EGC 2010

kokomi · **#41**

How is the SOS of someone who absents some games generated? i.e. Thomas Debarre was absent from the first game, and his SOS is still 126 sum of five games.

Mcgreag · **#42**

kokomi wrote:

How is the SOS of someone who absents some games generated? i.e. Thomas Debarre was absent from the first game, and his SOS is still 126 sum of five games.

Not 100% sure but I think it adds the players own mms to sos for games not played.

Joaz Banbeck · **#43**

daal wrote:

... It means that the entire table has to be recalculated after every round to reflect everyone's change in position. :shock:

What a mammoth task. Was this done the same way before the advent of the compter era?

No, it doesn't have to be done that way. The players can be tracked by at least two different numbering systems: their final rank, or their initial number ( probably ordered by strength before the tournament starts ). All pairings and other mid-tournament postings refer to them by their initial numbers. Then at the end of the tournament the table is redone once.

Kirby · **#44**

If you take a "bye" (skip out for a round), it's a double edged sword. On one hand, you don't get a loss, so your MMS can be the same as somebody that won that round.

On the other hand, though, since you didn't play anybody, your SOS is hurt. You have one less opponent to go into the sum of your opponent's scores. So in the event of a tie, you will be at a disadvantage.

I believe this is how it works, at least.

pwaldron · **#45**

Kirby wrote:

If you take a "bye" (skip out for a round), it's a double edged sword. On one hand, you don't get a loss, so your MMS can be the same as somebody that won that round.

I'm not sure how things are done in Europe, but in the US there are two types of byes: forced and unforced. Forced byes happen when there are an odd number of players in the field and someone has to sit out. In that case the bye counts as a win (because that person would play if they could and shouldn't be disadvantaged). An unforced bye occurs when you want to take the round off. Unforced byes count as a loss.

To answer the previous question about how SOS is calculated for players involved in a bye, it is usual (in North America at least) to count the bye as a win/loss against a phantom player who starts off with the same initial score and who wins exactly half of his games. So for Thomas Debarre, it would be someone who was the same rank as Thomas and who has a current score of 2.5 out of five games.

HermanHiddema · **#46**

I just noticed that the weekend tournament started with a 32 player top group. Why such a huge group for only 5 rounds?

Kirby · **#47**

pwaldron wrote:

Kirby wrote:

If you take a "bye" (skip out for a round), it's a double edged sword. On one hand, you don't get a loss, so your MMS can be the same as somebody that won that round.

I'm not sure how things are done in Europe, but in the US there are two types of byes: forced and unforced. Forced byes happen when there are an odd number of players in the field and someone has to sit out. In that case the bye counts as a win (because that person would play if they could and shouldn't be disadvantaged). An unforced bye occurs when you want to take the round off. Unforced byes count as a loss.

To answer the previous question about how SOS is calculated for players involved in a bye, it is usual (in North America at least) to count the bye as a win/loss against a phantom player who starts off with the same initial score and who wins exactly half of his games. So for Thomas Debarre, it would be someone who was the same rank as Thomas and who has a current score of 2.5 out of five games.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

TMark · **#48**

HermanHiddema wrote:

I just noticed that the weekend tournament started with a 32 player top group. Why such a huge group for only 5 rounds?

Surely to get one unique winner from just that group?

Best wishes from Colorado Springs.

Vesa · **#49**

HermanHiddema wrote:

I just noticed that the weekend tournament started with a 32 player top group. Why such a huge group for only 5 rounds?

TMark wrote:

Surely to get one unique winner from just that group?

Or maybe it's a tribute to Essen Turnier in the 90's where they had 65 players in the top McMahon group for a 5-round tournament. The winner got the 1st place by SOS tie-breaker

Cheers,
Vesa
EGC 2010 TD 5D

willemien · **#50**

Vesa wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:

I just noticed that the weekend tournament started with a 32 player top group. Why such a huge group for only 5 rounds?

TMark wrote:

Surely to get one unique winner from just that group?

Or maybe it's a tribute to Essen Turnier in the 90's where they had 65 players in the top McMahon group for a 5-round tournament. The winner got the 1st place by SOS tie-breaker

Cheers,
Vesa
EGC 2010 TD 5D

It will give an unique winner (for the first place it will just act like an single elimination tournament)
The problem will be more to decide the 2-6 place because there will be 5 players with 4 points.

willemien · **#51**

on [http://www.egc2010.fi/results/egc-weekend-results.txt]
there are 6 players in the topgropoup with 4 wins.

not sure what the reason is was the topgroup bigger than 32 players or was there a pairing error?

Harleqin · **#52**

willemien wrote:

:oops:
On http://www.egc2010.fi/results/egc-weekend-results.txt,
there are 6 players in the top group with 4 wins.

I am not sure what the reason is. Was the top group bigger than 32 players, or was there a pairing error?

I think there were games with players who were not in the top group. The top group is not isolated from the rest of the tournament, so this seems not unusual.

richardamullens · **#53**

It is normal that, for European ratings purposes, the first and second weeks results in the main tournament are presented as two separate events.

I am not saying that this is how it should be, I am just wondering when and how the results will be submitted.

I am concerned that if both are submitted at the same time it will obscure the observed ratings changes for the tournament as a whole - and we won't see the change resulting from the first week's play.

Mcgreag · **#54**

It doesn't really matter if they are counted as one or 2 whatever. Every game is still calculated separately and the calculation for game 2 is made based on change after game 1 etc. The only thing that makes a difference is that there are a limit to how many points you can lose in a single tournament.

topazg · **#55**

Mcgreag wrote:

It doesn't really matter if they are counted as one or 2 whatever. Every game is still calculated separately and the calculation for game 2 is made based on change after game 1 etc. The only thing that makes a difference is that there are a limit to how many points you can lose in a single tournament.

Really? I thought the rating changes were taken as a batch by tournament? (so starting rating is used for all 3 games you play in a tournament as opposed to adjusted after each one)

Vesa · **#56**

The Main Tournament system is 10 rounds McMahon. I don't understand the origin or the need for the habit to report this tournament as two separate tournaments. If anyone can point to an EGF rule or other regulation where this is mentioned, I would be grateful for the link.

I will try my best to report the Main Tournament as one entity in the EGD.

Cheers,

Vesa

Vesa Laatikainen | TD, Main Tournament
54th European Go Congress 2010 Tampere, Finland
info@egc2010.fi
http://www.egc2010.fi

RomanPszonka · **#57**

Vesa wrote:

I don't understand the origin or the need for the habit to report this tournament as two separate tournaments.

Possibly for ranking to be calculated in the correct order, as main tournament is separated by weekend one.

Adrian Ghioc · **#58**

[I apologize if this is not the right place for this post]

I would like to say something to the Finnish organizers: CONGRATULATIONS!

While being home ... it was not for the first time when I was able to watch some games broadcasted live on EuroGoTV. But ... It's the first time when I was able to see the pairings 20-30 minutes after a round started. It's the first time when not too long after the a round was finished I was able to see the results. Tomorrow it will be somehow weird when 17:30 (my time) will come again and there won't be any result to be seen!

Thank You!

Adrian

Shedal · **#59**

In case anybody is too lazy (just like me) to search EGC 2010 games through unnamed EuroGoTV games on KGS, here's all the transcribed games from the main tourney's board 1 and 2: EGC2010.zip
I corrected some scribe errors and added results to game infos.

usagi · **#60**

HermanHiddema wrote:

LovroKlc wrote:

Just out of curiosity: What was the prize money of 2009 EGC?

1000 euro for first place, 600 for 2nd place, 300 for 3rd place. That was both for the Open and for the European. Since four players shared the same number of points (for both titles), the price money was shared equally between them, 475 each.

See also the Dutch reaction on Romanian Proposals (attached PDF) at: http://gohub.eu/forums/1/topics/7

With the sponsorship they had and the number of entrants I am extremely surprised they did not have prize money of EU20,000 or more. Then again I am not familiar with the economics of running such a tournament. But I am just suprised, how many people would it take to show up to have some really worthwhile prizes for the pros?

The issue here is being able to support high level go, or not (clearly inable to, currently), not catering to pros or who is being unreasonable, or other politicking.

EGC 2010

Who is online