New EGC Rules

[Javaness]

If you create a rules document for a continental championship it should

1: reflect the opinion of the AGM concerning its direction
2: be well written, so as to present a good impression of the organisation both to its potential and existing sponsors, and to its members
3: not contain incomprehensible phrases
4: not contain ambiguous phrases
5: be open to corrections

[RobertJasiek]

The current (i.e. the new) rules have already been discussed and adopted by the EGF Committee and the Rules Commission. Every new cycle of linguistic changes amounts to several days or weeks of work plus weeks to months of adoption. There are various styles of how to formulate a ruleset and every two persons tend to have at least two different preferences as to which the best style is.

So although I more or less agree with your criteria (and before adoption had suggested in vain to offer the text for further discussion here), now that the text is adopted, we should bear its insufficient wording.

Rewriting it as fluent common English might easily increase the text length by 50%. So I am not sure whether, as you suggest, sponsors would read such a long text at all. More appropriately, for them or others a short summary could be written. Such need not be a rules text and could therefore be written by anybody incl. you (ASA you will have well understood every aspect of the contents).

[tapir]

Yours is a reasonable alternative view but we won't come to an agreement about places 2+ soon. (For reference, players dropping out of a KO then play against a weaker European players field than the one still in the KO, so one cannot simply compare numbers of wins 1:1.)

I don't think it is that important anyway, the important thing is to have a single winner, a single champion from a single final game. Playing for 3rd/4th place is done often enough (e.g. in the football world championship) that there is plenty of precedent to justify it, even if it is not really mathematically sound. One thing I do think would be better is to play for place 3 only, and rank the loser of the 3rd/4th match by MMS/SOS. Places 1/2/3 are the traditional "important" places (gold/silver/bronze), and the players in place 2/3 have won at least as many games as any other KO losers, so there isn't much ground for complaints from them.

It isn't about mathematics, it is about the bronze medal! If you establish a new world record in the 100m prelimaries, but finish fourth in the finals, you won't get a medal. Bad luck.

Competitions are about drama not about mathematics (only the math olympiads are about mathematics after all).

[RobertJasiek]

(answers to questions continued)

"What about Europeans who cannot read English?"

The tournament organizers should provide translators and organizers / supervisors / Rules Commission should provide translations of texts or summaries. In practice finding verbal translators is easier than for documents. OTOH, the Japanese tend to organize their own translations and summaries of crucial information.

"Exactly how is strength distinct from rating or rank?"

Rank: kyu, dan, pro-dan.

Rating: numbers due to rating system

Strength: The true strength of a player while his rank or rating might or might not represent the strength correctly.

Strength is the ideal that rank or rating should represent correctly, but they can fail.

"The pairing has already been made, why make it again?"

There are these stages for making a pairing for the relegation games:
1. tentative pairing by MMS - SOS - rating - lottery, players are numbered from 1 to 16 accordingly.
2. filter the middle of this group of players to enter the relegation stage
3. these players are now paired while abiding the principles of a) avoid repeated pairings, b) apporach fold pairing.

Now your question might refer to either "Why proceed to (2.) at all?" or "Why apply extra principles during (3.)?" The latter is obvious to you, I suppose. So presumably you want to know the former.

Here are some reasons:
- Qualifying (among high MMS players) by greater number of Wins is a much more meaningful seeding criterion than SOS - rating - lottery tiebreaking.
- Unsportsmanlike SOS manipulation (like reported from Grenoble EGC) becomes essentially impossible.
- If there is a high percentage of strong non-Europeans, then after 7 rounds McMahon the lower end seeding candidates might have so few Wins (like only 4) that qualification for some might be too easy; e.g., 4 wins in 7 rounds is not a convincing seeding. By having to play a relegation game, the most doubtful candidates will have to show that they can make 1 more win before they will actually qualify.
- Similarly, too few wins might be too few especially when compared with the top European(s) after 7 rounds, who might have 6 or 7 wins. E.g., if a 4 or 5 wins player has to play a relegation game to then have 5 or 6 wins, then the difference of wins among the qualified players will be much more acceptable and a Eu Champion with fewer wins than the finally 2nd European will be much less likely.

[RobertJasiek]

(continued)

"Do the top players want to be tired out like this?"

The EGF Committee voted on regular thinking time for the relegation games, so it does not consider this to be a serious problem. Players among the potential top 8 (the KO participants) preferring rest should play better during the first 7 McMahon rounds. It is like in other sports: Play perfectly and you qualify without problems, play suboptiomally and you might need to enter relegation. Players surviving relegation surely will be happy to enter the KO much more than worrying about being exhausted. After congress, it is early enough to take a year of rest;)

"Why have this strange rule?"

