Life In 19x19
http://lifein19x19.com/

EWGC-2010
http://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=2142		 Page 3 of 3
Author:  RobertJasiek [ Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: EWGC-2010
willemien wrote:
you introduce here an extra round to decide who of the A B C and sometimes D goes to the final KO rounds?


Yes.

Quote:
But also there is a problem with the sorting allready.

How do you sort the players even before you decide who is welcome to this (extra qualification round)


I repeat: Number the top 16 Europeans by MMS-SOS-rating-lottery.

Quote:
If you introduce an extra round anyway there are possibly better ways. (let every european join with just enough wins)


You speak of ways in plural. Which ways do you consider better and why better?

Why would "let every european join with just enough wins" be a better way? We need to determine EXACTLY 8 seeded players in (for practical reasons) AT MOST 1 extra round. Under these requirements, it is impossibe to "let every european join with just enough wins".

Quote:
If only i saw it that way


Take your to time to acquire and share that opinion:)

Quote:
BTW i guess you mean by seeded the players who are in the top 8?


From the McMahon to the KO, there is a seeding process after which the exactly 8 participants of the KO are the seeded players.

Quote:
This one : viewtopic.php?f=45&t=2410


There I meant the minimization once the KO has started. I imply that you are pointing to the aspect that playing relegation games at all increases the average expected minimal number of repeated pairings in the KO. Right. Now if you ask me which I prefer - seeding of only such players with more wins than not seeded players versus yet further minimizing repetitions, then I prefer the former by far.

Quote:
Maybe it is an idea to leave the decision to decide who is the Strongest European (professional) go-player to the European Go Professionals and only bother on the congress about the open Champion (who may also be an european)


The EGF does not need to resign its standard of issuing the EC title just because there will be also League Professionals now. They might choose to create another title like Top League Professional, if they like. The more titles there are, the better everybody can try to judge who indeed might be the currently strongest player.

***

Can you please not make very long quotations but save me from doing your work of compressing your messages? Thanks.
Author:  RobertJasiek [ Tue Nov 23, 2010 10:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: EWGC-2010
RobertJasiek wrote:
I imply that you are pointing to the aspect that playing relegation games at all increases the average expected minimal number of repeated pairings in the KO. Right. Now if you ask me which I prefer - seeding of only such players with more wins than not seeded players versus yet further minimizing repetitions, then I prefer the former by far.


You successfully confused me:) The problem does not even exist because the relegation games do not increase the number of games that could be repeated in the KO!
Author:  HermanHiddema [ Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: EWGC-2010
RobertJasiek wrote:
RobertJasiek wrote:
I imply that you are pointing to the aspect that playing relegation games at all increases the average expected minimal number of repeated pairings in the KO. Right. Now if you ask me which I prefer - seeding of only such players with more wins than not seeded players versus yet further minimizing repetitions, then I prefer the former by far.


You successfully confused me:) The problem does not even exist because the relegation games do not increase the number of games that could be repeated in the KO!


If the pairing of the Quarter Finals can influence the probability of repeat pairings in the Semi Finals, then the pairing of the relegation games can influence the probability of repeat pairings in the QF and SF, I would think? :)
Author:  RobertJasiek [ Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: EWGC-2010
Oh... right! If the relegation kills the potential heavy repetition pairing opponents suitably, then fewer expected repetitions will occur in the KO - and vice versa. IOW, on average relegation is pretty much neutral WRT to repeated pairings in the KO.

But... ultra-meticulous relegation pairing can help the KO yet further...
Author:  willemien [ Mon Nov 29, 2010 3:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: EWGC-2010
RobertJasiek wrote:

You speak of ways in plural. Which ways do you consider better and why better?

Why would "let every european join with just enough wins" be a better way? We need to determine EXACTLY 8 seeded players in (for practical reasons) AT MOST 1 extra round. Under these requirements, it is impossibe to "let every european join with just enough wins".


