Potential European champion paradox

[tapir]

I wonder how people would feel about the current system if Ilya would lose the final against Jan Simara. He would then still be placed firmly ahead of him in the main tournament, but be 2nd place in the championship.

Another potential paradox which doesn't matter this time is that a player might have a chance to win the open tournament, but loses this chance by playing the integrated k.o. tournament for the championship.

[pwaldron]

Another potential paradox which doesn't matter this time is that a player might have a chance to win the open tournament, but loses this chance by playing the integrated k.o. tournament for the championship.

I expect at that point the knockout event would be eliminated. My understanding is that the knockout was created because Europeans weren't capable of winning the EGC championship outright against the visiting (recently Korean) competition. If European playing strength reaches the level where they can actually compete then the knockout is no longer needed.

[Javaness2]

I don't see why it would be a problem. You may go into the knock-out as the underdog, but if you win, surely everyone is going to recognise your achievement. You're no longer in a McMahon, so why would anyone point backwards to the McMahon score?

The knock-out is a reasonable way to satisfy the EGF's constitution.

[hyperpape]

You're no longer in a McMahon, so why would anyone point backwards to the McMahon score?

You should really do a better job of publicizing that information (http://www.egc2012.eu/congress/main-tou ... nt-round-9).

In general, in a tournament, you mark off a section of time in which players compete, and strive to make it so that the player who performs the best wins. If Simara manages to beat Ilja tomorrow, that expectation will be badly violated. Ilja will have faced much stronger competition, while winning more games against them, and even beating Simara once in the process. Yet Simara will be the champion, since this last game is weighted more heavily than the others. It will become obviously implausible to claim that this tournament selects the best performing European player.

(I feel like I should go ahead and note that I dislike this tournament format on ideological grounds. So you may think I am biased).

[Laman]

I expect at that point the knockout event would be eliminated. My understanding is that the knockout was created because Europeans weren't capable of winning the EGC championship outright against the visiting (recently Korean) competition. If European playing strength reaches the level where they can actually compete then the knockout is no longer needed.

if i am correct, the reason was that EGC tournament attempts both to let Korean and other visitors to play against best Europeans and choose the European Champion.

the earlier system was: all play MacMahon together, the first player is the winner of Open, the first European is the European Champion
drawbacks: often there are n super-strong Asians who beat every European if they play against him. then if one European was paired against k of them, he has better chances to win the Championship than someone paired against k+1 Asians. this element was mostly random and widely considered unfair

the current system has its own drawbacks, as was already pointed out.

You should really do a better job of publicizing that information (http://www.egc2012.eu/congress/main-tou ... nt-round-9).

In general, in a tournament, you mark off a section of time in which players compete, and strive to make it so that the player who performs the best wins. If Simara manages to beat Ilja tomorrow, that expectation will be badly violated. Ilja will have faced much stronger competition, while winning more games against them, and even beating Simara once in the process. Yet Simara will be the champion, since this last game is weighted more heavily than the others. It will become obviously implausible to claim that this tournament selects the best performing European player.

(I feel like I should go ahead and note that I dislike this tournament format on ideological grounds. So you may think I am biased).

as it is now, the first 7 rounds of MM serves as qualification for Europeans to enter the 'real' tournament - 8 players knock-out. i personally also slightly dislike knock-outs (even worse if the strongest participant get eliminated by an upset in an early round, as could happen in Shikshin-Surma game). still it is apparently the most popular format in most sports. plus it avoids the alchemy of others' games influencing your result

as an interesting and little known format, i came across the floating multiple elimination, which is used in Arimaa championships. it resembles a swiss system, only if you accumulate a certain number of loses (3, for example), you drop out of the competition. this continues until only one player remains.
advantages: fair, clear, stronger players get more games (to better decide between them), top places are not decided before the end
disadvatanges: takes more time than a simple knock-out, as much as round-robin (or possibly more). this probably disqualifies it as a suitable European Championship format

to refresh the constructive discussion, what were other proposals for the EGC format before the current one got adopted?

PS: to be fair, i am biased towards the current format due to my fellow countryman being in the finals and having a shot at being the champion

[Javaness2]

You're no longer in a McMahon, so why would anyone point backwards to the McMahon score?

