Life In 19x19

RobertJasiek wrote:deja, trolling is flooding without factual discussion, which is not the case for me.

Your definition of trolling is not correct, but I also think that you aren't trolling here.

RobertJasiek wrote:Criticising somebody for hiding his identity must be possible; asking for someone's name is not insulting him.

Criticising somebody for hiding identity is poor arguing technique. It is irrelevant who he or she is if their arguments are sound and well reasoned. Asking for someone's name is not insulting, using a condescending tone about how little they know what they are talking about, just for the sake of pointing it out, is insulting and ad-hominem. Ad-hominem behaviour generally is unacceptable. You've walked close to the line with liisa and cassandra, but I don't believe you've quite crossed it yet.

RobertJasiek wrote:If everybody regardless of his rank had the same right to the EC, then we would be having an all participants supergroup, which would defy the tournament's purpose of being a championship. Therefore, when somebody claims to have a personal interest in playing in the EC, it is essential to know his playing strength.

Have you really interpreted the OP as wanting to participate not just in the EGC, but the supergroup with regards to a title challenge? If so, you have misunderstood so much of the OP's original post.

RobertJasiek wrote:For your reference, "It might be a troll, liar without taking responsibility, multiple namer or person paid for upholding an opinion." does NOT refer to the OP but to the principle possibilities given due to anonymous posting.

And likewise, your account might have nothing to do with the real life person Robert Jasiek. I could register with the name ChoSeokBin, It doesn't mean I am him. The only thing we can do is assume good faith and read the contributions for what they are. The anonymity of the poster is guaranteed regardless of whether it appears to be their real name or not. The OP has provided enough useful info in their personal profile.

People have the right not to give their real name on any online discussion without it impacting their argument credibility.

As there has now been complaint with support by other users for the tone taken in some of your responses, please can you stick to the arguments and their content and not attack the poster in this thread and other rule discussions. If you do not understand how you attacked the poster, you are welcome to PM me and I will explain.

Liisa wrote:Most of your "discussion" is based on that you have difficulties of understanding semantics.

Where I do not understand something but want to understand it, I ask. If something is clear before, I do not need to ask.

E.g. you have no idea what even trolling means.

We do not need a meta-discussion on defining trolling, I hope.

Problem with you is that you do not have enough self-criticism that you could recognize and admit your flaws in the reasoning and behavior.

Have you noticed that from Kulkov's rating number I HAVE learned from my previously wrong assumption that, given the current participation numbers of high dans in ECs, ca. 24 would be the most suitable supergroup size?

I do learn. Especially I learn from facts. I do not learn as easily from other's opinion, as long as it is not supported by facts.

(FYI, as long as we have the current rules, ca. 24 is still the number to be chosen. To change that number, the AGM must be convinced. It is not sufficient to have convinced me.)

But you act like you know everything and that your personal opinions would have more relevance than other people's opinions.

Rather I provoke discussion. Without that, discussion would proceed much more slowly. I urge others to express their opinions clearly so that discussion will proceed at a reasonable speed. This is particularly necessary for this topic since the congress starts in a few weeks.

It was my mistake of course to react your trolling,

Please. Trolling is the wrong word. Call it provocative discussion style, if you like.

but I did not suspect that your purpose (intentional or not) was mainly to flood this thread

In fact, it is not. Eager, frequent discussion requires a high number of posts. Calling this "flooding" misses the point. It is the very purpose of a discussion to participate in it seriously and eagerly. You don't want to prohibit this, do you?

But as I know other EGF rules commission members,

Their number is one.

Who is hiding her identity? [...] But if you are unable to connect my EGF rating to the EGD rating list, I can make it easier for you and I publish link to my home page.

Normally I do not guess identities; it is too easy to guess wrongly. Now that you have provided a link to your home page, you have revealed your identity, thank you!

topazg wrote:It is irrelevant who he or she is if their arguments are sound and well reasoned.

