A question about handicaps

[tchan001]

If you don't like handicaps, you can try playing in the ASR room on KGS.
http://www.advancedstudyroom.com/ASR/th ... tart-guide

[Sverre]

The purpose of a tournament is to search for the strongest player.

No.

For most players, and for most tournaments, the purpose of the tournament is to play competitive games against other players in a real-life setting, whether that means handicap games or even games. You say you haven't participated in a real--life tournament yet; the feeling is quite different and more intense than even a serious non-tournament game, everyone is trying to play at their best,

It doesn't make sense at all to give a weak player handicap here, because if - lets say - a 3 kyu wins a tournament where handicap is given, he is still definitely not better than the 2d player he won against with 5 handicap stones by 3.5 points

What's important is that the 3 kyu played a stronger game than his usual, and the 2d played a worse game than his usual. The winner of the tournament is the player who played best relative to his usual strength. You think that means nothing? If playing well can only be measured in absolute terms what's even the point of amateurs playing in tournaments at all?

[RobertJasiek]

Tournaments in go are most often played with a McMahon system, with everyone above a certain rank (those who can actually win the tournament) play without handicap, whereas the rest play with reduced handicap. That is the most common setup for a Go tournament.

The very purpose of McMahon is to be WITHOUT handicap for all ranks, and that is the standard in Germany.

[Sverre]

The very purpose of McMahon is to be WITHOUT handicap for all ranks, and that is the standard in Germany.

I was surprised because I was under the impression most European tournaments used reduced handicap in the kyu ranks, so I checked your last few domestic tournaments.

At http://europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/Tourna ... y=T120414B , if you look at the lowest-placed player in the first round, you see 59-/b4, which to me indicates a four-stone handicap game.

At http://europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/Tourna ... y=T111126E , in the round 4 match between players placed 187. and 168., 4 handi stones were again used.

In http://europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/Tourna ... y=T101127D , the game between players 168 and 169 was at 2 handicap stones.

So 3 out of 3 of the most recent German tournaments you played in with kyu players attending had at least some handicap games. Do you only play in nonstandard German tournaments?

[RobertJasiek]

Some tournaments use handicaps ONLY AT THE BOTTOM of the players field, e.g., below 15k or below 20k, especially when the field is very thin there and 20k can meet 30k. 15k or stronger usually don't get handicaps in German McMahon / Swiss tournaments (unless things have changed dramatically and I have not noticed yet).

There are exceptions though: Some small regional tournaments use handicaps for all ranks (or maybe all except the very top). E.g., most Berliner seasonal tournaments use handicap. It is the major reason why I do not attend them. The recent China Cup in Berlin I attended only after verifying that I would not have to play any handicap game despite its awkward announcement of "modified handicap for all".

[RobertJasiek]

At http://europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/Tourna ... y=T120303B , in the round 4 match between players placed 187. and 168., 4 handi stones were again used.

Are you joking?! The links refers to the German Championship Preliminaries 2012. German Championships do not use handicap. The number of participants was 11. So 187. or 168. cannot make sense.

In http://europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/Tourna ... y=T101127D , the game between players 168 and 169 was at 2 handicap stones.

This is an example of "handicap only at the bottom of a tournament's players field".

[Fulan]

Handicap is something that you earn

This is an interesting way of looking at it.

The purpose of a tournament is to search for the strongest player.

No.

This is an odd statement for me. Singling out the best player is always the main goal in a tournament where I'm from. Now that's not always possible due to a number of factors but the goal is to get as close as possible to an authentic top 8.

What's important is that the 3 kyu played a stronger game than his usual, and the 2d played a worse game than his usual. The winner of the tournament is the player who played best relative to his usual strength. You think that means nothing? If playing well can only be measured in absolute terms what's even the point of amateurs playing in tournaments at all?

Love of the game and part of the journey to become stronger.

Interesting posts btw. Thanks.

[Sverre]

Some tournaments use handicaps ONLY AT THE BOTTOM of the players field, e.g., below 15k or below 20k, especially when the field is very thin there and 20k can meet 30k. 15k or stronger usually don't get handicaps in German McMahon / Swiss tournaments (unless things have changed dramatically and I have not noticed yet).

Thanks for the clarification.