You seem to refer to

"# To become the European Open Champion, a player has to be non-European and in the group of one or more players with the highest MMS. If that group has more than one non-European, then the European Open Champion is determined among those non-Europeans by the tiebreakers mentioned below. If that group does not have any non-European, then there is no European Open Champion. Europeans do not become the European Open Champion."

The idea is, to exaggerate a little, that a non-European 3d does not become the EOC amidst a field of much stronger 5th and higher placed Europeans just because in the current year stronger non-Europeans do not attend. The title EOC must be worth something; reaching the top MMS groups is the worthy criterion to prove it.

"What is Direct Comparison? Why not just say that for two players, one player’s Mutual Game Score is the player’s own result from a game with the other. That way you have a simple explanation people can understand."

Language issue.

[Javaness]

I find that completely ridiculous. Are you seriously telling me that the EGF committee and Rules Commission are so inept, that they could not (for example) agree to let somebody as trustworthy as their own secretary do something as simple as to correct the English in the document?

PS: As you will see, rewriting the document in plain English actually reduced its length.

The current (i.e. the new) rules have already been discussed and adopted by the EGF Committee and the Rules Commission. Every new cycle of linguistic changes amounts to several days or weeks of work plus weeks to months of adoption. There are various styles of how to formulate a ruleset and every two persons tend to have at least two different preferences as to which the best style is.

So although I more or less agree with your criteria (and before adoption had suggested in vain to offer the text for further discussion here), now that the text is adopted, we should bear its insufficient wording.

Rewriting it as fluent common English might easily increase the text length by 50%. So I am not sure whether, as you suggest, sponsors would read such a long text at all. More appropriately, for them or others a short summary could be written. Such need not be a rules text and could therefore be written by anybody incl. you (ASA you will have well understood every aspect of the contents).

[RobertJasiek]

1) The language has already been corrected by, among others, Toni Atkins.

2) That you don't like the result of the language correction does not mean that by all means another correction fitting your language feeling would be necessary.

3) 90% of ordinary rules' text discussion tends to be wasted with different preferences for different language styles. You may like that but it does not mean that everybody has to like it.

4) As said before, I did not find a majority for letting the public proofread the language before the text was adopted.

5) You hope language could be changed quickly. By experience, I know that the EGF bodies do not work as fast as we might wish. It is realistic to assume that the EGF Committee does not want to bothered with endless language corrections.

6) Nevertheless, as already indicated, you (or everybody) can send in proposals and we will store them for probably much later usage. If the proposals are excellent, maybe even soon usage. But I cannot promise anything like this because the EGF does not work like a Wiki.

[mumps]

The following was sent to the EGF by the British Go Association today:

The English is pretty difficult to understand, so we think that a rewrite by a native English speaker is advisable.

The document responds to much of our proposal that was approved at the AGM in 2010, but this is the first time we have had an opportunity to discuss the Rules Commission proposals and we believe that the following changes are necessary for the 2011 event:

1) drop the Relegation system

We strongly disapprove of this as a) it is possible that a large number of people may be involved with this, b) it takes up one of the allegedly free days of the tournament and c) we think that using tie-breaks is going to be good enough for the minor places in this play-off system.

2) drop the rule that the European Open Champion must be a non-European

We think very strongly that the Open Champion should be the person who's got the most wins, allowing for tie-breaks, in the Main Event. Games in the Closed play-off section should count towards this event also. It's possible (likely?) that this may be the same person as the Closed Champion, but not necessarily.

A side point to this argument is that it is possible that with the current proposal one of the European players not involved in the play-offs might score more wins than any non-European, but would be prevented from being Champion! Bizarre.

It should be pointed out that neither of these parts of the system have, as far as we're aware, been discussed outside the Rules Commission, which is obviously regrettable as they're clearly controversial.

3) Eliminate the play-off for 3rd place

This contradicts the basic simplicity of the KO system as proposed which says that losers rejoin the main tournament, excludes from the possibility of any final game against an Asian and risks a repeat game. It also contributes nothing to the overall tournament.

4) We have some technical issues with the section on Final Results about forced pairings. Geoff Kaniuk will communicate directly with the Rules Commission about these.