I have said that before.

using a condescending tone about how little they know what they are talking about, just for the sake of pointing it out,

I have not referred to playing strength "just for the sake of pointing it out". I have referred to playing strength to find out the relevance of the personal interest of someone playing in the EC.

You've walked close to the line with liisa

As before.

and cassandra,

Cassandra tried to let me educate him how to make and understand maths proofs in great detail and on a rather high level. There are limits to my available time; I cannot replace everybody's missing university study. Therefore I have suggested that Cassandra should educate himself better before doubting every proof detail he did not understand yet.

The discussion with Cassandra is one of the most fruitful ones here. It has created several research results! Probably it will create more later.

Cassandra is willing to learn and overcome part of his knowledge gaps. What starts as education poker turns out to be very valuable research.

So why do you question my dicussion with Cassandra? Quite contrarily, we have may thank him that he motivates continuation of research where it paused.

Have you read the related rules threads to their end? You might learn quite something. I did. (It is maths contents though; not easy to understand.)

Have you really interpreted the OP as wanting to participate not just in the EGC, but the supergroup with regards to a title challenge?

I would like to understand the OP's intentions better instead of having to guess too much.

And likewise, your account might have nothing to do with the real life person Robert Jasiek.

If anybody has doubts about a declared identity, it is pretty easy to verify that. Not so for a hidden identity because the number of possible persons is much greater.

People have the right not to give their real name on any online discussion without it impacting their argument credibility.

Right. They should be aware though that their arguments will find their way to the EGF much harder then (unless the contents is already very convincing and well reasoned).

please can you stick to the arguments and their content and not attack the poster in this thread and other rule discussions.

It is not my intention to attack persons. My intentions are to know their names where relevant and to see their explanations and reasoning where missing, IMO.

If you do not understand how you attacked the poster, you are welcome to PM me and I will explain.

I will ask you. Everybody can send me emails, too. (I like emails more than PMs, e.g., because I check emails regularly.)

RobertJasiek wrote:I will ask you. Everybody can send me emails, too. (I like emails more than PMs, e.g., because I check emails regularly.)

OT: in case you didn't know, you can select to be emailed every time a PM arrives.

RobertJasiek wrote:
Entertainment for the kyu player about the EC comes from watching EC players, games or results.

As a kyu player I can say that I am not in the least interested in who is the best European player. In fact, I find games between Europeans and Non Europeans more interesting - just as I would find a match between an Earthling and a Martian more interesting than one between two Earthlings.

For this entertainment, it would be better if main tournament and EC would be at different times so that kyu players could see more of the EC (top) games.

They should certainly be at different times so that top players can participate in both. Personally I would probably not watch EC games outside the main tournament - I think that I would rather take part in a rapid tournament or socialise.

However, experience tells us that only very few do watch top games live. Between 0 and 10 in room 1. Maybe one or two dozen in a video room. What does attract kyus much more is live commenting; then the rooms are full. However, they are fuller during afternoon commenting!

At Groningen the top players rooms had few boards compared to, say, those at Prague. I found watching live games better at Prague than at Groningen. One could easily move between games and sense at what boards the excitement lay.

Although I attended some of the afternoon commentary sessions I found it hard to take anything away - in fact all I can recollect is that "if one can place a hand in an empty area - then it is possible to live there" !

So although the live entertainment does play a role, it is a small role. On average, less than 10% watch live. Maybe you are an exception as much as I am (I watch rather a lot live). Such exceptions are too rare to play a significant role though.

I think that the "entertainment" aspects of a tournament are much wider than just watching strong players. I think that from the perspective of entertainment, Prague was better than Groningen (beer tournament, disco, bars (playing rengo), everyone accommodated together, the coachload of Lithuanian girls, taking the metro into Prague, and the melee outside while waiting for round 1). Likewise at Marseille with a belly dancer, band, walk to the Calanque, playing outside on tables near the bar. Of course there were aspects of Groningen that were nice like hiring a bicycle, cycling round the town, along canals - but 2 euros for a small beer - that's too much (it does not need to be that way (for example 50c at Zomergo - http://zomergo.octalo.com/en/node/3 )).

