Life In 19x19

topazg wrote:If a Japanese 7d with no other information comes across, it makes sense to assume GoR 2700.

No. It makes sense to assume some playing strength between European 2d to 7d, the most likely 5d-6d. As you know, Japanese ranks can be bought. From time to time it happens that a Japanese dan player loses all his 10 games... I am sorry to say but Japanese ranks cannot be trusted as much as Korean ranks at all. Neither absolutely nor WRT their confidence. Regular congress participants know this but newcomers sometimes have no idea about different ranking systems at all.

what is European 5d like?
i just pushed my rank up to 5d (probably will go down to 4d soon) in KGS but i would not play for money with 4 stone handycap against top koreans.
they are that strong...
if European 5d is anything close to KGS 5d then you dont want to play them for money with only 3 stone. you will lose 10 out of 10 games. 4 stones you will probably will lose also.

Magicwand wrote:if European 5d is anything close to KGS 5d

Plus-minus 9 ranks (up to 9d). In case of escapers, sometimes more than that.

Do we have any 9-dans? Strongest EGF 5-dans on KGS are probably flashback and loveher.
Weakest EGF 5-dans are near 1-2d KGS

breakfast wrote:Weakest EGF 5-dans are near 1-2d KGS

if this is the case... they can not even hold 5 stone handy against strong korean players.

What seems clear to me is that the Open Championship is biased in favour of the Europeans by the 24-8 split for the super group.

That I believe is wrong, unethical, and bad for the prestige of the EGC.

There are, I am sure, difficulties in allocating players to the super group - but it should be done without favour to the European players.

The rules are wrong and they should be changed.

You should not call it "unethical"! Rather it the AGM's laziness.

Otherwise, provided the basic McMahon system should be continued for the Open, a much greater supergroup for the sake of including more non-Europeans or more top groups are a good idea, provided other parameters are also right (like a continued requirement to play all 10 rounds to win the titles). E.g., one or two years ago Matti and I suggested something like a huge supergroup with up to ca. 64 non-Europeans and up to ca. 32 Europeans. One should think more about details though; top groups above the supergroup (where the top Europeans are) might be yet better in some cases.

Would you now cry that it was highly unfair (you: "unethical") to admit up to twice as many non-Europeans as Europeans to the supergroup? (Or in case of fewer Europeans in the supergroup, up to four times?)

The problem is not to improve the system - the problem is to get the AGM actually doing some improvement (like letting a commission work out and adopt such, e.g., giving it the task "minor improvements on the current system")!

More than ca. 64 non-Europeans in a supergroup would not make much sense, even if 200 professionals and amateur 7d came, because 64 = 2^6 and we have only a 10 rounds McMahon tournament, which needs a few more rounds than a KO to allow for lost games and still a reasonable winner determination.

With a huge supergroup, there is yet more reason not to use SOS for the splitting final result places but rather places should be shared.

RobertJasiek wrote:You should not call it "unethical"! Rather it the AGM's laziness.

Otherwise, provided the basic McMahon system should be continued for the Open, a much greater supergroup for the sake of including more non-Europeans or more top groups are a good idea, provided other parameters are also right (like a continued requirement to play all 10 rounds to win the titles). E.g., one or two years ago Matti and I suggested something like a huge supergroup with up to ca. 64 non-Europeans and up to ca. 32 Europeans. One should think more about details though; top groups above the supergroup (where the top Europeans are) might be yet better in some cases.

Would you now cry that it was highly unfair (you: "unethical") to admit up to twice as many non-Europeans as Europeans to the supergroup? (Or in case of fewer Europeans in the supergroup, up to four times?)

The problem is not to improve the system - the problem is to get the AGM actually doing some improvement (like letting a commission work out and adopt such, e.g., giving it the task "minor improvements on the current system")!

More than ca. 64 non-Europeans in a supergroup would not make much sense, even if 200 professionals and amateur 7d came, because 64 = 2^6 and we have only a 10 rounds McMahon tournament, which needs a few more rounds than a KO to allow for lost games and still a reasonable winner determination.

With a huge supergroup, there is yet more reason not to use SOS for the splitting final result places but rather places should be shared.

littlle bit more thinking and you maybe end up at my proposel

ok there are some differences but it has the idea of a huge supergroup are the same.

