also the possibility of reassigning some games before we continue. This may be desirable for those who were assigned to play Michael Howe for one of their top choices. If you haven't played Michael Howe yet, and you're interested in a reassignment of your remaining games, please contact me with the change you would like made.
I would be the only person Michael Howe has beaten, and so I think that means I'm the only person who would theoretically be disadvantaged by Fergus's first alternative. So let me remark, for the sake of making the decision easier, that I have no objection to Fergus's first alternative. I'm trying to win my games, of course, or at least to draw, but I'm in the tournament for fun.
Fergus, I'm confused by the third paragraph of your latest comment. Are you proposing a third alternative or merely suggesting some games that could be played outside the tournament?
The third paragraph in my last comment describes an application of the provision I included in the first paragraph under 'Pairings', which reads 'If any two players both win the same game against other opponents, and they have not played each other yet, they may choose to play that game together instead of what they were previously scheduled to play.' Since I have decided to go with the first option, anyone who has not yet played against Michael Howe is considered to have won his game against him without playing it.
I have just finished assigning all the games for the second round of the tournament. Because some people are playing only three games this round, not everyone is moving first exactly twice and second exactly twice. Here is how I determined who would go first in each game. First, I arranged it so that whoever had won fewer games would go first. I then applied the following rule: No one could move first in more than two games, and no one could move second in more than two games. This involved switching the order of some opponents in a way that worked out consistently for everyone. As much as possible, any discrepencies will be made up in the last round, so that each player moves first and second in an equal number of games. I got preferences for Kamikaze Mortal Shogi graphics from one player for each scheduled game. My opponent shared my own preferences, but for the other three games, only one player apiece gave preferences. So those are the ones I went with. All games but Maxima are being played with presets that enforce the rules. It is fitting that Antoine is playing the only game of Takeover Chess in this round, since he wrote the code for enforcing the rules of this game. If there are any bugs in the Takeover Chess preset, it will normally be his responsibility to fix them, not mine. But it would be best to contact both of us about any bugs in that preset, since a given bug might be in Game Courier's code instead of in Antoine's.
The second round is almost finished. Only one game remains, and either player could call a draw by invoking the 3-times repetition rule, since the same positions have repeated at least 3 times and are continuing to repeat. So expect the third round to start soon.
Unfortunately, you can call a draw at PMC only after 50 moves without capture or promotion, so maybe one or both players are simply taking time to think. Still, a general rule that third repetition is a draw unless the game rules specify it to be a loss or a win might be welcome for GCT #2. Anyway, I'm all for starting Round 3.
This is a misinterpretation of Rule 8 of PMC. Triple repetition is a draw, just as in FIDE Chess--per rule Zero, all FIDE rules apply except as contardicetd by the given rules. PMC has a differnt 50-move rule because the essence of the 50 move rule is irretractable change--and a pawn move in not unretractable in PMC. Triple repetition is the same as in FIDE, therefor it isn't stated explictily in the PMC rules. The game in question is indeed a draw if the player to move chooses to claim it.
Antoine, the rules for PMC begin by saying 'All FIDE Chess rules apply except as follows:'. None of the rules of PMC state any exception to the 3-times repetition rule of Chess. Only one rule of PMC states any exception to any drawing condition of FIDE Chess. It says, 'The game is drawn if fifty consecutive moves have elapsed without a capture or a promotion.' This is just a modification to the 50-moves rule of FIDE Chess to account for promotions. It does not state that these are the only drawing conditions for the game. The 'if' in the rule is just an 'if', not an 'only if'. This rule can be accurately reworded as 'If fifty consecutive moves have elapsed without a capture or a promotion, then the game is drawn.' Therefore, the 3-times repetition rule of FIDE Chess is one of the rules of PMC, and either of you has the right to declare your game a draw.
I think Fergus and Michael are right, and the discussion on PMC rules is also important in the context of the First Game Courier Tournament, obviously. If the current game object of the discussion is an Antoine´s victory, the method used for ties can permiss Antoine be the winner inclusive if he loses one game in the last round and wins in the rest. With a draw, the first place championship is still disputed, and theoretically Fergus, Antoine, Gary and me have still chances, although in my opinion, the Alice game of the next round is going to be the decisive for the first place, I have to play two of three games in the next round that are not comfortable for me (I´m a bad player in both, I think), and I can lose both, and in Maxima, the third, well, I´m experienced, but Gary is a very good player, so all can happen, and I can not bet one penny for me for the first place in the Tournament. This is perhaps one of the reasons of Fergus insistance on the rules, isn´t it?.