I still prefer the hidden option see
viewtopic.php?p=14403#p14403 (and following)
your knock-out and extra round can be the final part of it.

(The main thing is that only european - eurpean games count and that the games are also part of the open tournament)



RobertJasiek wrote:

Can you please not make very long quotations but save me from doing your work of compressing your messages? Thanks.


I will :salute:
Can you refrain from using abbrevations?
Author:  RobertJasiek [ Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: EWGC-2010
willemien wrote:
your knock-out and extra round can be the final part of it.


How? Please explain your idea in detail!
Author:  willemien [ Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: EWGC-2010
RobertJasiek wrote:
How? Please explain your idea in detail!


Rough sketch of my proposel.
(Hope it gives enough details it is based on viewtopic.php?p=14403#p14403 )

- Topgroup

-- All Players above a certain rank (4dan or 5 dan, to be announced in advance, also includes non European players)
-- And agreeing to play every game (for europeans including the possible extra round)

-- All start with the same MM score (TWO MM points more than the players in the normal mm tournament (see viewtopic.php?f=45&t=1357&start=0 for my reasons to have two points difference)

In the first 7 rounds all europeans in the topgroup play 5 games (2 less than the number of rounds) against other europeans (The games against non europeans don't have to be in the same rounds, so TEplayer1 can play against Top europeans in round 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 while TEplayer2 plays against other Top europeans in round 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7)
(TEplayer is an European player in the topgroup)

These games can be seen as a "hidden" swiss tournament within the main tournament, but the pairing for this tournament gets preference above the pairing in the main tournament. Pairing can be normal swiss or accelerated Swiss (depending on what the tournament director decides)

The results of this games count double.
- They count for the Open European Tournament
and
- They count for the Best European Tournament

After 7 rounds, the best 8 TE playrs go to the final Knock out.

Deciding who plays in the Knock out
- Number of wins against other TEplayers
- Number of wins in Main Tournament
- result against TE players with more than 50% wins (Koya system)

If this still not decides on 8 players we can add an extra round as you suggested.

The Final knock out is organised per round (to minimize the number of repeated opponents)
Author:  RobertJasiek [ Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: EWGC-2010
Basically having a hidden Swiss in a McMahon top group is a possibility in principle (and sometimes done by cute TDs if the numbers of rounds and players fit). I dislike your proposal though because your first criterion is based on too few games, a sufficient number of non-Europeans is not guaranteed and it does not fit the AGM decision too closely.
Author:  willemien [ Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: EWGC-2010
RobertJasiek wrote:
I dislike your proposal though because your first criterion is based on too few games,


It is only for the first sifting and for this it is enough.
The main difference to your prooposel is that in my system only games between Top europeans count (and that this is the same number for every player)

Quote:
a sufficient number of non-Europeans is not guaranteed


The number of non europeans doesn't have to be that big, for the first 2 rounds don't pair them against eachother and after the second round you can also pair players who lost all games against players who won all their games but were not in the topgroup. (they have the same MM score at this point)
I think only around 1/7 of the topgroup have to be non-european. But the idea is that it is a fixed number so that there is also a fixed number Top european- Top european games.

I am not so in favour to reduce the number of games against non Top europeans then it becomes to much a split tournament. In this proposel the winner of the european title will only have played 2 games against non europeans.

Quote:
and it does not fit the AGM decision too closely.


THat doesn't mean it is a bad proposel.
and it is close enough i think .
Author:  RobertJasiek [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 4:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: EWGC-2010
willemien wrote:
RobertJasiek wrote:
I dislike your proposal though because your first criterion is based on too few games,


It is only for the first shifting and for this it is enough.


Please explain better why you consider it enough! What do you mean by "for the first shifting"?
Author:  willemien [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: EWGC-2010
I mean the first sifting
(reducing number of contestants to 8 -16)

Another option for this sifting:
(leads to the same result al long as there are less than 80 Top Europeans)
A player needs more than 3 wins against other Top europeans to be eligable to join the next sifting
Page 3 of 3 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/