I've created this thread so that RoRoRo can post predictions to it. Good luck all.

Tournament: loa.ch.9.1.1

Num Players: 11

Games completed: 31/55

Game Value: 2

NPlayerRating1234567891011ScoreSonp(win)p(draw)1Carroll(2236)-20222_2__2126462.15%5.85%2maraca(2038)0-2_22_2__210486.61%4.87%3imperatore(2075)20-_22____284820.84%4.88%4Kevin Gong(2042)0__-22____26243.25%0.63%5Orbilin(1831)0000-202__2620006Pere Toledano(1880)00000-202_2616007Mojmir Hanes(1863)____20-_2_26160.40%0.03%8pim(1747)00__02_-__2412009groeneveld(1781)_____00_-_2200010Adam Dzedzej(1882)_________-2200.66%0.09%11Matteo A.(1751)0000000000-0000

Thanks a lot FatPhil!

How is Groeneveld who has only lost 2 games has so low a probability?

And what about Adam Dzedzej who has not lost one?

It probably has something to do with the fact that the probability that groeneveld wins a game against you is 7%.

It's far from clear to me how much influence RoRoRo's Monte Carlo outcome has on the p.

@Carroll: “How is Groeneveld who has only lost 2 games has so low a probability?”

Phil has taken, for some reason, to posting his little scripts in lots of forums without explaining exactly what he's doing or how he's doing it, which caused me some confusion recently and is causing you some confusion now. He's predicting the outcome of games, not by looking at the games, but by guessing who will win, using probabilities derived from the current ratings of the players (and then running thousands of simulations). So groeneveld is low because his rating is one of the lowest in the tournament.

Phil: why not, in your initial post to each forum, give a link to some main forum topic where you explain what RoRoRo is actually doing?

I'm just doing what those who did it before me did. It didn't cause me any confusion when they did it. Anyone who would consider everyone, with ratings ranging from >2200 to <1750 say, to have an equal probability of winning a tournament before any games have been played quite simply hasn't thought about things enough. That's their problem. If it's obvious in retrospect, it was obvious from the start.

And I've not “taken” to doing anything, I've been requested to do it. That's why they appear at different times in different fora, they only go up when requested.

And they're not 'scripts', they're just tables.

Yes I ordered it thinking I knew about Monte Carlo method, but did not think you would also take rating into account… As you said “if obvious now, it was obvious from the start” :p)

Thanks again and your franc-parler is part of your charm!

Oh - RoRoRo follows more tournaments than the few he posts to the fora. His full list (which are basically CH1's, and other ones the he or I are involved in) can be seen here (that URL may move, in time).

I've just hacked a new feature (listing recent changes) which might need some debugging, so if things look broken for a few days, you know why.

When I started the thread in the Twixt forum, I began with a brief explanation and disclaimer. That's why there weren't many questions. If RoRoRo doesn't post a little explanation/disclaimer/FAQ at the top of each of these threads, you'll get the same questions over and over.

To be honest, I never read your explanation - I looked at the tables and it was immediately clear what was going on!

Don't upset FatPhil or he'll stop updating the Tournaments Predictions ;-)

Could Rororo do it daily or something? (and I don't mind him posting here).

@Phil: of course it's clear what's *basically* going on, but I don't think it's unreasonable for a random person to won whether predictions of unfinished games are being made on (a) 50-50 chance (b) some prediction based on a naive game analysis (c) some prediction based on initial ratings when the tourney started or (d) some prediction based on current ratings of the players in question. Indeed these are exactly the questions I asked you, and you answered them. It's (d). I guess Alan is suggesting that more people might just keep asking the same questions because they didn't see the thread where I asked.

s/won/wonder

His algorithm for updating is:

If (he's just finished a game (any game)) and (it's more than 1 hour since he last checked the tournaments he's following) then update any tournaments that need updating.

The same logic applies, with different minimum times, to playing empathy (12 hours), signing up for tournaments (1 hour), and checking the waiting room (3 hours).

When he's not playing many games, he can sometimes go many many hours without finishing a game. Usually he'll complete one every hour or so.