In the last two rounds, the privilege of moving first was given evenly, so that you would have it as many times as you didn't have it. Since there are a total of 11 games to play for those of us who played Michael Howe, we can't all play equally as many games as the first player as the second. So, in the last round, here is how who moves first will be decided: 1) The player with the lower total score so far will move first. 2) When players have equal scores, whoever has moved first in fewer games will move first. For these purposes, any game automatically won against Michael Howe without actually playing against him will count as a game in which you moved first. 3) If there is still a tie, the other tiebreaking methods will be used in the same order they would be for deciding the winner. Whoever loses the tiebreak would go first. [No ties were left unresolved by the prior rule.] 4) Exceptions will be made to make sure that no one moves first in fewer than five games and in more than seven. An average of five to six would have been enforced, but counting any unplayed game against Michael Howe as a game in which you moved first raises the total number of games in which each remaining person in the contest moved first. With these conditions in mind, here is who will play whom in each game, with the first player listed first: Alice Chess Fergus Duniho vs. Antoine Fourriere Tony Quintanilla vs. Michael Madsen Mark Thompson vs. Thomas McElmurry Anti-King Chess II Carlos Carlos vs. Fergus Duniho Roberto Lavieri vs. Antoine Fourriere Mark Thompson vs. Ben Good Michael Madsen vs. Mike Nelson [exception] Cavalier Chess Carlos Carlos vs. Roberto Lavieri Ben Good vs. Fergus Duniho Mike Nelson vs. Gary Gifford Tony Quintanilla vs. Mark Thompson [exception] Maxima Gary Gifford vs. Roberto Lavieri Ben Good vs. Thomas McElmurry Takeover Chess Thomas McElmurry vs. Carlos Carlos [exception] Michael Madsen vs. Gary Gifford Mike Nelson vs. Tony Quintanilla I think this was the fairest way to decide who goes first in each game, but if Antoine thinks it will be fairer for him to move first in our game of Alice Chess, given that he would be moving first in fewer actual games than anyone else, I'm willing to allow it. This is not because I doubt the fairness of this method, but only because it might appear unfair, and if I defeat Antoine and win the tournament, I don't want anyone to think I did it by manipulating the tournament.
I think the real issue is to alert the players to the fact that a drawn game has in fact been achieved so the game can be concluded and the final round started. It is evident that both players were suffering from the same misperception of the PMC draw rules. Carlos had earlier posted an inquiry to the PM page about a perpetual check draw. I answered him that the rule was the same as in FIDE--perpetual check is not a draw per se, but always leads to triple repetion or the fifty-move rule (virtaully always the former). It is self evident that Carlos intended to achieve a draw--Antoine has a won game absent the perpetual check--therefor he must have been unaware that he has done so.
Mike Nelson has it right. I don't understand what reason Roberto suggested I had in mind for alerting Antoine and Carlos about their 3-times repetition and the applicable rule.
Fergus, I have said that it was, perhaps, an additional reason for alerting a drawn condition in the PMC game, but I´m not cathegorical on this, it was only a bad thought expressed with some class of humour, if you can consider it as some class of humour. Going to the facts, the current game is a draw according to the rules, but if it does not apply for any reason, Antoine´s position is clearly better. With a draw in this game, it is possible, at least in my opinion, that the first place in the Tournament can be decided in the Alice game of the next round, but this is not a certain fact, there are more games to play, and all can still happen. In every case, good luck to everybody, this Tournament is great regardless the results, and I only expect to see very interesting and enjoyable games in the last round. Nice!
Oops! I was indeed unaware of that rule. But I'm going to claim a draw myself at next move if Carlos repeats the position, since my only voluntary retreat from perpetual check would be a loss. (Or would that be unethical from me now? Please, don't comment on the position itself.) I do not mind playing as Black in my two remaining games, especially considering the fact that Michael Howe's withdrawal has spared me the obligation to play a game I do not like (Cavalier Chess - sorry, Fergus) against a good player.
Yes, considering that Michael Howe was the first-place winner of the previous multivariant tournament, I gather that he was a formidable opponent and that not playing against him was an appreciable advantage for many people. It was to counteract some of the effects of this advantage that I decided to count any automatically won unplayed game against him as one in which you moved first.
100 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.