At http://europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/Tourna ... y=T120303B , in the round 4 match between players placed 187. and 168., 4 handi stones were again used.

Are you joking?! The links refers to the German Championship Preliminaries 2012. German Championships do not use handicap. The number of participants was 11. So 187. or 168. cannot make sense.

Sorry. I posted the wrong link, the links should be corrected now (the erronous link was supposed to be to the XXXII. Berliner Kranich, consistent with handicaps being only for the 15-20 kyu bracket, in any case).

In http://europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/Tourna ... y=T101127D , the game between players 168 and 169 was at 2 handicap stones.

This is an example of "handicap only at the bottom of a tournament's players field".

All of my examples are. You did say "without handicap for all ranks", and the original poster is an absolute beginner.

[Sverre]

No.

This is an odd statement for me. Singling out the best player is always the main goal in a tournament where I'm from. Now that's not always possible due to a number of factors but the goal is to get as close as possible to an authentic top 8.

It's one important goal of a tournament.

What's important is that the 3 kyu played a stronger game than his usual, and the 2d played a worse game than his usual. The winner of the tournament is the player who played best relative to his usual strength. You think that means nothing? If playing well can only be measured in absolute terms what's even the point of amateurs playing in tournaments at all?

Love of the game and part of the journey to become stronger.

But this is the most important, for the majority of the players.

[NinG]

What's important is that the 3 kyu played a stronger game than his usual, and the 2d played a worse game than his usual. The winner of the tournament is the player who played best relative to his usual strength. You think that means nothing? If playing well can only be measured in absolute terms what's even the point of amateurs playing in tournaments at all?

Well, It seems that I'm pretty much alone with my opinion, but let's say one of your friends plays a game you never heard of / you don't know the rules of or whatever. One day, he tells you that he won a big tournament in that game. You would normally assume that he was the best player, right? But then he tells you, he only won because of a handicap system and he isn't even very good at this game. In fact, he is just an average player, but because of a rank system that may not always be accurate and because of said handicap system, he won. That doesn't sound fair, does it? What's the point in becoming good, when you don't get a natural advantage out of it? In fact, you actually do get an advantage, but it is taken from you to make more interesting games.

(Edit: I misunterstood the McMahon-system, the next paragraph is irrelevant)
Another example, which is of course exaggerated and will probably never happen like that, but let's just think about it:
There is a tournament where all the top players are about equal strength, they are - let's say - 2d. All games between them are very close and often end with only a few points difference. This is a tournament with the MacMahon system, full handicap and 7 rounds. Every top player expects to win 3-4 games, because they are all (almost) equally strong.
One of them is a smart kid and registers as a 1kyu. That way he gets -2 points (because of the MacMahon system), however he gets 2 stones handicap against all the other top players. Because of this, he can easily win all his 7 games (remember, even games were very close, with 2 stones handicap, he can thus expect to win all games).
So in the end this player will get 5 points (7 games won, -2 for being 1kyu), while all the other 2d players can only expect to get 3-4 points. The one with 5 points will probably not win the tournament, because there will surely be players who won 5 or 6 of their games, but he is better than the average 2d player, only because he took advantage of the handicap system.

I'm not trying to say the handicap system is bad or you should play different systems in tournaments, plus my example will of course never happen like that, but I want to point out that there are clearly flaws in using a handicap system in tournaments.
When you only attend tournaments to have fun, you would probably not care about all of this, but I for myself think (and have been "taught") that tournaments and competition has the purpose of finding the best player. Otherwise you shouldn't give out prizes and such.

And, of course, many tournament do not use handicap for higher ranked players and only for weaker ones (which does make sense to me), but, like I said, I generally don't like the idea of handicap in competitive play.

[quantumf]

NinG, MacMahon tournaments regard a win as an increase in rank, so a 1k who has won a game become a notional 1d for the purposes of the next round, and if he wins again, he becomes a notional 2d, etc. So while under-ranking yourself is one way to game the system, it only really works for short (e.g. three round) tournaments.

A tournament to determine the best player in the region (town/state/country) would be without handicaps, but clearly its only of interest to the top few players. The vast majority of players can't win it, but would still like opportunities to push themselves to their limits.