Jon Diamond
President

[Javaness]

This is quite an evasive reply Robert I would dearly love to see the document at the point where Tony Atkins corrected it, I wonder if that could be provided (perhaps privately)? For points 2&3 - I hope you would agree that explaining the presence of phrases in a document such as "5+4=9" by saying that 5 is smaller than usual is not acceptable in a document of this stature.

1) The language has already been corrected by, among others, Toni Atkins.

2) That you don't like the result of the language correction does not mean that by all means another correction fitting your language feeling would be necessary.

3) 90% of ordinary rules' text discussion tends to be wasted with different preferences for different language styles. You may like that but it does not mean that everybody has to like it.

4) As said before, I did not find a majority for letting the public proofread the language before the text was adopted.

5) You hope language could be changed quickly. By experience, I know that the EGF bodies do not work as fast as we might wish. It is realistic to assume that the EGF Committee does not want to bothered with endless language corrections.

6) Nevertheless, as already indicated, you (or everybody) can send in proposals and we will store them for probably much later usage. If the proposals are excellent, maybe even soon usage. But I cannot promise anything like this because the EGF does not work like a Wiki.

[RobertJasiek]

This is quite an evasive reply Robert

As evasive as you not contacting the Rules Commission as a commission yet and asking us whether your complete language rewriting would then be discussed in the Rules Commission and then in the EGF Committee for possible adoption.

Recall that we are not discussing only my personal opinion but you want to change (rather than only comment on) an official EGF rules text. This means a) the text must be opened again for change by the EGF Committee or AGM and b) there must be a majority in the Rules Commission for accepting external input and for this, since I am open to such input, Matti Siivola needs to be convinced. Last time I tried to convince him to allow external input before submitting to the EGF Committee for adoption, I failed to convince him.

Toni Atkins corrected almost the same as the final document; only a few changes he considered necessary.

[RobertJasiek]

The following was sent to the EGF by the British Go Association today:

As a member of the Rules Commission, I have not received it yet but it is still early in the morning:)

What follows is my personal opinion:

The English is pretty difficult to understand, so we think that a rewrite by a native English speaker is advisable.

If the EGF Committee doen not mind extra correction cycles, such is possible but might waste much time for little benefit. Rewriting a rules text is never just a language issue but the contents must remain unchanged when language improvement is the only concern. Therefore any language correction must then be checked again as to accidental contents changes.

we believe that the following changes are necessary for the 2011 event:

Every year starting from 2011 is important, not just 2011.

1) drop the Relegation system

We strongly disapprove of this as a) it is possible that a large number of people may be involved with this, b) it takes up one of the allegedly free days of the tournament and c) we think that using tie-breaks is going to be good enough for the minor places in this play-off system.

(a)

The number of people involved in relegation games is between 0 and 16. The number of people otherwise involved in seeding by tiebreakers in about the same range. The expected average number is somewhere in the middle, around 8 players. Calling this large as an absolute number or in relation to tiebreaking is an exaggeration.

Apart from the size itself, the question is whether a slightly smaller or slightly larger percentage of relegation players as a fraction of players with the smallest eligible MMS is better. If one considers relegation games to be not meaningful, then one would conclude that a smaller fraction is better. If one considers relegation games to be meaningful, then one would conclude that a greater fraction is better. Therefore the argument is not an argument itself but merely repeats the question whether relegation games are good at all.

(b)

For the 0 to 16 relegation players, the otherwise free day is not free indeed. The question is: Is having relegation games worth this? My opinion: Absolutely yes! (Because of the reasons that make relegation and seeding by greater number of wins a much better seeding than by tiebreaking.)

(c)

Why? The opinion lacks reasoning.

"Minor places" is a rhetorical trick. It might affect all seeding places 1 to 8! We are not talking about necessarily only the last places 8 or 7.

These are reasons why relegation is much better than tiebreaking:

- Qualifying (among high MMS players) by greater number of Wins is a much more meaningful seeding criterion than SOS - rating - lottery tiebreaking because Wins is caused by each player's own responsible achievement while SOS is caused by opponents' achievements, which the player cannot significantly influence.
- Unsportsmanlike SOS manipulation (like reported from Grenoble EGC 1987) becomes essentially impossible.
- If there is a high percentage of strong non-Europeans, then after 7 rounds McMahon the lower end seeding candidates might have so few Wins (like only 4) that qualification for some might be too easy; e.g., 4 wins in 7 rounds is not a convincing seeding. By having to play a relegation game, the most doubtful candidates will have to show that they can make 1 more win before they will actually qualify.
- Similarly, too few wins might be too few especially when compared with the top European(s) after 7 rounds, who might have 6 or 7 wins. E.g., if a 4 or 5 wins player has to play a relegation game to then have 5 or 6 wins, then the difference of wins among the qualified players will be much more acceptable and a Eu Champion with fewer wins than the finally 2nd European will be much less likely.

