No this proposel has not that result
In every round around 20 - 30% of the european title candidates is available to play against non european title candidates. (that is almost enough to pair every non european against an european)
It is not that there are 7 dedicated rounds in the main tournament were all european title candidates are playing eachother (Having dedicated rounds would result in the problem you describe.)
The idea is that every european title candidate plays 7 games against other european title candidates.

It is the case that the pairing for the european title tournament takes precedence over the pairing for the open tournament. But i think this does not interfere with the expected results of the Open.

_________________
Promotor and Librarian of Sensei's Library

Yes.



Not the whole main tournament but only the top is "crippled". That is so because a better quality EC and a better quality Top Players Tournament would be created additionally. Result: Each top player (European or non-European) gets to play more interesting games against Europeans and against non-Europeans than he gets under the current system.

Surely it does affect it but it will be hard to measure the effect explicitly.

One immediate concern with an additional tournament is that it would be in direct competition to the other Go and Non-Go side events of the congress, as well as to leisure time (which is important in a two-week "total Go immersion"). I do not know as how cramped the current schedule is seen, but I am quite certain that also the top players do not want to spend most of their time in the playing room and instead would like to do some sightseeing and other recreational activities.

The "top players tournament" attempts to fix one bad aspect introduced by meddling with the main tournament. However, it would be much easier not to meddle with the main tournament to begin with and instead simply hold the closed championship as a separate tournament in place of the "top players tournament". Anything you say against a separate closed championship at the congress also holds against the "top players tournament", plus that the main tournament is affected negatively and the goals not cleanly separated at all.

(Note that I am not advocating a separate closed championship tournament at the congress in the above.)

_________________
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.

Why not just have one tournament, and the European citizen with the best result is the European champion (though an Asian player most likely will have won the actual tournament)?

_________________
AGA membership customer service rep -- database@usgo.org
AGA Members Area: https://usgo.org/members

IIRC, this is how the system currently works, and people don't like it (I'm not one of them, like you, it seems perfectly sensible to me).

Change the emphasis and add a little "and a few people don't like it". This is one of the things where 95% of the discussion about the European Congress is dominated by the concerns of, possibly, 5% of the players. For the other 95% of the players, the major concern is having a good holiday, meeting old friends and making new ones, getting lessons and simuls and looking and sometimes buying the latest Go literature. I get the impression that when discussions like this happen, most of them just switch off.

Best wishes.

_________________
No aji, keshi, kifu or kikashi has been harmed in the compiling of this post.
http://www.gogod.co.uk

And, of course, playing a strong tournament

_________________

1) Rather likely (the more non-Europeans the more likely) there will be more than one player with the most wins. Many top players consider that unsatisfactory. Tiebreakers cast further doubts.

2) The more non-Europeans there are, the smaller the number of wins of the top Europeans will be. Many top players consider that unsatisfactory. A very small ratio of the number of wins and the number of rounds casts even greater doubts.

3) The more non-Europeans there are, the fewer games the top Europeans will have played against each other. Many top players consider that unsatisfactory for mainly two reasons: a) They were not given a chance to beat the closest European competitors. b) The yearly number of European games is small, a small percentage of top European-only games makes this situation yet worse.

4) Different numbers of non-European opponents for top Europeans casts doubts whether all Europeans had about similarly strong opposition. The majority of top players considers that unsatisfactory.

OOPs made a mistake

if 75% of the games are European -European
25% is Non european- European
and no non european - non european games

then Non europeans can only be 12.5 % of the players can be

not 25% as i by mistake believed.

My proposel won't work
Back to the drawing board

maybe Hermans idea is better.


(if there are 8 asian players and 8 games is 25% of the games then there are 32 games means a topgroup of 64 players consisting of 56 European and 8 non european players)

_________________
Promotor and Librarian of Sensei's Library

That is if i am correct:
from viewtopic.php?f=47&t=895



The main problem is that strong european players become only late or even not available for playing non european players

Other problems are in the first 2 rounds (that is 25% of the tournament ) no non european - european games. (do you want to start with the Open tournament winning games)

Modified swiss is not quicker (and can be slower than normal swiss )
See my post in the modified swiss tread. viewtopic.php?f=47&t=1034


The drop out players are difficult to put in the general McMahon System. A better idea is to let the topgroup grow with people with many wins from below the bar group. (as in a normal McMahon tournament)

I just acknowledged that my idea won't work now my preference reverts back to Hermans Idea http://senseis.xmp.net/?HermanHiddema%2 ... lusMcMahon

_________________
Promotor and Librarian of Sensei's Library

This is a not wanted feature though.