Simple analogies are to graded karate tournaments (where you compete within your belt colour) or age-based sport events where you compete within your age range.

[topazg]

What's important is that the 3 kyu played a stronger game than his usual, and the 2d played a worse game than his usual. The winner of the tournament is the player who played best relative to his usual strength. You think that means nothing? If playing well can only be measured in absolute terms what's even the point of amateurs playing in tournaments at all?

Well, It seems that I'm pretty much alone with my opinion, but let's say one of your friends plays a game you never heard of / you don't know the rules of or whatever. One day, he tells you that he won a big tournament in that game. You would normally assume that he was the best player, right? But then he tells you, he only won because of a handicap system and he isn't even very good at this game. In fact, he is just an average player, but because of a rank system that may not always be accurate and because of said handicap system, he won. That doesn't sound fair, does it? What's the point in becoming good, when you don't get a natural advantage out of it? In fact, you actually do get an advantage, but it is taken from you to make more interesting games.

Another example, which is of course exaggerated and will probably never happen like that, but let's just think about it:
There is a tournament where all the top players are about equal strength, they are - let's say - 2d. All games between them are very close and often end with only a few points difference. This is a tournament with the MacMahon system, full handicap and 7 rounds. Every top player expects to win 3-4 games, because they are all (almost) equally strong.
One of them is a smart kid and registers as a 1kyu. That way he gets -2 points (because of the MacMahon system), however he gets 2 stones handicap against all the other top players. Because of this, he can easily win all his 7 games (remember, even games were very close, with 2 stones handicap, he can thus expect to win all games).
So in the end this player will get 5 points (7 games won, -2 for being 1kyu), while all the other 2d players can only expect to get 3-4 points. The one with 5 points will probably not win the tournament, because there will surely be players who won 5 or 6 of their games, but he is better than the average 2d player, only because he took advantage of the handicap system.

I'm not trying to say the handicap system is bad or you should play different systems in tournaments, plus my example will of course never happen like that, but I want to point out that there are clearly flaws in using a handicap system in tournaments.
When you only attend tournaments to have fun, you would probably not care about all of this, but I for myself think (and have been "taught") that tournaments and competition has the purpose of finding the best player. Otherwise you shouldn't give out prizes and such.

And, of course, many tournament do not use handicap for higher ranked players and only for weaker ones (which does make sense to me), but, like I said, I generally don't like the idea of handicap in competitive play.

No disrespect intended, but this is a sign of a lack of understanding of the McMahon system

After each game the handicap is recalculated, and in my experience most UK tournaments are at handicap -1. So, in this case, you'll have 7 people on 1 point and the trickster on -1. By normal tournament rules he should receive a no komi game, but lets assume it's at full handicap and he's at 2 stones, and wins. So, for round two, you'll have 4 people on 2 points, 3 on 1 point, and him on 0 points. He'll now be drawn against a 2d with no komi which is a much harder proposition. Let's say he wins anyway, and the 3rd round has 2 people on 3 points, 3 people on 2 points, and 3 people on 1 point. He's still 2 points behind the top end of the field, but from round 3 onwards he's going to be playing even games. Even with full handicaps, entering as two stones weaker is an unsurmountable obstacle for him to overcome unless he's strong enough to beat all 7 comfortably in even games.

[NinG]

No disrespect intended, but this is a sign of a lack of understanding of the McMahon system

After each game the handicap is recalculated, and in my experience most UK tournaments are at handicap -1. So, in this case, you'll have 7 people on 1 point and the trickster on -1. By normal tournament rules he should receive a no komi game, but lets assume it's at full handicap and he's at 2 stones, and wins. So, for round two, you'll have 4 people on 2 points, 3 on 1 point, and him on 0 points. He'll now be drawn against a 2d with no komi which is a much harder proposition. Let's say he wins anyway, and the 3rd round has 2 people on 3 points, 3 people on 2 points, and 3 people on 1 point. He's still 2 points behind the top end of the field, but from round 3 onwards he's going to be playing even games. Even with full handicaps, entering as two stones weaker is an unsurmountable obstacle for him to overcome unless he's strong enough to beat all 7 comfortably in even games.