You should really do a better job of publicizing that information (http://www.egc2012.eu/congress/main-tou ... nt-round-9).

In general, in a tournament, you mark off a section of time in which players compete, and strive to make it so that the player who performs the best wins. If Simara manages to beat Ilja tomorrow, that expectation will be badly violated. Ilja will have faced much stronger competition, while winning more games against them, and even beating Simara once in the process. Yet Simara will be the champion, since this last game is weighted more heavily than the others. It will become obviously implausible to claim that this tournament selects the best performing European player.

(I feel like I should go ahead and note that I dislike this tournament format on ideological grounds. So you may think I am biased).

It's not my job to publicise for the EGF. You can make the argument that if Jan wins, he didn't deserve to, but I really don't think anyone will buy that. Take the football world cup - ever see anyone make that argument there? People will just congratulate him.

[Javaness2]

the earlier system was: all play MacMahon together, the first player is the winner of Open, the first European is the European Champion
drawbacks: often there are n super-strong Asians who beat every European if they play against him. then if one European was paired against k of them, he has better chances to win the Championship than someone paired against k+1 Asians. this element was mostly random and widely considered unfair

The old supergroup system was flawed. Everyone was aware of that. When a Korean player wasn't able to start in the supergroup, and finished in second, when he won the most games - and won against the champion, people started saying so. It wasn't fair on the European players, it wasn't fair on the non-European players, and so it got changed.

[tapir]

Another potential paradox which doesn't matter this time is that a player might have a chance to win the open tournament, but loses this chance by playing the integrated k.o. tournament for the championship.

I expect at that point the knockout event would be eliminated. My understanding is that the knockout was created because Europeans weren't capable of winning the EGC championship outright against the visiting (recently Korean) competition. If European playing strength reaches the level where they can actually compete then the knockout is no longer needed.

Well, both Ilya and Artem were ahead of the (few) Korean competitors present in Tampere 2010, i.e. this already happened before the current system was introduced. Obviously the old system had many flaws, but that Europeans can't compete against strong visitors was at no point true.

If EGF is concerned about European competitiveness it should help Artem get a visum.

To clarify: If Jan wins, I will just congratulate him as well.

[HermanHiddema]

It happened, Jan Simara won.

Congrats to Jan!

[RobertJasiek]

My understanding is that the knockout was created because Europeans weren't capable of winning the EGC championship outright against the visiting (recently Korean) competition.

Repetition of this myth does not make it true. The KO was introduced for different reasons discussed earlier.

If European playing strength reaches the level where they can actually compete

That the European Open Championship is not won by Europeans each year or that Europeans do not totally crush non-Europeans does not mean that European playing strength would be below non-European EGC participants' playing strength. See earlier years for evidence.

[RobertJasiek]

implausible to claim that this tournament selects the best performing European player.

"best performing" depends on definition.

1) "winning the KO"

2) "highest place in the EOC table"

3) "highest average rating since just after the previous EGC until the end of the current EGC"

4) "best performance according to some yet unspecified criteria other than rating since just after the previous EGC until the end of the current EGC"

In particular, it is plausible under (1) but implausible under (2).

[RobertJasiek]

when he won the most games - and won against the champion, people started saying so.

Discussion started much earlier.

[hyperpape]

1. The European Champion has been the open champion twice in the past ten years. Of course we also have ratings that demonstrate that the Asian visitors have performed above the level of any but the best Europeans.

"best performing" depends on definition.

1) "winning the KO"
...
5. The player who has lost the most games with tie-breaks broken in favor of the player with the lower McMahon score.

I have kindly edited your comments to make it clearer that they don't make sense.

The question is whether, given some independent criteria of what constitutes best performance, argue that the tournament can deliver the right verdict.

[RobertJasiek]

My comments make sense, although maybe not the sense you have been expecting in them. My comments are not meant to say that each option would be a (or: an equally) good choice for "best performance" but to exhibit the need for your conclusion: that some independent, preliminary, a piori considerations are useful before one can then assess "best performance" under a (or: the given) tournament system.

[hyperpape]

Logically speaking, I have not demonstrated that. But that is only relevant if either a) our goal is to rigorously prove the facts about the tournament, b) you're seriously claiming that the current tournament might be a good way to assess relative performance. Are you?