Therefore for all Proposals without non-Europeans in the (closed) EC, the suggestion is to have also a Top Players Tournament.



The intention is not to have the fastest possible tournament.



I consider it very easy: Have them pro forma in the supergroup from the McMahon's beginning.



Why better? How then do you suggest dropped out EC players to enter the McMahon?

I am sorry for repeating myself, but why not leave the main tournament alone then and make a top-europeans closed EC in place of the top players tournament?

_________________
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.

One thing I am not entirely clear on, aside from voting on the proposals that we wish to see implemented, is what the proposals are being put forward for?

Precisely, what are the failings in the current system and what goals are in place to be achieved by a new system?

From the view of those supporting a parallel schedule:

- For the top Europeans, the EC is more important than the Open-EC.
- As the more important tournament, it (also) deserves the current 2.5h basic thinking time and therefore must start in the morning, which is better for concentration anyway than games ending during the night.

Current failures (repeated):

1) Rather likely (the more non-Europeans the more likely) there will be more than one player with the most wins. Many top players consider that unsatisfactory. Tiebreakers cast further doubts.

2) The more non-Europeans there are, the smaller the number of wins of the top Europeans will be. Many top players consider that unsatisfactory. A very small ratio of the number of wins and the number of rounds casts even greater doubts.

3) The more non-Europeans there are, the fewer games the top Europeans will have played against each other. Many top players consider that unsatisfactory for mainly two reasons: a) They were not given a chance to beat the closest European competitors. b) The yearly number of European games is small, a small percentage of top European-only games makes this situation yet worse.

4) Different numbers of non-European opponents for top Europeans casts doubts whether all Europeans had about similarly strong opposition. The majority of top players considers that unsatisfactory.

Goals:

Solve these current failures by avoiding them by installing a new system that does avoid them.

1) Who are "many top players", and what proportion of the players does this represent?
1b) What proportion of the top players is "many" (for example, out of all 4d+ players that have entered more than two congresses since 2001)
2) Why should the system be redesigned because the top players are unhappy with it?
2b) Who is the EGC designed to serve?
2c) Does this include non-Europeans?
3) What positive aspects of the current system have been considered that it is equally important not to lose when implementing a new system?

I cannot give exact figures because I do not recall exactly all with whom I have talked or of whom I have read something. Typically it means: I have seen only at most one top European (current supergroup members) player with a contrary opinion.



To make them happy. They know from their own and relevant experience what matters for a good system.



I assume that you mean EGC = (Closed) European Championship.

Your use of present tense makes it necessary to distinguish between current system and possible future system. I explain a bit for the latter:

- Those top Europeans wishing to find out the currently strongest among themselves.
- Those top Europeans wishing to have interesting games against each other.
- Those observers wishing to enjoy the games, the event, the players, the winners.



Given that I assume you to mean EGC = (Closed) European Championship and further assuming that it should have European-only games: no. (Except for non-Europeans as observers.)



Besides those mentioned earlier? None. For those wishing the EC to be separate, aspects like a) letting top non-Europeans play top Europeans during the morning or b) having a single tournament with a continuous players field from bottom to top are considered less important.

This could be one against one vote. It is not clear that you are aware of proportions - does anyone have these figures?



Yet there are many more players than the strong players who attend the Congress who may be having their happiness impacted by a change - have non-strong players been consulted?



No, I don't. I mean the Go Congress main event, the open. Any change in format to the open that is designed to cater for European vs European games is going to impact the open overall. So the question is - who is the Open designed to serve.



See last point. There is no Closed championship at present as far as I am aware. Until any proposals are implemented, the EC winner is the leading European in the Open, is it not ?



There are many positive aspects of the current system. There are plenty of views that can be canvassed to identify what they are, and to whether any of the proposals may negatively impact them. Any changes made prior to this seem premature, if the decisions made are to impact the Open as a whole.