http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1974055

I sometimes watch games between good players. I sometimes read their chat. This game's chat is rather interesting for how wrong the assumptions are.

MathWolf: I know you are holding out on a loss and honnestly I really don't mind. I rather have you at number 1 than Gui.

AceWindu: I suppose I am holding out on a loss but tbh I can't remember the last time I left the site with no turns to take, so that also impacts on how long it takes me to get around to this game. Also speaking of Gui, his ladder antics are almost as bad as Doushi's were back in the day. He manipulates the system so that he only plays against 1900+ players. He also takes 2+days per turn. One more thing, I actually rejoined the ladder to knock Gui off the top spot :)

MathWolf: Yeah, I know about Gui. Glad to hear that was why you rejoined the ladder. I almost would give you the win if I didn't want to improve my own ranking. Also, if Gui really wants to bet 10000 dollars, we'd have them, because I do know a fair way (with some help of Fizzer) to effectively keep you on top of the ladder.

a qué se refiere con lo de los 10000 dolares? hay un premio en las escaleras? a qué se refiere que con un poco de ayuda de fizzer?

haha
exposed!

looks like it paid off for you watching intresting 1on1 games

@trombolians un premio de 10000 dolares? jaja que chiste :) no gui ha apostado 10000 dolares que el sigue siendo el numero uno de la escalera una semana
a qué se refiere que con un poco de ayuda de fizzer? <-- yo tambien quiero saber ;)

I seem to recall Ace taking 2+ days on every move when we last played a 1v1 :) Good thing I like the guy. Ironically I ended up getting booted in that game!

What I found interesting were the assumptions.

*Assumption #1: Gui's intent is to postpone his games to avoid losing and remain #1.*
Truth: I dislike 1v1s in general and prefer to play them in real-time, if at all. I don't want to be in the 1v1 ladder at all. But since I have the highest rating, I feel obligated to play the minimum. And I was playing games I was winning slowly.

*Assumption #2: Gui is cheating the system like Doushibag did.*
Truth: Doushibag deliberately postponed surrendering and played games either fast or slow depending on whether he was winning or losing. If I have more than 5 multi-day 1v1s going (I've had 5-11 the last month), I play all my 1v1 games slowly, unless I get the guy in real-time or if I like the map/settings (the ladder map/settings bore me when played in the multi-day format).

*Assumption #3: Ace can play slowly and postpone his losses (which he admits to), but Gui can't play slowly and postpone his wins.*
Truth: It seems that most players get the #1 syndrome: "I must remain #1 at all cost." Check zaeban's losses when he was #1: he postponed surrendering to avoid yielding the top spot to unknownsoldier. I'm very healthy. My only problem: I don't really want to play multi-day 1v1s at all.

*Assumption #4: Gui deeply cares about the 1v1 ladder.*
Truth: I don't. My only goal was to get to #1 and then hover in the top 5 or 10 for a bit and eventually quit the 1v1 ladder altogether. Pogo.com's 5-player Risk (the traditional game, not a Warlight version) and 3v3 Europe are, in my view, the most strategically challenging games of 'risk'. I was the top Risk player at pogo.com before coming to Warlight. I played about 2000 games, winning about 65%. That means something to me. The best 3v3 Europe players know how I play. That means something to me. If Fizzer made a traditional Risk game (copyright protection doesn't allow him to) with 5 players, no cards, all traditional Risk rules and I became #1, I'd care. If Fizzer made a 3v3 ladder, I'd expect my team to be #1 as long as we want. It would matter to me. The 1v1 ladder is more like chess (static, fixed, pattern-based) with occasional coin flips (cards, who gets first move, etc.) and an odd short-term rating system. Being #1 on the 1v1 ladder was just a minor goal. I don't take it as seriously as others might.

*Assumption #5: Gui is making a $10,000 bet because he is full of himself.*
Truth: Someone on the sycophantic thread congratulating Ace questioned the duration of his 'reign'. I was also curious so I checked his games and my games. Ace was ahead of me by 20 or so; Ace had 2 wins expiring in nine days worth -20 to -50 points; I had a loss expiring (worth +50 to +80 points) in nine days; I was winning my games (worth +20 to +40 more); Ace was losing 1-2 of his games. Based on reality, when our games expired in nine days, there was absolutely no way Ace could lose 40 points and still remain #1 while I gained 70-120 points. It was a certainty that Ace would not be #1. The bet was a figure of speech.