Tournament: loa.ch.9.1.1

Num Players: 11

Games completed: 32/55

NPlayerRating1234567891011ScoreSonp(win)p(draw)1Carroll(2238)-20222_22_2146864.14%5.89%2maraca(2038)0-2_22_2__210485.31%5.05%3imperatore(2075)20-_22____285220.90%5.06%4Kevin Gong(2042)0__-22____26242.41%0.49%5Orbilin(1831)0000-202__2620006Pere Toledano(1880)00000-202_2616007Mojmir Hanes(1863)____20-_2_26160.53%0.04%8pim(1747)00__02_-__2412009groeneveld(1779)0____00_-_2200010Adam Dzedzej(1882)_________-2200.59%0.12%11Matteo A.(1778)0000000000-0000

This time I don't see myself too high. I didn't lose any game already because I play very slowly and that's not because I can think on the games. I just have very little time these days. I could put much more effort during ch8 and on some analysis afterwards, but since September the free time has went away :-(

It's very nice to have a topic like this. At least something is happening on the LOA forum.

Regards,

Adam

Newly completed matches:

• Carroll 2 - 0 Adam Dzedzej

Tournament: loa.ch.9.1.1

Num Players: 11

Games completed: 35/55

NPlayerRating1234567891011ScoreSonp(win)p(draw)1Carroll(2241)-20_2222222167671.40%4.70%2maraca(2038)0-2__22_2_210482.63%4.32%3imperatore(2075)20-__22___285618.74%4.43%4Mojmir Hanes(1880)___-_202_228241.20%0.04%5Kevin Gong(2042)0___-22___26241.18%0.28%6Orbilin(1831)00000-2_2_2620007Pere Toledano(1842)000200-0022620008Adam Dzedzej(1880)0__0__2-__241200.01%9pim(1747)00___02_-_24120010groeneveld(1779)0__0__0__-2200011Matteo A.(1750)0000000000-0000

Newly completed matches:

• Orbilin 0 - 2 Adam Dzedzej

Tournament: loa.ch.9.1.1

Num Players: 11

Games completed: 36/55

NPlayerRating1234567891011ScoreSonp(win)p(draw)1Carroll(2241)-20_2222222168071.19%5.08%2maraca(2038)0-2___222_210482.47%4.53%3imperatore(2075)20-___22__285619.04%4.59%4Mojmir Hanes(1880)___-2_20_228280.92%0.03%5Adam Dzedzej(1893)0__0-_22__262400.04%6Kevin Gong(2042)0____-22__26241.21%0.33%7Orbilin(1818)000000-22_2620008Pere Toledano(1818)0002000-022620009pim(1747)00____02-_24120010groeneveld(1779)0__0___0_-2200011Matteo A.(1708)0000000000-0000

Newly completed matches:

• Mojmir Hanes 0 - 2 imperatore

Tournament: loa.ch.9.1.1

Num Players: 11

Games completed: 37/55

NPlayerRating1234567891011ScoreSonp(win)p(draw)1Carroll(2241)-02_2222222168062.43%6.73%2imperatore(2082)2-02__22__2107226.50%6.34%3maraca(2038)02-___222_210522.78%6.22%4Mojmir Hanes(1873)_0_-2_20_228280.26%0.03%5Adam Dzedzej(1898)0__0-_22__262400.04%6Kevin Gong(2042)0____-22__26241.19%0.29%7Orbilin(1818)000000-22_2620008Pere Toledano(1818)0002000-022620009pim(1747)0_0___02-_24120010groeneveld(1779)0__0___0_-2200011Matteo A.(1708)0000000000-0000

Newly completed matches:

• Adam Dzedzej 2 - 0 pim

Tournament: loa.ch.9.1.1

Num Players: 11

Games completed: 38/55

NPlayerRating1234567891011ScoreSonp(win)p(draw)1Carroll(2241)-02_2222222168464.33%6.36%2imperatore(2082)2-02__22__2107225.19%6.00%3maraca(2038)02-___222_210522.43%5.90%4Mojmir Hanes(1873)_0_-2_20_228320.36%05Adam Dzedzej(1909)0__0-_222_283200.09%6Kevin Gong(2042)0____-22__26241.22%0.26%7Orbilin(1818)000000-22_2620008Pere Toledano(1798)0002000-022620009pim(1738)0_0_0_02-_24120010groeneveld(1779)0__0___0_-2200011Matteo A.(1728)0000000000-0000

Newly completed matches:

• Mojmir Hanes 0 - 2 Kevin Gong

Tournament: loa.ch.9.1.1

Num Players: 11

Games completed: 39/55

NPlayerRating1234567891011ScoreSonp(win)p(draw)1Carroll(2241)-0222_22222168864.94%6.36%2imperatore(2082)2-0__222__2107224.85%5.83%3maraca(2038)02-___222_210522.27%5.74%4Kevin Gong(2050)0__-_222__28401.55%0.23%5Adam Dzedzej(1909)0___-0222_283200.06%6Mojmir Hanes(1865)_0_02-20_22832007Orbilin(1818)000000-22_2620008Pere Toledano(1798)0000020-022620009pim(1738)0_0_0_02-_24120010groeneveld(1779)0____0_0_-2200011Matteo A.(1728)0000000000-0000

Newly completed matches:

• groeneveld 2 - 0 pim

Tournament: loa.ch.9.1.1

Num Players: 11

Games completed: 40/55

NPlayerRating1234567891011ScoreSonp(win)p(draw)1Carroll(2241)-022_222222169265.02%6.09%2imperatore(2082)2-0_2_22__2107225.10%5.56%3maraca(2038)02-___222_210522.10%5.48%4Kevin Gong(2050)0__-2_22__28401.66%0.32%5Mojmir Hanes(1865)_0_0-202_22836006Adam Dzedzej(1909)0___0-222_283200.07%7Pere Toledano(1798)000020-0022624008Orbilin(1818)0000002-2_2620009pim(1724)0_0__020-024120010groeneveld(1793)0___0_0_2-2480011Matteo A.(1728)0000000000-0000

Newly completed matches:

• imperatore 0 - 2 Adam Dzedzej

Tournament: loa.ch.9.1.1

Num Players: 11

Games completed: 41/55

NPlayerRating1234567891011ScoreSonp(win)p(draw)1Carroll(2241)-022_222222169693.64%1.59%2imperatore(2059)2-002_22__210721.19%0.89%3maraca(2038)02-___222_210522.12%0.39%4Adam Dzedzej(1939)02_-0_222_2105200.36%5Mojmir Hanes(1865)_0_2-002_22840006Kevin Gong(2050)0___2-22__28401.46%0.14%7Pere Toledano(1798)000020-0022624008Orbilin(1818)0000002-2_2620009pim(1724)0_00__20-024120010groeneveld(1793)0___0_0_2-2480011Matteo A.(1728)0000000000-0000

Newly completed matches:

• Kevin Gong 2 - 0 groeneveld

Tournament: loa.ch.9.1.1

Num Players: 11

Games completed: 42/55

NPlayerRating1234567891011ScoreSonp(win)p(draw)1Carroll(2241)-0222_222221610093.55%1.40%2imperatore(2059)2-00_222__210721.18%1.01%3maraca(2038)02-___222_210522.18%0.30%4Adam Dzedzej(1914)02_-_0222_2105200.22%5Kevin Gong(2055)0___-222_2210481.69%0.08%6Mojmir Hanes(1865)_0_20-02_22840007Pere Toledano(1798)000002-0022624008Orbilin(1818)0000002-2_2620009pim(1724)0_00__20-024120010groeneveld(1788)0___000_2-2480011Matteo A.(1728)0000000000-0000

Newly completed matches:

• groeneveld 0 - 2 Adam Dzedzej

Tournament: loa.ch.9.1.1

Num Players: 11

Games completed: 43/55

NPlayerRating1234567891011ScoreSonp(win)p(draw)1Carroll(2241)-2022_222221610493.56%1.48%2Adam Dzedzej(1924)0-2__022222126000.45%3imperatore(2059)20-0_222__210720.74%0.98%4maraca(2038)0_2-__222_210522.36%0.24%5Kevin Gong(2055)0___-222_2210481.86%0.04%6Mojmir Hanes(1865)_20_0-02_22844007Pere Toledano(1798)000002-0022624008Orbilin(1818)0000002-2_2620009pim(1724)00_0__20-024120010groeneveld(1778)00__000_2-2480011Matteo A.(1728)0000000000-0000

Newly completed matches:

• Kevin Gong 2 - 0 Adam Dzedzej

Tournament: loa.ch.9.1.1

Num Players: 11

Games completed: 44/55

NPlayerRating1234567891011ScoreSonp(win)p(draw)1Carroll(2241)-2202_222221610892.47%1.37%2Kevin Gong(2064)0-2__222_2212722.78%0.19%3Adam Dzedzej(1895)00-2_0222221260004imperatore(2059)2_0-0222__210721.10%1.14%5maraca(2038)0__2-_222_210522.28%0.10%6Mojmir Hanes(1865)_020_-02_22844007Pere Toledano(1808)000002-0022624008Orbilin(1818)0000002-2_2620009pim(1724)0_0_0_20-024120010groeneveld(1778)000__00_2-2480011Matteo A.(1755)0000000000-0000

