World Mind Sport Games 2012

[RobertJasiek]

http://www.wmsg2012.org/results/teams

The team tournament's placement criteria appear to have been


1. Team Points (0 = loss, 2 = win)

2. Board Wins

3. Sum of Opponents Scores (Team Points)

4. Board Wins on 2 Upper Boards

5. Board Wins on 1st Board


While 1. and 2. are rather natural (although an objection, which I do not share, says that getting easy opposing teams leads to many board wins; 1 for a team win and 1/2 for a tie would also work). The order of 3., 4. and 5. seems somewhat arbitrary, but any order of further tiebreakers would. Something more complicated instead of SOST, such as a hybrid of 2. and 3., has not been chosen. If one uses SOST, then why not also SOB2U and SOB1U...? I.e., if one trusts opponents' results and top board wins at all, then, by assumption, any such tiebreaker would be more meaningful than lottery. IOW, the used tiebreakers pretty much amount to 1. Team Points - 2. Board Wins - 3. lottery.

[HermanHiddema]

SOST is an obvious choice, and a good one. SOS is widely considered the best tiebreaker there is, when tiebreakers are needed.

I do not think higher boards are more meaningful in general, but using them as tiebreakers discourages/punishes strategic player distribution (i.e. to put the weakest play on board 1 to hopefully get more wins on boards 2 and 3 that way, thus increasing overall chance of team wins).

[RobertJasiek]

SOS is widely considered the best tiebreaker there is, when tiebreakers are needed.

Of course not. To simplify discussion, playing more (fast) games is a better tiebreaker.

[HermanHiddema]

SOS is widely considered the best tiebreaker there is, when tiebreakers are needed.

Of course not. To simplify discussion, playing more (fast) games is a better tiebreaker.

Yes, but there never seems to be time for that. My statement applies to the commonly used tiebreakers, which do not involve playing extra games.

[RobertJasiek]

there never seems to be time for that.

"seems", exactly:)

My statement applies to the commonly used tiebreakers, which do not involve playing extra games.

For discussion of direct comparison, SOS and other nonsense, see elsewhere:)

[topazg]

I'm with Herman on this. Of course, from a practical perspective, more games makes more sense as a tiebreaker. As a tournament attendee who likes to know how many games I'm playing and when before I set off to the tournament at all, knowing that there may or may not be tiebreak games I may or may not have to participate in would make me less likely to want to attend at all.

For a tournament, I'm a believer that having a tiebreak system that is both understood and appreciated by the players is more important than a tiebreak system that is empirically fairer with respect to the outcome. If you had 400 attendees and 300 of them would prefer the extra games, then as an organiser it makes sense to try to have a way of expecting to fitting tiebreak games into the tournament schedule.

However, my gut instinct says players would rather the risk of being semi-arbitrarily downgraded on SOS than have to make room for additional games at the end of the tournament - in which case I think SOS is a better system to use. If the majority people are happy, the system is good.

[quantumf]

However, my gut instinct says players would rather the risk of being semi-arbitrarily downgraded on SOS than have to make room for additional games at the end of the tournament - in which case I think SOS is a better system to use. If the majority people are happy, the system is good.

That's certainly my anecdotal evidence. I experimented with a tournament that involved four games in a day rather than our more usual three. This was primarily because players had expressed a desire to get more out of the event (meeting and playing against players from far away is a rare treat), the improved tiebreaking was only a secondary benefit.

However, in practice, a significant percentage of players ended up forfeiting their final game. The games were going on too late, and players were just too fatigued.

[RobertJasiek]

I experimented with a tournament that involved four games in a day

Sounds like 4 games with full thinking time. Tiebreaking games can be fast.

[RobertJasiek]

having a tiebreak system that is both understood and appreciated by the players

To start with, tournament players need some time before they even understand what SOS is...

[topazg]

having a tiebreak system that is both understood and appreciated by the players

To start with, tournament players need some time before they even understand what SOS is...

And those that don't, don't mind not understanding it. I don't exaggerate when I say I have never heard anyone complaining about the usage of SOS in any tournament I've attended.

[RobertJasiek]

The exact order of players within a score group is essentially immaterial, especially when players get prizes for numbers of wins. Only at the tournament top, tiebreaking really matters in those tournaments where tiebreakers are used to split places and prizes. So talk to the top players! Among them, I see three factions: a) the tiebreaker haters, b) the tiebreaker believers, c) the indifferent "I don't care how my place is determined" people. If anything, then the three groups are roughly equally mighty.

[RobertJasiek]

Taiwan Superpower!

http://wmsg2012.org/results/youth

The 5:0 player of the qualifications won the gold medal.

http://wmsg2012.org/results/pairs

[quantumf]

I experimented with a tournament that involved four games in a day

Sounds like 4 games with full thinking time. Tiebreaking games can be fast.

Yes, you're right, I wasn't describing a tiebreaking scenario. In reality, even for the players who hate the arbitrary tiebreakers like SOS, do they really want to play a blitz or near-blitz game to decide the result, in a tournament that has involved serious/slow games?

[RobertJasiek]

do they really want to play a blitz or near-blitz game to decide the result, in a tournament that has involved serious/slow games?

1) Shared places are ok.

2) Yes.