The BGA reasoning does not even discuss these important reasons at all.

2) drop the rule that the European Open Champion must be a non-European

There is much freedom of how to define the European Open Champion. I do not not have a strong preference here, except for the tiebreaking aspect. However,...

It's possible (likely?) that this may be the same person as the Closed Champion, but not necessarily.

...this means that SOS tiebreaking for determining the EOpenC would become more doubtful than ever because players pools are separated by the McMahon - KO split. E.g., if there are many very strong non-Europeans, then the strongest Europeans will get less chance to collect high scoring opponents while they are separated in the KO and may not get a chance to play stronger non-Europeans than strongest Europeans.

Bizarre.

Emotions are not good reasons. Can this be expressed by reasoning, please?

It should be pointed out that neither of these parts of the system have, as far as we're aware, been discussed outside the Rules Commission, which is obviously regrettable as they're clearly controversial.

Agree.

3) Eliminate the play-off for 3rd place

I do not have a strong preference. There are advantages and disadvantages for either solution.

4) We have some technical issues with the section on Final Results about forced pairings. Geoff Kaniuk will communicate directly with the Rules Commission about these.

As always, the Rules Commission is happy to receive technical tournament system suggestions.

[mumps]

1) drop the Relegation system

We strongly disapprove of this as a) it is possible that a large number of people may be involved with this, b) it takes up one of the allegedly free days of the tournament and c) we think that using tie-breaks is going to be good enough for the minor places in this play-off system.

(a)

The number of people involved in relegation games is between 0 and 16. The number of people otherwise involved in seeding by tiebreakers in about the same range. The expected average number is somewhere in the middle, around 8 players. Calling this large as an absolute number or in relation to tiebreaking is an exaggeration.

But if there is only one place left to be decided and there are, for example, 9 players who are tied such that they would play in the Relegation, then I'd call that very large, not just large. It would also require more than one game to decide the place - how many would be required Robert?

Apart from the size itself, the question is whether a slightly smaller or slightly larger percentage of relegation players as a fraction of players with the smallest eligible MMS is better. If one considers relegation games to be not meaningful, then one would conclude that a smaller fraction is better. If one considers relegation games to be meaningful, then one would conclude that a greater fraction is better. Therefore the argument is not an argument itself but merely repeats the question whether relegation games are good at all.

'better' is an opinion, 'would' should be 'could' with a different interpretation and your logic is faulty too as the therefore doesn't follow.

(b)

For the 0 to 16 relegation players, the otherwise free day is not free indeed. The question is: Is having relegation games worth this? My opinion: Absolutely yes! (Because of the reasons that make relegation and seeding by greater number of wins a much better seeding than by tiebreaking.)

Our opinion differs.

(c)

Why? The opinion lacks reasoning.

Why do we need to provide reasoning?

In general we believe that people who argue about the minute details about tie-breaking are wasting their time. If you're hard done by in losing out in a tie-breaker the remedy was always in your own hands - just win more games to avoid the tie-breaker.

"Minor places" is a rhetorical trick. It might affect all seeding places 1 to 8! We are not talking about necessarily only the last places 8 or 7.

If everybody's got the same number of wins then we shouldn't expect seeding to be very accurate, so shouldn't spend too much time and effort over it.

These are reasons why relegation is much better than tiebreaking:

- Qualifying (among high MMS players) by greater number of Wins is a much more meaningful seeding criterion than SOS - rating - lottery tiebreaking because Wins is caused by each player's own responsible achievement while SOS is caused by opponents' achievements, which the player cannot significantly influence.

Sure, it's better in this case, but not an important enough reason in our view.

- Unsportsmanlike SOS manipulation (like reported from Grenoble EGC 1987) becomes essentially impossible.

Is once in 25 years (at least) a good reason, when the Appeals Committee could (in principle) have authority to rule in these exceptional cases?

- If there is a high percentage of strong non-Europeans, then after 7 rounds McMahon the lower end seeding candidates might have so few Wins (like only 4) that qualification for some might be too easy; e.g., 4 wins in 7 rounds is not a convincing seeding. By having to play a relegation game, the most doubtful candidates will have to show that they can make 1 more win before they will actually qualify.

Is this an argument?