I find this forum interesting

*audible gasp* How scandalous! It really is like a television drama... Except the Kings of the ladder need sexy queens and more affairs.

*Assumption #6: Gui cheats the system by playing opponents rated 1900+.*
Truth: If I'm going to play a 1v1 game whose settings, map and format (multi-day) I don't much care for, I'd like to at least make it interesting, meaningful and competitive by playing the best player possible each game. I tried to get two games and got them: with [Yangshuo] V and zaeban. I'm not sure how that extra win over V is cheating the system. I wanted the zaeban game because when he was #1 and I was #3, we agreed to 'cheat the system' by playing each other (for competitive purposes to make our games interesting). It didn't work out and he later quit the ladder. He's back. I respect him. Our games our interesting. I want to play him.

Should I instead try to play the worst player possible and run up my wins by playing as many such players as I can get, and beat them all in real-time, if possible, since the relativity of time is such an important matter for the highly dramatic 1v1 ladder?

Ace and Math remind me of old women sitting around the living room watching CNN and making biased, subjective or exaggerated conclusions about the financial or political news they don't much understand. Or, to better suit my current environment: they are like middle-aged upper-middle class Taiwanese women drinking 'afternoon tea' and gossiping with great certainty about a bunch of meaningless topics (housing prices, clothing, trips abroad) while their husbands are at work to support them.

(Now I'll never make onto the mighty Mathwolf's 'List of Great 1v1 Players on My Profile Page Whom I Have Beaten, Thus Proving How Mighty I May or May Not Be', the most definitive list of great players...)

I think Gui might be a wee bit upset =P

Not really. I just dislike emotionally charged opinions masquerading as facts.

QQ

Private Messages: Allowed

You would think that they would have realized that people can see the Public Chat by now.

|> I do know a fair way (with some help of Fizzer)

Maybe I'm crazy, but doesn't needing a bit of help from Fizzer pretty much automatically mean it's an *un*fair way...?

@myhand bueno, esperemos que no pierda su dinero, solo pienso que algunos se toman esta página y pasatiempo de una manera muy intensa. No pierdan el criterio, es sólo un juego, un juego muy bueno, pero un juego al fin.

la apuesta no es en serio, trom; es una broma. me gusta jugar con mis palabras tambien.

If the implication is if Gui had recent lost games he postponed them, then the implication is true from a logical point of view :)

if i ever get a membership i would not join 1v1 ladder because my 1v1 sucks 2v2 better and 3v3

|>"Assumption #4: Gui deeply cares about the 1v1 ladder.
Truth: I don't."

Clearly.

"But since I have the highest rating, I feel obligated to play the minimum."
That's not true, you have said that you feel you must be present in the top level of the 1v1 ladder to gain some measure of respect. That is why you stay on the ladder when you readily admit that you don't enjoy it.

I agree that me pointing out that you are taking a long time on your games was hypocritical, however, I did offer some explanation as to why I don't play quicker.

Assumption #4: Gui deeply cares about the 1v1 ladder.
I think you care about how people percieve you. (see above)

"Assumption #5: Gui is making a $10,000 bet because he is full of himself."
I never made that assumption - now you are being presumptuous. I had a look at both our ladder games and saw that I had wins expiring and you had a loss expiring. I new that you would be on top and obviously you weren't going to bet $10,000.

Assumption #6: Gui cheats the system by playing opponents rated 1900+.
Yes that is my assumption and it still is. If you only play the best, your rating will be higher. You forego the risk of an upset from 1700/1800 players which is always a possibility. Even if you do it only to gain more interesting games, that does not absolve you of the fact that you're gaming the system.

Please continue giving us more of your very entertaining analogies.

Also, I don't see any real drama. This was entirely about you and you felt the need to post it as 1v1 ladder drama. Kinda smacks of egocentrism.