(but then my idea is then an accelerated swiss system insteead of mcMahon for the european title)



also did some checking it looks that Breakfast became european Champion while he only played 4 or 5 games against europeans

(while under my system it would be 7)

Note that my proposal above is only meant a fall-back option if the main tournament should continue to determine both EC and Open-EC champions.

As said before, 7 is too few.

RobertJasiek wrote:Note that my proposal above is only meant a fall-back option if the main tournament should continue to determine both EC and Open-EC champions.

As said before, 7 is too few.

yep,

That is what the AGM has decided
Maybe sometime the AGM will decide that 7 is enough.

(And hope that you will agree that my fall back option is better than yours)

I think that you are too set on validating your proposals (in the case of willemien, "proposel").

Gather the facts, goals, and constraints first!

Harleqin wrote:I think that you are too set on validating your proposals (in the case of willemien, "proposel").

Gather the facts, goals, and constraints first!

EGF constraints

- The Open and the (Closed) european Championships are both held during the EGC
- The european championships are independent of the Open Championships
- The european Championships has at least 10 rounds
- The Open Championships has at least 10 rounds


Under constraints I also count:
(an average strong european player) "I don't want to play 2 tournaments at the same time" and
(an average strong asian player) "I come to europe to play strong Europeans, not just to win Open tournament"


If you accept all these constaints as well then you are facing something impossible.

a player cannot play in 10 rounds 10 europeans and also some rounds against Non europeans.



But if you (ONLY) reject constraint that The european Championships has at least 10 rounds.
an embedded (Europeans only) tournament becomes a reasonable option.

Within this group there are (as far as I know) 2 sugesstions

Hermans http://senseis.xmp.net/?HermanHiddema%2FDoubleEliminationPlusMcMahon
and mine.

The problem with both is that they (by setup) are less than 10 rounds and therefore not inside the constraints of the EGF.

A solustiion against this all would be that the EGF would decide that the go congress would become an 3 weeks 15 rounds tournament then i can adjust my proposel to 10 rounds

willemien wrote:EGF constraints

- The Open and the (Closed) european Championships are both held during the EGC
- The european championships are independent of the Open Championships
- The european Championships has at least 10 rounds
- The Open Championships has at least 10 rounds


Under constraints I also count:
(an average strong european player) "I don't want to play 2 tournaments at the same time" and
(an average strong asian player) "I come to europe to play strong Europeans, not just to win Open tournament"

Yes, I think that is a good list. I would add a constraint along the lines that the tournaments' internals should not be negatively affected. Does anyone else want to add something?

If you accept all these constaints as well then you are facing something impossible.

I agree.

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

That is not the only pair of contradictions.

But if you (ONLY) reject constraint that The european Championships has at least 10 rounds.
an embedded (Europeans only) tournament becomes a reasonable option.

That is not the only way to break the contradictions.

RobertJasiek wrote:You should not call it "unethical"! Rather it the AGM's laziness.

Would you now cry that it was highly unfair (you: "unethical") to admit up to twice as many non-Europeans as Europeans to the supergroup? (Or in case of fewer Europeans in the supergroup, up to four times?)

The members of the supergroup should be selected entirely on merit. Of course it would be a little embarrassing if there were no Europeans at all.

The problem is not to improve the system - the problem is to get the AGM actually doing some improvement (like letting a commission work out and adopt such, e.g., giving it the task "minor improvements on the current system")!

I think there is little chance of this if they just meet for a few hours. The reps need to be locked into a room for a week for something sensible to come of it.

More than ca. 64 non-Europeans in a supergroup would not make much sense, even if 200 professionals and amateur 7d came, because 64 = 2^6 and we have only a 10 rounds McMahon tournament, which needs a few more rounds than a KO to allow for lost games and still a reasonable winner determination.

In that case one could select the supergroup by holding a lightning tournament beforehand - or in place of the first round.

With a huge supergroup, there is yet more reason not to use SOS for the splitting final result places but rather places should be shared.

Or a lightning tournament instead of SOS.

willemien wrote:But if you (ONLY) reject constraint

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