Newly completed matches:

• groeneveld 0 - 2 maraca

Tournament: loa.ch.9.1.1

Num Players: 11

Games completed: 45/55

NPlayerRating1234567891011ScoreSonp(win)p(draw)1Carroll(2241)-2220_222221611292.84%1.17%2Kevin Gong(2064)0-_2_222_2212722.57%0.11%3maraca(2043)0_-_2_2222212602.51%0.07%4Adam Dzedzej(1895)00_-20222221260005imperatore(2059)2_00-222__210720.91%1.06%6Mojmir Hanes(1865)_0_20-02_22844007Pere Toledano(1816)000002-0022624008Orbilin(1818)0000002-2_2620009pim(1724)0_00__20-024120010groeneveld(1773)0000_00_2-2480011Matteo A.(1766)0000000000-0000

Newly completed matches:

• Mojmir Hanes 0 - 2 maraca
• imperatore 0 - 2 pim

Tournament: loa.ch.9.1.1

Num Players: 11

Games completed: 47/55

NPlayerRating1234567891011ScoreSonp(win)p(draw)1Carroll(2241)-2220_222221612094.36%0.20%2maraca(2051)0-__222222214803.00%03Kevin Gong(2064)0_-2_2_222212722.44%0.20%4Adam Dzedzej(1901)0_0-20222221264005imperatore(2032)20_0-2022_21072006Mojmir Hanes(1857)_0020-_2022844007pim(1751)00_02_-0202632008Orbilin(1818)0000002-2_2624009Pere Toledano(1816)00000200-226240010groeneveld(1773)0000_02_0-24120011Matteo A.(1766)0000000000-0000

Newly completed matches:

• Kevin Gong 1 - 1 maraca

Tournament: loa.ch.9.1.1

Num Players: 11

Games completed: 48/55

NPlayerRating1234567891011ScoreSonp(win)p(draw)1Carroll(2241)-2220_222221612492.09%02maraca(2051)0-1_222222215933.71%2.86%3Kevin Gong(2064)01-2_2_222213871.34%2.86%4Adam Dzedzej(1913)0_0-20222221264005imperatore(2032)20_0-2022_21072006Mojmir Hanes(1857)_0020-_2022844007pim(1751)00_02_-0202632008Orbilin(1818)0000002-2_2624009Pere Toledano(1804)00000200-226240010groeneveld(1773)0000_02_0-24120011Matteo A.(1766)0000000000-0000

Newly completed matches:

• imperatore 0 - 2 groeneveld
• Adam Dzedzej 0 - 2 maraca

Tournament: loa.ch.9.1.1

Num Players: 11

Games completed: 50/55

NPlayerRating1234567891011ScoreSonp(win)p(draw)1maraca(2060)-0122222222171215.09%4.88%2Carroll(2241)2-220_222221613290.03%03Kevin Gong(2064)10-2_22_222139304.88%4Adam Dzedzej(1878)000-20222221268005imperatore(2006)02_0-2002221072006Mojmir Hanes(1857)0_020-2_022848007groeneveld(1799)000020-20_2632008pim(1751)00_02_0-202632009Pere Toledano(1804)00000220-026280010Orbilin(1818)000000_22-26240011Matteo A.(1766)0000000000-0000

Newly completed matches:

• Mojmir Hanes 0 - 2 pim

Tournament: loa.ch.9.1.1

Num Players: 11

Games completed: 51/55

NPlayerRating1234567891011ScoreSonp(win)p(draw)1maraca(2060)-0122222222171254.85%4.40%2Carroll(2241)2-220_222221613690.75%03Kevin Gong(2064)10-2_2_2222139304.40%4Adam Dzedzej(1854)000-20222221272005imperatore(2006)02_0-2002221072006Mojmir Hanes(1837)0_020-02202848007pim(1771)00_022-0022848008groeneveld(1799)0000202-_02636009Orbilin(1818)0000002_-226280010Pere Toledano(1804)000002020-26280011Matteo A.(1766)0000000000-0000

Newly completed matches:

