EGF members are discussing the future systems on gohub.eu, but I like this forum more.
Will post some notes here

_________________
Go lessons: http://breakfast.go4go.net/
Russian Go news: https://vk.com/go_secrets/

Breakfast what do you think about using Congress just to pick the best 8 european players, Then they play later in the year a European Championship - 8 player all play all (Round robin) event. Instead of the dead events (Oza, Ing Cup)

Can still be finished in 4 days with long time limits.

I think it makes European Championship more important, and makes Congress better tournament.

My opinion is not important, I have no right to vote or make decisions.
Better to ask representatives of Luxemburg, Lithania and other"Go countries"

But I can post my proposals, of course

_________________
Go lessons: http://breakfast.go4go.net/
Russian Go news: https://vk.com/go_secrets/

Sounds like you don't want Ireland's vote

Dear Javaness
Yes, I need votes from Ireland.
Here you can see my proposals. Russian Go Federation sent them to EGF.
Also, we will fight for EGC in S-Petersburg. Please vote for our country! I am sure, we can make much better congress when Romania.

I think EGF made a big mistake last meeting, when accepting the rule that EGC must not be affected by Asians
I think that this decision will kill EGC.
Koreans and Japanese will not travel thousand kilometers for playing
with each other (if top Europeans will have separated events)


I prefer the same EGC system as usual, but

1. With smaller supergroup - only for best 24 by rating (16 Europeans +8 Asians). So all
important games beetween main candidates will be played. I
feel that regular European 4-5 dans have no chances to win the title, so
there is nothing wrong if they start from the second MM group

2. With separated prizes for Open section and European section -
prizes for Europeans must be bigger. I suggest to announce at least 5000 Euro prize fond, with at least 3000 to EC and 2000 to Open section

3. With announced prizes ammount before the start of the each
tournament, so top players can make the decision to play or not. Right
now the prizes can be VERY different: from 0 Euro till 3000
Euro. It's very strange to make information about prizes available
only after the last round, like on EGC-2009

4.For World cup preliminaries I suggest to give the first event to the
current European Champion and to play online preliminaries for other
events (after getting invitations from Asia) with 4 best Europeans
according to EGF rating. EGF numbers 1-4,2-3 for semifinals and the
final between the winners.
I also suggest to delete the rule: 1-tournament per person only. So,
if the current European champion wins the preliminary for event #2, he
can take part in both #1 and #2 events as the European Representative.

5. I also think that top EGF players must have the right to vote on EGF meetings.
It's very bad that small federations (with just few players per country) has the right
to decide important things and we are not allowed . I suggest to invite best 3 Europeans on each EGC
(by rating) and give them the right to vote on AGM.

_________________
Go lessons: http://breakfast.go4go.net/
Russian Go news: https://vk.com/go_secrets/

I can understand that the current system is not ideal. But the proposals that are being made look for the most part just as bad (or even worse)



So to compensate for small countries with only a few members getting a vote, you want to give individual people a vote.... this seems really strange.

I have read through several of the resent discussions. To me it just looks like a few European top players are trying to get in control (maybe I interpreted things wrong ?).
Keep in mind that the EGF represents and should support all their members, not just a select few at the top.

to me it seems like the wishes of the European top make it impossible to get to a solution that makes everyone happy.

The (in my opinion) best idea so far is to have an Open European Go Congress, organised how it is now, allowing Azians and Americans to play in the main tournament an battle for the prizes. The best 16 European players from this open event play for the European title at another date, with it's own prize pool.

anyway, I guess I'll just have to sit and wait to see what happens in the end. I have no vote and no influence

_________________
Laurens
Go school: freegame's Teaching School
Author of: The Next Move a book for 15-3kyu players.

The basis for their argument is that they provide a lot of go knowledge and research, and feel they are under represented on EGF. I know breakfast has posted several times about this subject, and that there was an attempt to start a "strong players comission" on the EGF board.

I don't feel strongly either way, but I understand their point. Breakfast in particular has had a lot of initiatives towards European Go, and he doesn't have a vote on the EGF board, so I understand his frustration. I imagine other professional and top players in Europe might feel the same way.

_________________
a1h1 [1d]: You just need to curse the gods and defend.
Good Go = Shape.
Associação Portuguesa de Go

I think you are correct that the supergroup should be smaller, and raising the bar to 5d should also be considered I think. This would improve the congress.

Splitting prize money seems to be quite popular.

AGM looks like a long meeting this year

I think that the Strong Players should form into a Strong Players Commission so that they have a good voice at the meeting. This would mean their ideas can be heard, it would improve communication. At the minute the Rules Commission is talking to the AGM - are rules experts more important than playing experts?

I think, you're slowly getting carried away by your agenda, breakfast.

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go

Javaness, how important strong players are in relation to rules commission strongly depends on the activity of the strong players. The strong players commission dissolved itself or became inactive. So currently the strong can approach the AGM via national associations, contacting the rules commission (hardly done except by means of informal discussions in non-EGF discussion forums) or (maybe) contacting the EGF Committee. The difference is simply that rules commission and EGF Committee are more active on the political scene than the strong players themselves.

I was disappointed that the Strong Players Commission effectively dissolved itself - I can understand why Catalin Taranu was unable to continue, but why didn't anyone else step into the role. Definitely, if they wish to be taken seriously, they ought to reform. There are only two people in the Rules Commission, so I am not sure that it can actually be called a Commission.

Javaness, the EGF also had at times a rating commission of exactly 1 member. Such is called a commission. The criterion is that the EGF formally accepts its commissions.

Breakfast has got the point. Storng players always need to have some impact on the way go around them evolves.

_________________

The other suggestions are more or less ok in my opinion, but not this one. I find it constitutionally tricky and in principle wrong to give some strong players individual votes at the EGF AGM, comparable to EGF members (countries).

There should be a strong players commission and it should have a say at the AGM, and it should be listened to carefully, especially regarding issues that are particularly important to the strong players. But the EGF members should vote, on behalf of all the European go players.

It is a bit of a problem that the small go countries have the same voting powers as the big ones. When I was chairing the constitution commission some years ago I was asked to think about a system with graded voting powers, i.e. big go countries having 2-3 votes each and small ones only one vote. I think something like that would be fair, but I find it technically difficult to set up. Counting individual members in every country can be misleading, conditions vary, in some countries it is expensive to become a member of the national go organisation, in others it is free. One doesn't want a possibility to simply buy voting power by paying for more members to the EGF. The country size could be measured in some way that takes into account both the number of members and the number of active players in the EGF rating system, similar to the size measure in the EGF pairgo points system. But if there is a rating threshold, how can we be sure that the ratings reflect real strengths and that the ratings in different countries are sufficiently comparable? Should the EGF rating system be included in the EGF constitution, in order to determine how many votes a country should have at the AGM?? That seems absurd. There is the same technical problem with giving voting powers to the strongest players -how should the strength be defined, with rigor worthy of a constitution?

With no solution found we simply have to keep the problem in mind. Germany for example includes a third or so of the European goplayers, so we can not easily discard the German point of view in the EGF, even if they have just one vote at the AGM. At least the big countries can find qualified candidates for the Executive, the Commissions etc more easily than the small ones, so of course they will always be well represented there.

best regards,
Henric

best regards,
Henric

True.



The wording sounds strange for me. Small federation is still a federation. Go is not only for 'top' players.

_________________
长考出臭棋.

Is it? E.g., in the EGC 2009, the top 5 places went to Korean 7d, of which 3 came from Korea and 2 were staying in Europe. Of their 50 opponents, 18 were among themselves. This is 36% and thus already pretty high. (I have not checked for weaker Korean opponents.)

http://egc2009.nl/?q=node/1472

In the EGC 2003, the top 4 places went to Korean 7d. Of their 40 opponents, 22 were Koreans (i.e., not counting Japanese). This is 55%, a high percentage. Clearly one can say that top Koreans would travel to Europe even if they play a high percentage of games against each other.

http://www.eurogofed.org/results/congress/egc03m.txt

True, that is a high number. However if you take the top Europeans out to play their own tournament during the Congress may increase that percentage or pair them with weaker opponents.

As you said some of them may not mind a second evening tournament to player stong European tournaments and may do very well. But some may not and that applies for the European Go players as well. The EGF may well choose this option but it can backfire dramatically especially is no strong players (i.e. 5/6/7 dans upwards) enter this tournament or take it seriously.

Facts not in evidence.

A newcomer to the European Congress doesn't know what to expect. If he arrives to find that he's playing a bunch of other Koreans, he may decide that isn't worth returning another year. The real measure of whether the top players are having a good time is if they come back again in future years.

Naturally 'having a good time' involves other factors than simply playing other strong Koreans, but a steady stream of new faces winning the EGC and then never returning doesn't give you grounds to draw your conclusion.

There are both regular and occasional participants from every country.

Yes, it is.


"Let them eat cake" said the french princess.

_________________
长考出臭棋.