- Similarly, too few wins might be too few especially when compared with the top European(s) after 7 rounds, who might have 6 or 7 wins. E.g., if a 4 or 5 wins player has to play a relegation game to then have 5 or 6 wins, then the difference of wins among the qualified players will be much more acceptable and a Eu Champion with fewer wins than the finally 2nd European will be much less likely.

Actually, we don't care about this point. If the Champion has fewer wins than another then that's just life. The Champion is the winner of the Knock-Out - end of story.

The BGA reasoning does not even discuss these important reasons at all.

We don't think these are important.

Bizarre.

Emotions are not good reasons. Can this be expressed by reasoning, please?

I don't think we need to - it's an opinion and summary of how strong our view of the argument immediately preceding is. If you want to take this as emotion then please in your responses only use objective terms and logic. For example, terms you've used such as 'better' and 'should' should be avoided, except when they refer to facts.

And in the end this kind of decision is not a totally objective one as there are, as I've expressed here, some arguments that you've provided that we can accept. They just don't balance the reasons we have for an opposite view - a subjective judgement but equally valid I believe.

[RobertJasiek]

But if there is only one place left to be decided and there are, for example, 9 players who are tied such that they would play in the Relegation, then I'd call that very large, not just large. It would also require more than one game to decide the place - how many would be required Robert?

Apparently you have not understood the relegation system yet.

If only one place is left to be decided, it means that we have 7 players who qualify automatically (+) like in the following example, where "x" means "not in top 16 and "-" means "not qualified automatically and "R" means "enters relegation":

Code: Select all

Wins    7 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Qualify + + + + + + + R R - - - - - - -

Exactly one relegation game will be played.

Now you call this a "very large" number, LOL.

Here are some more examples from the years 2000 and 2002-2006, which I have already studied:


Abbreviations:

x y := #wins (supergroup players; non-supergroup players with more
wins included) | #Europeans playing all rounds thus far

n := smaller MMS / greater D
W := number of wins (top Europeans only)
D := MMS difference to top MMS Europeans
Q := qualified
+ := qualified automatically
- := not qualified automatically
R := relegation
#R := number of players in relegation
#S := number of players in SOS - rating - lottery tiebreaking

Code: Select all

EGC2000

7  0
6  2
5  4
4 14
-------
W   6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4|4 4 4 4
D   0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2|2 2 2 2
Q   + + + + + + R R R R - - - - - -|- - - -
#R  4
#S  14


EGC2002

7  1
6  0
5  7
------
W   7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 n n n n n n n n
D   0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 n n n n n n n n
Q   + + + + + + + + - - - - - - - -
#R  0
#S  0


EGC2003

7  0
6  0
5  2
4 10
-------
W   5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 n n n n
D   0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n n n n
Q   + + + + R R R R R R R R - - - -
#R  8
#S  10


EGC2004

7  0
6  1
5  5
4 12
-------
W   6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4|4 4
D   0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2|2 2
Q   + + + + + + R R R R - - - - - -|- -
#R  4
#S  12


EGC2005

7  0
6  1
5  2
4 13
-------
W   6 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
D   0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Q   + + + R R R R R R R R R R - - -
#R  10
#S  13



EGC2006

7  0
6  1
5  5
4 11
-------
W   6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4|4
D   0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2|2
Q   + + + + + + R R R R - - - - - -|-
#R  4
#S 11

Why do we need to provide reasoning?

1) To convince more others than you might convince by not providing reasons.
2) To characterize yourself as open to objectivity.

Not providing reasoning is as weak as trying to convince others of "Earth is flat." by "Look around and see, it is flat!".

In general we believe that people who argue about the minute details about tie-breaking are wasting their time.

Then why do you support a system with heavy tiebreaker seeding?

If you're hard done by in losing out in a tie-breaker the remedy was always in your own hands - just win more games to avoid the tie-breaker.

If you believed in what you saying, then you would appreciate the "just win more games" by using this as the only essential seeding criterion.

If everybody's got the same number of wins then we shouldn't expect seeding to be very accurate, so shouldn't spend too much time and effort over it.

If everybody's got the same number of wins, then better seeding is gotten from playing relegation games so that players with the ability to win more are distinguished from players without that ability.

not an important enough reason in our view.

It is very unfortunate that you value a free day for the few decisive players higher than their playing of a decisive game, which furthermore by its nature fits very well into the KO nature: Win and you stay in - lose and you are out.

