Mistakes in EGC-2005 (Prague)

[RobertJasiek]

Or a lightning tournament instead of SOS.

I am glad starting to see some support for my idea.

[LovroKlc]

Or a lightning tournament instead of SOS.

I am glad starting to see some support for my idea.

Lighting game sshould have nothing to do in such an important tournament. They are almost purely based on luck. But SOS is no good either - maybe there should be one more (or two) rounds between players with the sam MMS.

[RobertJasiek]

IMO, best options in order are:

- more rounds
- share title
- playoffs (the more thinking time the better)
- lightning games tiebreaker
- classical tiebreaker(s)

[willemien]

But if you (ONLY) reject constraint

You violate another one you have not listed: High quality of winner determination.

I disagree with you on this

In my system the european champion is decided by

- a 7 round swiss tournament (between europeans only)
so
- NO interference of non european players on the determination.
- No inference of MM scores
Also it allows more people in the tournament


I am wondering how you can get a higher quality (in 10 rounds and still have some non european - european games.

off course there are some negative sides as well.

High influence of the TD (because of accelerated pairing)


Except of the Europeans only tournament ideas all have the interference of non european players on the outcome.

(Even the mixed supergroup ideas have this problem, maybe even in a bigger scale we imagine at this momen, supposing a 16E- 8A group an european will on average only play 66% of his games against other europeans, in an 16-16 group it will only be 50%)

IMO, best options in order are:

- more rounds
- share title
- playoffs (the more thinking time the better)
- lightning games tiebreaker
- classical tiebreaker(s)

- More rounds good ides lets make it a 3 week event
- Share title, difficult but agree with share prizemoney, but to cut the cup in quarters.
- Play offs same problem as more rounds
- Lighting games, same problem


- Classical tie breakers, maybe the only opion

[willemien]

A player cannot play in 10 rounds 10 europeans and also some rounds against non-europeans.

That is not the only pair of contradictions.

Off course there is always Arrows paradox

But which other contradictions do you mean?

[RobertJasiek]

I am wondering how you can get a higher quality (in 10 rounds and still have some non european - european games.

I have described such systems before.

- More rounds good ides lets make it a 3 week event

Up to 14 rounds, 2 weeks suffice.

- Share title, difficult but agree with share prizemoney, but to cut the cup in quarters.

What is difficult? (There is not even a cup.)

- Play offs same problem as more rounds
- Lighting games, same problem

A congress has 15 days. Which problem?

[willemien]

More rounds would be the best option but i guess some players would object to that as well. so i did not consider that.

But even then I think my system is best making it an embedded 9 or 10 rounds swiss tournament.

(I do restrict the number of tournament games to 1 per day)


I don't remember to have seen which system has your preference. (Be a bit open about it)

Then i will try to shoot some (More) holes in it



Why a single Champion? Yes good philosophical question.

Why a tournament at all ? (same category)

[RobertJasiek]

My favourite is Proposal 2. Other proposals are good second candidates though if their core is only one stage so that during the tournament tiebreakers are not needed. For me the most important criteria are:

- high tournament quality: no relevant tiebreakers, enough rounds, long thinking time, enough top European-only games
- enough Europeans in the EC

[Harleqin]

In my system the european champion is decided by

- a 7 round swiss tournament (between europeans only)
so
- NO interference of non european players on the determination.
- No inference of MM scores
Also it allows more people in the tournament


I am wondering how you can get a higher quality (in 10 rounds and still have some non european - european games.

Your proposal puts almost the entire emphasis on the closed championship. I think that the main tournament (the open championship) is crippled by having excluded the top europeans for most of the rounds.

[Harleqin]

But which other contradictions do you mean?

The whole set of goals and constraints you listed is contradictory, and there are numerous ways of breaking the contradiction. For example, the current system only takes out this constraint:

- The european championships are independent of the Open Championships

[willemien]

In my system the european champion is decided by

- a 7 round swiss tournament (between europeans only)
so
- NO interference of non european players on the determination.
- No inference of MM scores
Also it allows more people in the tournament


I am wondering how you can get a higher quality (in 10 rounds and still have some non european - european games.

Your proposal puts almost the entire emphasis on the closed championship. I think that the main tournament (the open championship) is crippled by having excluded the top europeans for most of the rounds.

No this proposel has not that result
In every round around 20 - 30% of the european title candidates is available to play against non european title candidates. (that is almost enough to pair every non european against an european)
It is not that there are 7 dedicated rounds in the main tournament were all european title candidates are playing eachother (Having dedicated rounds would result in the problem you describe.)
The idea is that every european title candidate plays 7 games against other european title candidates.

It is the case that the pairing for the european title tournament takes precedence over the pairing for the open tournament. But i think this does not interfere with the expected results of the Open.

[RobertJasiek]

Your proposal puts almost the entire emphasis on the closed championship.

Yes.

I think that the main tournament (the open championship) is crippled by having excluded the top europeans for most of the rounds.

Not the whole main tournament but only the top is "crippled". That is so because a better quality EC and a better quality Top Players Tournament would be created additionally. Result: Each top player (European or non-European) gets to play more interesting games against Europeans and against non-Europeans than he gets under the current system.

[RobertJasiek]

But i think this does not interfere with the expected results of the Open.

Surely it does affect it but it will be hard to measure the effect explicitly.

[Harleqin]

One immediate concern with an additional tournament is that it would be in direct competition to the other Go and Non-Go side events of the congress, as well as to leisure time (which is important in a two-week "total Go immersion"). I do not know as how cramped the current schedule is seen, but I am quite certain that also the top players do not want to spend most of their time in the playing room and instead would like to do some sightseeing and other recreational activities.

The "top players tournament" attempts to fix one bad aspect introduced by meddling with the main tournament. However, it would be much easier not to meddle with the main tournament to begin with and instead simply hold the closed championship as a separate tournament in place of the "top players tournament". Anything you say against a separate closed championship at the congress also holds against the "top players tournament", plus that the main tournament is affected negatively and the goals not cleanly separated at all.

(Note that I am not advocating a separate closed championship tournament at the congress in the above.)

[hilltopgo]

Why not just have one tournament, and the European citizen with the best result is the European champion (though an Asian player most likely will have won the actual tournament)?