Alright, see, that's why I shouldn't write so much when I've actually never played in a tournament
Thanks for clearing that up, I did misunterstand the system.
However, my point that the best player should win a tournament, not the player who played best for his rank still stands (there could still be other prizes, e.g. for the best kyu player or players who win all of their games and so on).

Edit:

Simple analogies are to graded karate tournaments (where you compete within your belt colour) or age-based sport events where you compete within your age range.

Funny enough, I did karate as well, when I was younger, but that's a bit different, because "translated" to go that would mean only playing within your rank. Playing against stronger / weaker opponents, but giving / receiving handicap is still a different thing.

[Sverre]

Well, It seems that I'm pretty much alone with my opinion

Actually I get the impression most people in the thread are either negative or neutral towards handicap tournaments.

but let's say one of your friends plays a game you never heard of / you don't know the rules of or whatever. One day, he tells you that he won a big tournament in that game. You would normally assume that he was the best player, right? But then he tells you, he only won because of a handicap system and he isn't even very good at this game. In fact, he is just an average player, but because of a rank system that may not always be accurate and because of said handicap system, he won. That doesn't sound fair, does it? What's the point in becoming good, when you don't get a natural advantage out of it? In fact, you actually do get an advantage, but it is taken from you to make more interesting games.

Most tournaments aren't full-handicap. An important tournament, almost by definition, doesn't use handicaps among the people eligible for winning the tournament!

If I say "I won 5 out of 6 matches at a recent tournament", without explaining the MacMahon pairing system, I am being just as dishonest as if I brag about winning a tournament without mentioning it was a handicap tournament. In both cases it may be justified good result, but it doesn't mean you are stronger than everyone else at the tournament.

Another example, which is of course exaggerated and will probably never happen like that, but let's just think about it:
There is a tournament where all the top players are about equal strength, they are - let's say - 2d. All games between them are very close and often end with only a few points difference. This is a tournament with the MacMahon system, full handicap and 7 rounds. Every top player expects to win 3-4 games, because they are all (almost) equally strong.
One of them is a smart kid and registers as a 1kyu. That way he gets -2 points (because of the MacMahon system), however he gets 2 stones handicap against all the other top players. Because of this, he can easily win all his 7 games (remember, even games were very close, with 2 stones handicap, he can thus expect to win all games).
So in the end this player will get 5 points (7 games won, -2 for being 1kyu), while all the other 2d players can only expect to get 3-4 points. The one with 5 points will probably not win the tournament, because there will surely be players who won 5 or 6 of their games, but he is better than the average 2d player, only because he took advantage of the handicap system.

The only full-handicap tournament I can think of off the top of my head uses swiss pairing, so the "1 kyu" would win. The MacMahon tournaments I have played in that used handicap often used reduced handicap relative to current MacMahon score difference, which means the "1 kyu" would recieve less handicap as he kept winning, and would in the end have less chance than the others (though disrupting the tournament of those who got drawn against him in the early rounds).

I'm not trying to say the handicap system is bad or you should play different systems in tournaments, plus my example will of course never happen like that, but I want to point out that there are clearly flaws in using a handicap system in tournaments.
When you only attend tournaments to have fun, you would probably not care about all of this, but I for myself think (and have been "taught") that tournaments and competition has the purpose of finding the best player. Otherwise you shouldn't give out prizes and such.

Many tournaments give out a small prize to weaker players who do comparatively well for their rank (4 out of 5 wins for example). Prizes in handicap tournaments are given in the same spirit. And not every tournament requires prizes.

And, of course, many tournament do not use handicap for higher ranked players and only for weaker ones (which does make sense to me), but, like I said, I generally don't like the idea of handicap in competitive play.

How do you feel about, for example, the handicap games in the http://senseis.xmp.net/?ProAmHoninboMatch ?

[Bill Spight]

But when it comes to something like tournament games, I just don't understand why there should be handicap given. The purpose of a tournament is to search for the strongest player.

When I was living in New Mexico we held four tournaments a year. The usual turnout was around 18 players, ranging from mid-dan to double digit kyu. All of the games were handicapped.

For a while we affiliated with the AGA, which at that time required us to hold one non-handicap tournament a year. We had three dan players and neither of the two lower-ranked dans wanted to play without handicap, as they were two stones weaker than the top player.

We did not hold tournaments to search for the strongest player, we held tournaments to have fun.