hyperpape wrote:
You can always specify some sufficiently gerrymandered achievement that a tournament is designed to recognize, and by that criterion, the tournament will always be a pretty good design. My point of view is that there are some general constraints on how a tournament should select a winner, and there's room for debate among those, but that this tournament doesn't do an especially good job of meeting them.
You look at the event, and it looks like a nine round McMahon tournament is its centerpiece. They're playing for nine days with some breaks in between.
Fun test: go to the webpage, look under congress > main tournaments, and try to find some indication that the European knockout even exists. You'll find a big fat table for a McMahon tournament at (http://www.egc2012.eu/congress/main-tournaments/open-european-championship/results-main-tournament-round-9). This seems to have been very dumb of me.
Anyway, the tournament had the rules that it had, Simara is the winner, but I think there's tons of room to criticize those rules.
You look at the event, and it looks like a nine round McMahon tournament is its centerpiece. They're playing for nine days with some breaks in between.
Anyway, the tournament had the rules that it had, Simara is the winner, but I think there's tons of room to criticize those rules.
I'll be honest, my points are mostly pedantic, maybe I just had a bad day
I happen to agree with you that I find it very dissatisfactory as a way of resolving the tournament, but I wouldn't call it wrong or unjust because I don't see any way how justice or right-ness applies beyond that of an application of the rules. The rules were well known by all at the beginning I suspect.
I'd love to see the champion title being given to the highest placed European in the main tournament, but as that got rejected out as a way of doing it within the last 24-36 months, I can't see it coming back any time soon sadly.