• Orbilin 2 - 0 groeneveld

Tournament: loa.ch.9.1.1

Num Players: 11

Games completed: 52/55

NPlayerRating1234567891011ScoreSonp(win)p(draw)1maraca(2060)-0122222222171294.24%4.64%2Carroll(2241)2-220_222221614091.12%03Kevin Gong(2064)10-2_2_2222139704.64%4Adam Dzedzej(1854)000-20222221276005imperatore(2006)02_0-2020221076006Mojmir Hanes(1837)0_020-02202852007pim(1771)00_022-0022848008Orbilin(1833)0000002-222840009groeneveld(1784)00002020-026360010Pere Toledano(1804)000002002-26280011Matteo A.(1766)0000000000-0000

Newly completed matches:

• Kevin Gong 2 - 0 pim

Tournament: loa.ch.9.1.1

Num Players: 11

Games completed: 53/55

NPlayerRating1234567891011ScoreSonp(win)p(draw)1maraca(2060)-0122222222171313.40%4.75%2Carroll(2241)2-220_222221614491.85%03Kevin Gong(2068)10-2_2222221511304.75%4Adam Dzedzej(1854)000-20222221276005imperatore(2006)02_0-2020221076006Mojmir Hanes(1837)0_020-02202852007pim(1767)000022-0022848008Orbilin(1833)0000002-222840009groeneveld(1784)00002020-026360010Pere Toledano(1804)000002002-26280011Matteo A.(1788)0000000000-0000

Interesting forecasts.

I know that some participants did something similar

privately in semi-recent EinStein championships, but

not based on playing strengths alone, but on a mixture of

board positions and playing strengths:

\* taking the board position and assumption of optimal play

(modulo some computer program) on both sides.

And

\* taking estimates based on ratings (+ starting player

boni) for the forthcoming games in the “best of 5” series.

Ingo.

I think making predictions based on the board position before games end could interfere the gameplay severely. Knowing who's winning is an important information and not using it would be more difficult than not using a computer program to help you play - which is an obvious standard.

Now it is nice to see if there still is a theoretical possibility of winning the tourney and it doesn't give away information on the actual game positions.

Adam

Agreed, Adam. No ongoing games should be commented, and including board situations in analyses like this certainly constitutes a comment.

Hello Adam,

thanks for your reply. I am not sure if I understand

your long sentence (cited below) correctly.

Can you explain it, please?

> Knowing who's winning is an important information

> and not using it would be more difficult

> than not using a computer program to help you play

> - which is an obvious standard.

Thx, Ingo.

OK. I'll try to cut it into pieces.

Like Marius said including board situations into predictions would be commenting on games. In LoA often the winning move is overlooked even by strong players (or a win in two moves even more easily). If I some program predicted I should win a game based on the board position I would search harder to find the winning way.

Not using that information would be difficult.

A standard here is not using a computer program without publicly acknowledging that (even with the nickname). And we know there are programs out there which are stronger than us. At least much stronger than me.

I think it is different in a game where luck factor comes into play. Then counting probabilities based on position gives much less to the player.

Adam

I think it should be avoided in “chance games” as well. If I think I have a poor situation, and the prediction says I have a good position, I will spend more time analyzing the game, setting up probabilities, than I otherwise would.

Fortunately RoRoRo's as dumb as a box of nails - he couldn't tell a dead-cert win from a dead-cert loss!

Thx, Adam, for your explanation.

> A standard here is not using a computer program without

> publicly acknowledging that (even with the nickname).

I helped to introduce such a standard in “EinStein wurfelt nicht”

by the proposal to mark computer players by specific names:

“*_c” or some other obvious was, forinstance “*-TheBot”.

But for me it was not clear that “not using computer” is

ethic standard in all games here on LG.

If it is, it would be nice to write this in some

prominent place, for instance also in the FAQ part.

Ingo.

well, RoRoRo's prediction are of the kind of Peter (1820) is playing against John (1820), so both have 50% chance of winning. She doesn't parse the actual game or whatever.

If Peter is 1820 but John is 1456 RoRoRo just applies the rating formula to calculate the percentage. So she just bases on ratings, not actual games. (I guess everybody knew that, but just in case)

That way, I love her predictions. As Adam said, if actual game is used (and thus, as Marius said, information about what is possible in the game is publicly known), we are severely interfering in the game. And I'd hate that.

As an example. You are playing a chess game (as a go player, maybe this is the first time I use chess for an example, hehe), you feel lost in the endgame, about to be checkmated, but external analysis/prediction shows you have a 65% winning probability. Man, that's a huuuuuuge info, now you know THAT, now you know there is ACTUALLY a sequence to win, you have half the work done, and can focus on that.

