RobertJasiek wrote:
Which is your rank? Can you prove what your rank is by stating your real name? Is your rank relevant for the EC or are you a kyu player, who just benefits from the marketing gag that the EC would be a tournament for players of all strengths?
You are repeatedly condescending about the value of the input from those with weaker ranks Robert, it does your cause no good. With respect, you are also not sufficiently strong to be an EC challenger, should we treat your view accordingly?
RobertJasiek wrote:
Liisa wrote:
Indeed current system is very good.
1) If it were very good, then you need not propose improvements.
2) The current system is not very good for the various reasons stated during the previous decade everywhere.
Or perchance, there is rising concern with how the commission is handling possible changes, and this is partially a vote in favour of the current system being good enough not to change. The current system has issues that concern a number of people - that does not make the system "not very good", except perhaps in the eyes of a vocal minority.
RobertJasiek wrote:
Liisa wrote:
EGC as a brand attracts more than enough participants from all over the world.
2) That kyu players and low dans play in what is called the EGC is a marketing gag rather than evidence of quality.
What nonsense. You cannot throw around your subjective opinions as to what constitutes quality at the expense of other people's subjective opinions. If it is seen as high quality by a majority because it is all inclusive, than that is more important than any individual's opinion.
RobertJasiek wrote:
Liisa wrote:
Current idea of having 32 player’s super group is not good because it is over sized.
It is not over-sized. Since up to about 8 of them are non-Europeans, 32 usually means up to about 24 Europeans. This is just about enough to be sure that the currently strongest player is included.
Again, this is only your subjective opinion, and I don't believe it is based in facts. I don't believe that, in any given year, 24 Europeans are seriously strong enough to challenge equally for the title. Anyone below a strong 6 dan is simply not in the practical running. Some stats and data from the last 8 years:
2009Top five places: 7d, 7d, 6d, 7d, 7d
European 7d or professional players: 5
European 6d players: 7
Non-European 7 dans / professionals: 5
Possible supergroup size for 6d+ Europeans and 7d+ Non-Europeans = 172008Top five places: 7d, 7d, 7d, 6d, 6d
European 7d or professional players: 4
European 6d players: 7
Non-European 7 dans / professionals: 6
Possible supergroup size for 6d+ Europeans and 7d+ Non-Europeans = 172007Top five places: 6d, 7d, 7d, 6d, 5d
European 7d or professional players: 2
European 6d players: 6
Non-European 7 dans / professionals: 4
Possible supergroup size for 6d+ Europeans and 7d+ Non-Europeans = 122006Top five places: 7d, 7d, 6d, 6d, 5d
European 7d or professional players: 2
European 6d players: 5
Non-European 7 dans / professionals: 2
Possible supergroup size for 6d+ Europeans and 7d+ Non-Europeans = 92005Top five places: 7d, 7d, 6d, 7d, 6d
European 7d or professional players: 4
European 6d players: 4
Non-European 7 dans / professionals: 9
Possible supergroup size for 6d+ Europeans and 7d+ Non-Europeans = 172004Top five places: 7d, 7d, 4d, 7d, 7d
European 7d or professional players: 4
European 6d players: 9
Non-European 7 dans / professionals: 3
Possible supergroup size for 6d+ Europeans and 7d+ Non-Europeans = 162003Top five places: 7d, 6d, 5d, 5d, 6d
European 7d or professional players: 1
European 6d players: 7
Non-European 7 dans / professionals: 4
Possible supergroup size for 6d+ Europeans and 7d+ Non-Europeans = 122002Top five places: 7d, 6d, 5d, 7d, 6d
European 7d or professional players: 2
European 6d players: 5
Non-European 7 dans / professionals: 0
Possible supergroup size for 6d+ Europeans and 7d+ Non-Europeans = 7Trends that appear from this analysis* It is very clear to me from this data that 5 dans are out of the running from the beginning, they are simply not title contenders.
* The number of European 6 and 7 dans combined have never exceeded 13 (and only 3 times out of the 8 did they even exceed 10!)
* Even including non-European 7d+ players, a supergroup built from all of these would never have exceeded 17 players - just over half the current supergroup size.
It is very hard not to conclude that having 24 Europeans in the super group seems like the net is being spread far too wide - just too many players. What is the justification for 32 with the expectation of 24 Europeans?
RobertJasiek wrote:
Liisa wrote:
In Groningen we suffered from the symptoms of having over sized super group that even winner was difficult to determine
1) In every tournament system that uses (opponent-dependent) tiebreakers, the winner can be determined by them.
2) The problem of final result tiebreakers having any impact at all is NOT the supergroup size but is the mere fact that FINAL RESULT TIEBREAKERS ARE USED AT ALL. (Proof: Omit all final result tiebreakers. Then, for any supergroup size, the final results are independent of tiebreakers! - Keep tiebreakers and change the supergroup size and the final results do depend on tiebreakers.)
3) The winner is not "difficult to determine" if there are tiebreakers. It just takes half an hour or so to verify manually what the pairing program claims to be the top results. So it is nasty rather than difficult.
4) As described elsewhere, SOS as a final result tiebreaker has many aspects it depends on and that might be criticised. One of them is the "convergance" by means of ensuring a "fair" pairing strategy (like fold pairing in all or most rounds). The smaller the supergroup size the more closely the final SOS values of tied top players can be. So making the supergroup size smaller does not solve the problem but lets it become yet more apparent.
5) It was not only in Groningen.
6) The problem really is the creation of a number greater than 1 of top MMS players after the last round in a tournament with a fixed number of rounds. This can be solved (e.g. by using a dynamic number of rounds or by changing the fundamental tournament system). It cannot be solved by changing the supergroup size though. (Maybe one achieve a tiny tuning effect - in theory. In practice, the number of Koreans dramatically changes and the tuning will turn out to be possibly counter-productive.)
7) In summary, what you observe as symptoms are not the symptoms of a specific supergroup size but of other aspects (like the usage of tiebreakers at all or like the concept of not sharing the title at all or like having a fixed number of rounds).
1. Correct.
2. Straw man. Just because it happens doesn't mean a smaller super group size would not help.
3. Correct.
4. Not correct. You may still end up with hard to resolve ties, but the chances that more of the top games were played against each other increases, so the "fair pairing" argument is moot.
5. Correct.
6. Not correct. The supergroup size may still leave tied players, but at least they'll have had the chance to beat each other and player less games against weaker players to leave the tie in the first place.
7. Not correct. You have missed the point of the original poster. The poster wasn't trying to eliminate ties per se, but make sure the correct champion is identified on performance. A small supergroup will adjust the draw in a way that may help towards this.
Quote:
I leave the rest of your heavily flawed text uncommented.
I have no idea why you would state this. A lot of your comments have flaws in them, some of them severe ones. If I'm not going to comment on them, I won't comment - I won't go out of my way to condescend the original poster. This is virtually flaming.