If voting should dismiss all details and postpone them to a commission, then it becomes interesting to look at only the cores of the proposals. The suggested parameters outside the core need not be part of the core votes but might be considered a rough additional guideline.

http://ktt.hjelt.helsinki.fi/msiivola/g ... osals.html
http://www.eurogofed.org/egf/proposals2010ru.pdf
http://www.eurogofed.org/egf/proposals2010ec1.pdf
http://www.eurogofed.org/egf/proposals2010ec2.pdf

Contents:

- Definitions
- Core of the Proposals
- Tabular Core
- Suggested Core Votes
- Aspects that could be Determined by a Commission




Definitions:

Open-EC = European Open Championship

EC = European Championship

* = suggested as a comment

modified Swiss = Swiss; players with too few wins drop out; if the
schedules are parallel, then dropping out players can enter the
Open-EC; pairings during final rounds ensure determination of a unique
winner




Core of the Proposals




Proposal 1:

Core:
- interleaving schedule so that players can play both EC and Open-EC
- modified Swiss

Suggested parameters outside the core:
- 120 min thinking time
- 8 rounds
- 32 Europeans initially




Proposal 2:

Core:
- parallel schedule of EC and Open-EC
- modified Swiss

Suggested parameters outside the core:
- keep current thinking time
- 9+ rounds
- 32 Europeans initially




Proposal 3:

Core:
- parallel schedule of EC and Open-EC
- 1st stage: 3 rounds preliminaries: only games against Europeans
count, 1 game against non-European
- 2nd stage: modified Swiss

Suggested parameters outside the core:
- keep current thinking time
- 2nd stage: 8 rounds
- 64 players initially in 1st stage
- 32 Europeans initially in 2nd stage




Proposal 4:

Core:
- parallel schedule of EC and Open-EC
- round-robin

Suggested parameters outside the core:
- optional: playoff KO for 1st place
- keep current thinking time
- 10 Europeans




Proposal 5:

Core:
- Open-EC during morning, EC during afternoon/evening
- short thinking time in Open-EC and EC
- Swiss
- each EGF member can nominate 1 national representative if they do not have already someone among the top 10

Suggested parameters outside the core:
- Thinking time: Open-EC 75 min, EC 90 min
- 10 rounds
- about 30 Europeans altogether (10 more than those nominated)




Proposal 5 One Week Variant (5OW):

Core:
- EC one week only
- Open-EC during morning, EC during afternoon/evening
- short thinking time in Open-EC and EC
- 1st stage: Swiss
- 2nd stage: KO

Suggested parameters outside the core:
- Thinking time: Open-EC 75 min, EC 90 min
- 1st stage: 5 rounds
- 2nd stage: 3 rounds
- 1st stage: 30 Europeans




Proposal Russia (RU):

Core:
- modified current McMahon system
- Europeans and non-Europeans
- small supergroup

Suggested parameters outside the core:
- keep current thinking time
- 16 Europeans in supergroup
- 8 non-Europeans in supergroup




Proposal Stiassny (ST)

Core:
- parallel schedule of EC and Open-EC
- 1st stage in first week, round-robin groups
- 2nd stage in second week, round-robin groups
- 3rd stage: playoff KO for 1st place

Suggested parameters outside the core:
- keep current thinking time
- after 1st stage, dropping out EC Europeans enter Open-EC
- 1st stage: 24 Europeans
- 2nd stage: 8 Europeans




Proposals Hricova 1A/B (H1):

Core:
- parallel schedule of EC and Open-EC
- round-robin

Suggested parameters outside the core:
- optional*: playoff KO for 1st place
- keep current thinking time
- 12 Europeans




Proposals Hricova 2A/B (H2):

Core:
- parallel schedule of EC and Open-EC
- Swiss

Suggested parameters outside the core:
- keep current thinking time
- 10 rounds
- choice* for 1st place: a) playoff KO, b) tiebreakers, c) shared
- 16 Europeans
- players play all Swiss rounds



Tabular Core:

[Some exceptional aspects not shown. View with fixed width font.]