Is once in 25 years

Which 25 years do you count? Did they all have a KO? How can you be sure that in other years it did not happen? Just because nobody noticed? It is extraordinarily easy to lose won games intentionally but usually extraordinarily hard to prove this. Also unintentional losses can be decisive for SOS and deciding the winners / qualified players. Stefan Kaitschik, strong 4d can tell you how his last round loss against a 2d determined the 2007 winner.

(at least) a good reason, when the Appeals Committee could (in principle) have authority to rule in these exceptional cases?

It does have this power but it is useless in almost all practical cases.

- If there is a high percentage of strong non-Europeans, then after 7 rounds McMahon the lower end seeding candidates might have so few Wins (like only 4) that qualification for some might be too easy; e.g., 4 wins in 7 rounds is not a convincing seeding. By having to play a relegation game, the most doubtful candidates will have to show that they can make 1 more win before they will actually qualify.

Is this an argument?

If you cannot understand why 4 wins in 7 rounds is too weak a criterion, I suggest that you take your time for studying fundamentals of what makes a good versus bad tournament system.

Actually, we don't care about this point. If the Champion has fewer wins than another then that's just life. The Champion is the winner of the Knock-Out - end of story.

You don't care about too many things. With this your argument, you might as well omit the McMahon and replace it by a pure lottery. IOW, what happens until the KO is very important and not just fun of doing careless, rough approximation.

The BGA reasoning does not even discuss these important reasons at all.

We don't think these are important.

You show that you don't want to design good systems. Example: You want KO because you believe in greater number of wins being the most meaningful. At the same time, you don't want relegation instead of a free day for also the few relegation players because... you believe in greater number of wins not being important. Maybe such contradictions are good enough to convince the BGA itself but they are not attractive for convincing enough others.

[RobertJasiek]

Here are more complete statistics:

Previous EGCs statistics for combined McMahon 7 rounds - KO 3 rounds system:


Abbreviations:

x y := #wins (supergroup players; non-supergroup players with more
wins included) | #Europeans playing all rounds thus far

EDIT: In the years 2007-2010, only European supergroup players were counted.

n := smaller MMS / greater D
W := number of wins (top Europeans only)
D := MMS difference to top MMS Europeans
Q := qualified
+ := qualified automatically
- := not qualified automatically
R := relegation
#R := number of players in relegation
#S := number of players in SOS - rating - lottery tiebreaking

Code: Select all

EGC2000

7  0
6  2
5  4
4 14
-------
W   6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4|4 4 4 4
D   0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2|2 2 2 2
Q   + + + + + + R R R R - - - - - -|- - - -
#R  4
#S  14


EGC2002

7  1
6  0
5  7
------
W   7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 n n n n n n n n
D   0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 n n n n n n n n
Q   + + + + + + + + - - - - - - - -
#R  0
#S  0


EGC2003

7  0
6  0
5  2
4 10
-------
W   5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 n n n n
D   0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n n n n
Q   + + + + R R R R R R R R - - - -
#R  8
#S  10


EGC2004

7  0
6  1
5  5
4 12
-------
W   6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4|4 4
D   0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2|2 2
Q   + + + + + + R R R R - - - - - -|- -
#R  4
#S  12


EGC2005

7  0
6  1
5  2
4 13
-------
W   6 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
D   0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Q   + + + R R R R R R R R R R - - -
#R  10
#S  13


EGC2006

7  0
6  1
5  5
4 11
-------
W   6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4|4
D   0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2|2
Q   + + + + + + R R R R - - - - - -|-
#R  4
#S 11


EGC 2007

5  4
4  11
-------
W   5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 n
D   0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n
Q   + + + + R R R R R R R R - - - -
#R  8
#S  11


EGC 2008

5  5
4  11
-------
W   5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
D   0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Q   + + + + + R R R R R R - - - - -
#R  6
#S  11


EGC 2009

6  1
5  2
4  14
-------
W   6 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4|4
D   0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2|2
Q   + + + R R R R R R R R R R - - -|-
#R  10
#S  14


EGC 2010

6  2
5  5
4  10
-------
W   6 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4|4
D   0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2|2
Q   + + + + + + + R R - - - - - - -|-
#R  2
#S  10

Averages

#R = 5.6 // This is the average number of relegation players.
#S = 10.6

Players with X wins after 7 rounds qualified (all 10 years)

Code: Select all

7     1
6     8
5    41
4    28

[RobertJasiek]

Considering that the average number of relegation players is only 5.6, the BGA claim of a (very) large number of players losing their free day is totally wrong.