That's not what I'd like from a periodical prediction posted on the fora…

@Ingo: It seems to be an ethic standard to not use computer aid for games at LG. However, it is stated nowhere that it is illegal, which is probably why it's not in the FAQ. Having a rules page would certainly be helpful…

To avoid mis-understandings, the people

(which themselves were participants)

made these calculations only PRIVATELY for

themselves. (Having finished a tournament with

a good score, and then having to wait for some

(very) slow players to finish their games, until

the winner is known, it can be entertaining to

include also chances of running games into

estimates.)

By the way, in correspondence chess it is a completely

natural component of team championships (liks the Olympiads)

that the team captain knows about standings of all of his

team members and relays this information within the team.

Cheers, Ingo

> I know that some participants did something similar

> privately in semi-recent EinStein championships, but

> not based on playing strengths alone, but on a mixture of

> board positions and playing strengths: …

I agree that in team events, it's perfectly sensible for the whole team to know what to expect from their own games, and thus to be able to take and give advice to other team members on what score to aim for, even though advice on how to achieve that score is not permissible.

However, nothing on LG is a team event.

I just wanted to say that there have been at least two team events on LG that I know of: A Hex tournament and a Reversi tournament. In Hex you either win or lose, so you can't play for a draw anyway. I expect it's rather hard in Reversi too. I do not think team members discussef the games among themselves. Anyway, I think this is a bit beside the point here - just wanted to point out that team events actually have happened here.

Btw: the use of computer programms is not forbidden, chess has even an analyzer on lg! What maybe is the etiquette here, is not to use an ai, but i never heard about that. It's just not fun in some cases to use an ai, because all games where computer programms are better than humans become a programmers challenge… (games including luck is something different, i think computer programms should be allowed there)… on the other hand games where humans are better it's very interesting to see how a bot acts and does in the field…

I think I agree with Ingo that it would be nice to state some etiquette rules in the FAQ or some other page. Although it should be stated on the “it spoils the fun” basis and not be said too strongly.

Anyway it's probably impossible to discourage someone who'd think it is fun. I think post-play analysis by computer program is valuable especially if someone makes it in human readable format. Some championship ago I also used computer program privately to predict who will be the winner in some remaining games, but I wouldn't announce it publicly.

Another thing is, that I would be glad to see some matches between strong human players and MIA. I think there is not many such games available.

Adam

there was also a discussion about etiquette a few years ago, see in Hex forum

FatPhil, there were also two StreetSoccer team events besides the Hex and the Reversi events. Everyone of these events/tournaments were organized with a different format.

Newly completed matches:

• imperatore 0 - 2 Kevin Gong

Tournament: loa.ch.9.1.1

Num Players: 11

Games completed: 54/55

NPlayerRating1234567891011ScoreSonp(win)p(draw)1Kevin Gong(2081)-10222222221713309.03%2maraca(2060)1-0222222221713309.03%3Carroll(2241)22-20_222221614890.97%04Adam Dzedzej(1820)000-20222221276005imperatore(1993)0020-2020221076006Mojmir Hanes(1837)00_20-02202852007pim(1767)000022-0022848008Orbilin(1833)0000002-222840009groeneveld(1784)00002020-026360010Pere Toledano(1810)000002002-26280011Matteo A.(1796)0000000000-0000

Newly completed matches:

• Mojmir Hanes 0 - 2 Carroll

Tournament: loa.ch.9.1.1

Num Players: 11

Games completed: 55/55

NPlayerRating1234567891011ScoreSonp(win)p(draw)1Carroll(2243)-222022222218164100.00%02Kevin Gong(2081)0-12222222217133003maraca(2060)01-2222222217133004Adam Dzedzej(1787)000-20222221276005imperatore(1993)2000-2020221080006Mojmir Hanes(1835)00020-02202852007pim(1767)000022-0022848008Orbilin(1833)0000002-222840009groeneveld(1784)00002020-026360010Pere Toledano(1823)000002002-26280011Matteo A.(1794)0000000000-0000

Let me be the first to congratulate Carroll on winning an exciting championship!

Congrats Jeff!

Thanks FatPhil and Ypercube!

Thanks to all my opponents, I had no easy game.

I feel the level of play increases constantly, Imperatore, as usual you are my main problem but this time I did a silly mistake in the end.

I will skip next Champ as it eats too much of my time, so enjoy all and compete for Champ10.1 title!

Congratulations Caroll!

I myself never played much LoA but I'm doing little progress, and I find game more interesting now. I still don't know how to start but I find myself comfortable in late game and I sometimes win too (defended my position in second league).