Life In 19x19

topazg wrote:Partly because the creation of a separate closed tournament to the congress has no momentum at the moment. Instead, the proposals seem to be adjusting the nature of the congress itself to try and be a genuine open at the same time as a closed tournament for Europeans...

Same time or not, the Open will still stay Open, and I have seen no suggestions to the contrary. This seems to be what we all agree on.
And as long as the prizes are there, the Koreans will come, I understand. Isn't that what breakfast said?

So, in the worst case, some of the top European players will have a dilemma: play in the Open or play in the Closed.
For the rest of us, the only change will be that we'll have a better chance of actually playing against these top Asian players. Good good...

Where is the sabotage??

The only possible casualty I can see is that kibitzers might lose the opportunity to admire the top Asians clobbering the top Europeans.
But since the conservatives seem to be saying that they want to see the strong Asians play more than they want to see the strong Europeans, no harm here either.

So, from what I see - organize a Closed EC, concurrently with the Congress or not, and everybody's a winner.
The only issue - finding the funding.

When I say "adjusting the nature", I mean that the proposals are to adjust supergroup and drawing systems to make sure more European vs European games are played, including restricting the numbers of Asians in the supergroup (and making sure the rest, even if they are 7d, are in with the 4d and weaker Europeans).

The EC title is being awarded based on the Open results, there are no separate tournaments, concurrently or otherwise. I think one of the proposals was to have a separation, but I'm not sure how much favour that has found yet.

I agree, two separate tournaments is a great idea by me - I just don't know if it is realistically on the cards right now.

topazg wrote:When I say "adjusting the nature", I mean that the proposals are to adjust supergroup and drawing systems to make sure more European vs European games are played, including restricting the numbers of Asians in the supergroup (and making sure the rest, even if they are 7d, are in with the 4d and weaker Europeans).

Well, I still think that as long as the prizes are also adjusted, what's the harm.
Its pretty much like separation of the tournament in 'stages'... think about it. Letting only Europeans into the supergrop will be almost equivalent to having separate tournaments. Anything inbetween is simply inbetween. If we agree that it is desirable to have separate tournaments, but not very practical (at the moment), this might be the way to go. And as long as prizes are shuffled around, everybody wins.

The EC title is being awarded based on the Open results, there are no separate tournaments, concurrently or otherwise. I think one of the proposals was to have a separation, but I'm not sure how much favour that has found yet.

I agree, two separate tournaments is a great idea by me - I just don't know if it is realistically on the cards right now.

I understand and agree.
Just tossing ideas around.
And objecting to words like 'discrimination' and 'sabotage'. I find such verbiage highly misplaced here, to use a mild wording.

I moved all of the posts about coordinating the US and European congresses to this thread: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1230