Suggested Core Votes:

The following voting scheme first checks for potential radical changes compared to the current congress and prior AGM decisions. Thereby the number of remaining proposals can be cut reasonably quickly while every proposal gets a fair appreciation in its structural comparison to the other proposals.




Vote 0: Shall there be non-Europeans in all rounds?

If yes, then these choices remain:
- Proposal RU
- current system
- current system with modified technical details

If no, then Proposal RU drops out.




Vote 1: Shall the Open-EC be during the morning and the EC be during
afternoon/evening, both with short thinking times?

If yes, then these choices remain:
- Proposal 5
- Proposal 5OW
- ad hoc proposals

If no, then Proposals 5 and 5OW drop out.




Vote 2: Shall the schedules of EC / Open-EC be interleaving or
parallel?

If interleaving, then these choices remain:
- Proposal 1
- ad hoc proposals

If parallel, then these choices enter the further voting:
- Proposal 2
- Proposal 3
- Proposal 4
- Proposal ST
- Proposal H1
- Proposal H2




Vote 3: Shall there be a multi-stage system core?

If yes, then these choices remain
- Proposal 3
- Proposal ST
- ad hoc proposals
and Vote 3A is: Shall the major system be modified Swiss or
round-robin?

If no, then these choices enter the further voting:
- Proposal 2
- Proposal 4
- Proposal H1
- Proposal H2




Vote 4: Shall the system be a) round-robin or b) Swiss / modified
Swiss?

If round-robin, then these choices remain
- Proposal 4
- Proposal H1
and Vote 4A is: Shall there be 10 or 12 Europeans?

If Swiss / modified Swiss, then these choices enter the further
voting:
- Proposal 2
- Proposal H2




Vote 5: Shall the system be a) modified Swiss or b) Swiss?

If modified Swiss, then it is Proposal 2.

If Swiss, then it is Proposal H2.




Once the preferred proposal is determined, additional votes might be made on its details or forwarded to a commission.

If the preferred proposal allows it, then an extra vote can be made on whether to have an additional Top Players Tournament (European vs. non-European) during afternoon / evening.




Aspects that could be Determined by a Commission:

- seeding criteria to the EC
- seeding method + criteria from a stage to a next stage
- result criteria for EC places 2+
- result tiebreaker details for Open-EC
- pairing details
- details of players dropping out of EC and moving to Open-EC
- other necessary rules details

Note: For the tournament system quality, careful working out of these aspects is essential. Very likely a commission, which has enough time, would do that better than the AGM.

The systematic method for working through the proposals looks like it may be time consuming, but in principle sounds like a very good way of doing it - congratulations Robert!

My only concern is who will be voting, and whose interests they will be representing by making those votes? (e.g. are they voting for the method that makes the most sense to them, or voting on behalf of the player base they democratically represent?)

PRoposal 1 or Russia.

_________________

1, then 5, then Russia, in that order.

I do not think that it is sensible to vote on details and then try to fit the system around that. This is just too prone to eliminating all choices.

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

Can I still add my proposal? Or shall I wait for the next year. My proposal is the the same as Russian proposal (smaller super group), but I would add middle group between super group and rest of the top group players (4-dan+). Super group size should be 16 or 24 players, depending how many strong Europeans and Asians are participating (16 is preferred) and middle group should be around 16-32 players.

Liisa, the EGF does not work like an online discussion forum. The AGM has had its deadline for major motions. Typically you should contact your national delegate. If you want to be taken seriously, you must reveal your real name (also to prove your country and thus legitimate interest) and provide good reasons underlying your proposal in the given context, which includes the, IIRC, 21:0 vote in favour of European-only games (relevant) in the EC.

Ok, I hope that Russian proposal will flourish in AGM. Russian proposal is clearly the best and only solution that can be considered. Then for the next AGM in France, we can start discussion how we solve the problem of 4-dan top group bar. And for this problem my proposal is ideal.