ladder strategy

is it ethical or acceptable strategy to challenge inactive players on the ladder or to resign early if it provides an opportunity to challenge a higher positioned player?
I'm trying to develop an ethical strategy but a ladder is a special kind of challenge where maybe anything goes

Originally posted by lemondrop
is it ethical or acceptable strategy to challenge inactive players on the ladder or to resign early if it provides an opportunity to challenge a higher positioned player?
I'm trying to develop an ethical strategy but a ladder is a special kind of challenge where maybe anything goes

Well I would never challenge any player who was inactive to get a timeout victory. It's a cheap win. Secondly I would never resign any game until I think I'm down and out. So finish the game your playing, and then challenge a higher positioned player.

Originally posted by steve45
Well I would never challenge any player who was inactive to get a timeout victory. It's a cheap win. Secondly I would never resign any game until I think I'm down and out. So finish the game your playing, and then challenge a higher positioned player.

I generally agree with your line of thinking, but in the case of the ladder, I wonder if challenging inactive players might be a good way to naturally prune the deadwood from the ladder.

I haven't really made up my mind about it, so I am curious to know what others think.

It takes *so long* to climb the ladder for anybody joining later. It took i don't know how many games to get to page 1 of the 1 day ladder. I can't imagine the time for the 3-day and 7 day etc. So clicking on inactive players is fine

To me the ladders are not really behaving that well because progression is so slow.

I don't know what the alternatives might be, perhaps a wider challenge range in the bottom half of the ladder?

Previous reply was the ethical part.
There are some game playing strategies you can use to advance up the ladder faster

1) coat tail advances - getting more than 10 places per win.
If the player you beat in a ladder game, has themselves advanced up the ladder (they won their own game) while you were playing, you get to go ahead of their new position (not the challenge position)

So you could try to select ladder opponents who are currently winning a game, and then make sure you win your game *after* they win.

That way you could be getting +15 or so per game

2) differential payoff of win versus loss for a challenger/challengee - try really hard!
so the payoff in a ladder game is up to 10 ladder points for a win (challenger) and -1 for a loss (challengee). That's an uneven playing field.
I would think from a game theory point of view, with limited time, its much more worthwhile concentrating on winning the challenges. You may find your opponent is not concentrating quite so much

this is the same idea for tournaments. if you concentrate a lot on specific games you can beat an even field

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
I generally agree with your line of thinking, but in the case of the ladder, I wonder if challenging inactive players might be a good way to naturally prune the deadwood from the ladder.

I haven't really made up my mind about it, so I am curious to know what others think.

Fully agree. If not challenged they just stay there.
Eventually someone must challenge them.

Incidentally there must be lots of folk like me ... former subscribers - who
cannot make ladder challenges and can only defend.

I'm on 3 ladders and have not had a game going for almost a month.

I don't see how ethics come into play at all. I would do both of those things without hesitation. It's like clicking a skull.

Inactive players fall anyway even without being challenged, the players ahead of them will lose games to the players below.

The best strategy in ladders is to just play really fast, there's really not much penalty for losing. Play too slow and you will lose spots even if you win your game.

best strategy...be Mr. Hyde on the ladder
all other games, have fun