There has been a lot of discussion about possible features related to tournaments and ladders - things like a handicap ladder, scheduled live games, Lichess-style “arenas”, or simply being able to un-disqualify participants. Of course you can keep track of whatever rules you want by yourself, so really all you need to set up a custom tournament is a way to set up games for the participants. Some groups do it by collecting passwords, others just tell the participants to set up their own games. I have another idea about how to create the games.
My idea is that you create an invite-only rengo game, send the link to two players, assign black and white, then start the game yourself at the appropriate time:
It would technically be a rengo game, but with only two players it should work pretty much like a normal game, right? And since it’s created in the custom game window, you have full power to choose rules, handicap, komi*, assign white/black, pick weird board sizes, etc.
Of course managing all those invitations would be a lot of work for the director, but eventually it could be automated using the API.
What do you think? Who wants to try some wacky tournaments/ladders organized this way?
* Looks like rengo komi settings are hidden? I guess you have to just be careful to get them right.
Of course those of us in the 12x12 etc tournaments are already okay with having some unranked games. And when we did Lagrange points I think Samraku ran his own rating system on the side.
I don’t know how much Opengotha gives you. For example I think it’s still limited to the idea of distinct rounds, which wouldn’t work for a ladder or arena style setup.
Maybe start by checking why there are so many no-shows in the ASTs. Is the thing requiring players to join the lobby broken?
Then, a way (or ways) to help set up custom challenges between other people!
This seems easy, and from what I’ve seen it could be useful for lots of groups that organize offline but play the matches on OGS. If you include a startPaused option, that might be just enough for them to set up a game ahead of time and start playing on some schedule.
It would be great to support some radically different tournament styles, and I think there’s an easy way to get it: separate out the organization of the tournament from the rest of the site. Let anyone code their own style, starting matches via an API, with only a bare minimum on the back end to support a registration system and a results page. Then we could have arenas, ladders with live matches, etc, without being tied to a particular buggy implementation that nobody understands.
Since I joined OGS in 2019 I haven’t seen that message (You must be in the lobby when the tournament starts) in AST’s. Was there once a message like that in AST’s?
In other tournaments sometimes that message appears, but not always.
This raises a big wall for organising tournaments. Not everyone can do that.
OGS can still implement a number of defined tournament types for anyone to use, but these would be part of the open source code, and others could make their own types too.
We are in beta with the NAGF (AGA + CGA) with a feature called Custom OGS Online Leagues.
There’s an API where you can register members of your “league”, then create matches for the players to join. You get links to give to each player to join their match. You can get (or be pinged with) results when the games are played. The players get a glicko rating for games played in that league (NAGF called their league North American Online League, NAOL).
There’s one thing you mentioned at the end of your sentence: results.
If “you” code your rules, how do “I” display the results?
(NAGF have their own front-end that displays their results: Leago).
I can conceive of some kind of callback where we hit you for your “implementation of the tourney rules” while handling everything else. Then you can chuck game logic in AWS or on your own server and see what happens.
This would do reverse komi. Forked game might be pushing the boundaries of “generic interface”
I am stuck with that idea on “how to display the results” though.
Pushing the boundaries is the goal, right?? But in seriousness, I actually thought forked games would be one of the simpler ideas to implement. Tournament creation API already closely resembles the challenge API, so I think one would just need to copy over an initial_state field in the same way that we do with time_control_parameters and rules.
Forking games is easy, but setting up an API for custom tournament rules (via an API that we call for rule implementation) that includes “would you like to fork the game” is a stretch
I get it that it can be framed as “set initial state”, but that seems really like a corner case for tournies?
OTOH I suppose “if it’s easy why not” might apply.
Yeah I’m not going to argue that Sunjang Baduk is necessary for a successful tournament system, just saying that we could probably design this thing in such a way that one can specify all (or at least more) parameters of the challenge API in a tournament. Some other parameters which are also unnecessarily restricted:
There are not that many format for results but they seems all necessary.
One is the complete list of players with their results (round x, win/loss against who(and rating))
Can be added clubs, type of win, and all the criteria which may be used to distinguish same win scores (!sos sdos etc…)
The TD may chose how to order the list (alphabetical, clubs , rating, place attained in the
tournament )
Then you have the league table and the tree.
A TD should be able to mix different stages, league followed by tree for example. Not forgetting the small subtree for 3d place.
On the global list of players he should be able to chose the ordering and which columns to display or not.
:
