EC System Proposals: Tabular Comparison
http://ktt.hjelt.helsinki.fi/msiivola/g ... osals.htmlhttp://www.eurogofed.org/egf/proposals2010ru.pdfhttp://www.eurogofed.org/egf/proposals2010ec1.pdfhttp://www.eurogofed.org/egf/proposals2010ec2.pdfCode:
Abbreviations:
C = Current system
1 = Proposal 1 = (8 rounds Swiss + finals, shorter time)
2 = Proposal 2 = (Swiss 9+ rounds)
3 = Proposal 3 = (16 groups + 8 rounds Swiss, finals, shorter time)
4 = Proposal 4 = (10 player round-robin + playoffs with shorter time)
5 = Proposal 5 = (morning: McMahon Open-EC, afternoon: Swiss EC, very short times)
5OW = Proposal 5 One Week Variant = (same but EC is 5 rounds Swiss + 3 rounds KO)
RU = Proposal Russia = (McMahon, supergroup: 16 Europeans + 8 Asians)
ST = Proposal Stiassny = (groups 1 + groups 2 + KO)
H1A = Proposal Hricova 1A = (12 player round-robin, seeding: ratings)
H1B = Proposal Hricova 1B = (12 player round-robin, seeding: mixed)
H2A = Proposal Hricova 2A = (10 rounds Swiss, 16 players, seeding: ratings)
H2B = Proposal Hricova 2B = (10 rounds Swiss, 16 players, seeding: mixed)
++ = very much
+ = much
o = average
- = little
-- = very little
Code:
C 1 2 3 4 5 5OW RU ST H1A H1B H2A H2B Proposal
Tournament system quality
o ++ ++ ++ -- -- -- -- o -- - -- - Low tiebreaker impact before tournament (according to proposal)
+ ++ ++ ++ + + + + ++ + + + + Low tiebreaker impact before tournament (theoretically possible)
++ -- ++ -- -- ++ -- ++ -- ++ ++ ++ ++ Low tiebreaker impact during tournament
-- - ++ - ++ -- ++ -- ++ -- -- -- -- Low tiebreaker impact after tournament for winner
+ o + o ++ + o + - ++ ++ -- -- Pairings quality
- ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ - ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ Champion does not depend on number of non-European opponents
o -- ++ -- + o -- o -- o o o o Champion wins more games than competitors
++ - ++ - o ++ - ++ - ++ ++ ++ ++ No repeated pairs needed
++ - + - + -- -- ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ EC Thinking times + Games per day
++ ++ ++ ++ ++ -- -- ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ Open-EC thinking times
++ ++ ++ ++ -- + + o + -- -- -- -- Enough initial players to include the strongest player for sure
+ + + + ++ -- -- + + ++ ++ + + No really weak opponents for top EC players
o + + + ++ + - o o ++ ++ ++ ++ Enough top-top European games in EC
++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ - ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ Number of games by champion sufficient
++ ++ ++ ++ - ? ? o ++ - + - + Variety of participants from year to year
Schedule
++ ++ + -- o -- -- ++ ++ + + ++ ++ Fits congress schedule
-- + -- -- -- -- ++ -- -- -- -- -- -- Partial congress attendance possible for top EC players
+ - + + + -- -- + + + + + + EC players can play in side-events
Citizenship
-- ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ -- ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ European-only games
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -- -- -- -- -- European non-EGF countries admitted (intention)
++ + o o -- ++ ++ ++ o -- -- -- -- EC players can play Open-EC
++ o - - - ++ ++ ++ - -- -- -- -- Top non-Europeans can play top Europeans in Open-EC
++ ++ ++ ++ ++ -- -- ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ Top non-Europeans can play top Europeans during evening matches
Easy
+ o ++ - + ++ o + o + + - - Easy system (except for initial seeding)
Comment:
As the example "Low tiebreaker impact before tournament" shows, many system proposals could be improved with respect to their technical details. Indifferent usage of ratings as initial seeding criterion is the most frequent mistake. A (much) smaller EC players field requires a (much) better qualification standard. If qualification tournaments are not wanted, then just setting some criteria for a player's rating can already be a significant improvement. E.g., instead of the current rating, average rating might be used. Instead of allowing a player to have played zero rated games during the previous 12 months, a minimal number of rated games during the period should be set. Since many system proposals could be improved, it is suggested to vote only on the basic ideas of the proposals, set rough guidelines for the selected proposal and let a commission work out the details, which has to be done anyway.