mumps wrote:
But if there is only one place left to be decided and there are, for example, 9 players who are tied such that they would play in the Relegation, then I'd call that very large, not just large. It would also require more than one game to decide the place - how many would be required Robert?
Apparently you have not understood the relegation system yet.
If only one place is left to be decided, it means that we have 7 players who qualify automatically (+) like in the following example, where "x" means "not in top 16 and "-" means "not qualified automatically and "R" means "enters relegation":
Code:
Wins 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Qualify + + + + + + + R R - - - - - - -
Exactly one relegation game will be played.
Now you call this a "very large" number, LOL.
Here are some more examples from the years 2000 and 2002-2006, which I have already studied:
Abbreviations:
x y := #wins (supergroup players; non-supergroup players with more
wins included) | #Europeans playing all rounds thus far
n := smaller MMS / greater D
W := number of wins (top Europeans only)
D := MMS difference to top MMS Europeans
Q := qualified
+ := qualified automatically
- := not qualified automatically
R := relegation
#R := number of players in relegation
#S := number of players in SOS - rating - lottery tiebreaking
Code:
EGC2000
7 0
6 2
5 4
4 14
-------
W 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4|4 4 4 4
D 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2|2 2 2 2
Q + + + + + + R R R R - - - - - -|- - - -
#R 4
#S 14
EGC2002
7 1
6 0
5 7
------
W 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 n n n n n n n n
D 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 n n n n n n n n
Q + + + + + + + + - - - - - - - -
#R 0
#S 0
EGC2003
7 0
6 0
5 2
4 10
-------
W 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 n n n n
D 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n n n n
Q + + + + R R R R R R R R - - - -
#R 8
#S 10
EGC2004
7 0
6 1
5 5
4 12
-------
W 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4|4 4
D 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2|2 2
Q + + + + + + R R R R - - - - - -|- -
#R 4
#S 12
EGC2005
7 0
6 1
5 2
4 13
-------
W 6 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
D 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Q + + + R R R R R R R R R R - - -
#R 10
#S 13
EGC2006
7 0
6 1
5 5
4 11
-------
W 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4|4
D 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2|2
Q + + + + + + R R R R - - - - - -|-
#R 4
#S 11
Quote:
Why do we need to provide reasoning?
1) To convince more others than you might convince by not providing reasons.
2) To characterize yourself as open to objectivity.
Not providing reasoning is as weak as trying to convince others of "Earth is flat." by "Look around and see, it is flat!".
Quote:
In general we believe that people who argue about the minute details about tie-breaking are wasting their time.
Then why do you support a system with heavy tiebreaker seeding?
Quote:
If you're hard done by in losing out in a tie-breaker the remedy was always in your own hands - just win more games to avoid the tie-breaker.
If you believed in what you saying, then you would appreciate the "just win more games" by using this as the only essential seeding criterion.
Quote:
If everybody's got the same number of wins then we shouldn't expect seeding to be very accurate, so shouldn't spend too much time and effort over it.
If everybody's got the same number of wins, then better seeding is gotten from playing relegation games so that players with the ability to win more are distinguished from players without that ability.
Quote:
not an important enough reason in our view.
It is very unfortunate that you value a free day for the few decisive players higher than their playing of a decisive game, which furthermore by its nature fits very well into the KO nature: Win and you stay in - lose and you are out.
Quote:
Is once in 25 years
Which 25 years do you count? Did they all have a KO? How can you be sure that in other years it did not happen? Just because nobody noticed? It is extraordinarily easy to lose won games intentionally but usually extraordinarily hard to prove this. Also unintentional losses can be decisive for SOS and deciding the winners / qualified players. Stefan Kaitschik, strong 4d can tell you how his last round loss against a 2d determined the 2007 winner.
Quote:
(at least) a good reason, when the Appeals Committee could (in principle) have authority to rule in these exceptional cases?
It does have this power but it is useless in almost all practical cases.
Quote:
Quote:
- If there is a high percentage of strong non-Europeans, then after 7 rounds McMahon the lower end seeding candidates might have so few Wins (like only 4) that qualification for some might be too easy; e.g., 4 wins in 7 rounds is not a convincing seeding. By having to play a relegation game, the most doubtful candidates will have to show that they can make 1 more win before they will actually qualify.
Is this an argument?
If you cannot understand why 4 wins in 7 rounds is too weak a criterion, I suggest that you take your time for studying fundamentals of what makes a good versus bad tournament system.
Quote:
Actually, we don't care about this point. If the Champion has fewer wins than another then that's just life. The Champion is the winner of the Knock-Out - end of story.
You don't care about too many things. With this your argument, you might as well omit the McMahon and replace it by a pure lottery. IOW, what happens until the KO is very important and not just fun of doing careless, rough approximation.
Quote:
Quote:
The BGA reasoning does not even discuss these important reasons at all.
We don't think these are important.
You show that you don't want to design good systems. Example: You want KO because you believe in greater number of wins being the most meaningful. At the same time, you don't want relegation instead of a free day for also the few relegation players because... you believe in greater number of wins not being important. Maybe such contradictions are good enough to convince the BGA itself but they are not attractive for convincing enough others.