RobertJasiek wrote:

entertainment is unknown and flawed subject for jasiek.

Wrong.

Entertainment for the kyu player about the EC comes from watching EC players, games or results. (Maybe for some also from boasting to have also played in the EC.)

For this entertainment, it would be better of main tournament and EC would be at different times so that kyu players could see more of the EC (top) games. That kyu players have a shorter thinking time helps them only partially.

However, experience tells us that only very few do watch top games live. Between 0 and 10 in room 1. Maybe one or two dozen in a video room. What does attract kyus much more is live commenting; then the rooms are full. However, they are fuller during afternoon commenting!

So although the live entertainment does play a role, it is a small role. On average, less than 10% watch live. Maybe you are an exception as much as I am (I watch rather a lot live). Such exceptions are too rare to play a significant role though.

Is this experience your personal? As a member of rules comission, I am sure that you know that watching other players game while still playing has been clearly forbidden (see http://www.eurogofed.org/egf/tourrules97.htm 2-b.). Watching equals study in my mind, I can't watch any game without counting possible outcome on the board and I believe this to be true for most players. Have you actually watched other games while your game was still going on? Have you notified the referees if/when you have been experiencing other people watching top games live?

BTW, the rules have been changed recently (June 2010) http://www.eurogofed.org/egf/tourrules.htm

Diabolic wrote:Is this experience your personal?

Sure. From having attended the congresses since 1993 each year for two weeks and watching top games a lot. If you should have more profound witnesses, please tell us:)

As a member of rules comission, I am sure that you know that watching other players game while still playing has been clearly forbidden (see http://www.eurogofed.org/egf/tourrules97.htm 2-b.).

This nonsense rule, when it was still in use, was not applied by pretty much anyone. It had been a reaction to the 1988 incident of players copying each other on nearby tables. Now the current General Tournament Rules do not have the rule any longer. Instead what would prevent 1988's behaviour is the sportsmanlike behaviour.

Actually, still playing players tend to concentrate on their own games and have only occasional watching of other games. When they have finished their own games, then longer watching of other games occurs the more often.

Have you actually watched other games while your game was still going on?

Yes. - Most players have.

Have you notified the referees if/when you have been experiencing other people watching top games live?

IIRC, yes, sometimes.

BTW, the rules have been changed recently (June 2010) http://www.eurogofed.org/egf/tourrules.htm

I do not know what the June 2010 stands for; it must be a webpage update date. The rules are from the AGM 2007. See §10.1: "These EGF General Tournament Rules become valid from 2007-07-21."

RobertJasiek wrote:

Liisa wrote:Here I would like to outline the championship tournament where I would like to participate as a player and a spectator.

Which is your rank? Can you prove what your rank is by stating your real name? Is your rank relevant for the EC or are you a kyu player, who just benefits from the marketing gag that the EC would be a tournament for players of all strengths?

(...)

2) That kyu players and low dans play in what is called the EGC is a marketing gag rather than evidence of quality.

Firstly Robert, your tone is really unpleasant in this reply and completely uncalled for.
Liisas analysis this time is perfectly reasonable and also contains some interesting observations.

Secondly, your quoted statements probably explain why your views on the EGC are so odd.
Clearly anyone is free to have whatever preferences and priorities regarding the EGC, but yours are
very odd (as far as I can see, of course) and consequently not very relevant for the decisions to
be made.

You call the EGC a "marketing gag".
But the EGC is in fact a great success story, understandably copied by the americans.
The EGC has large and growing numbers of participants, from Europe and from outside.
The EGC, for the same reason presumably, also attracts sponsors. The EGC is a great opportunity
to enjoy go and to improve at go, at every level. I also believe that he EGC is good marketing
of go, mainly due to its size. The EGC is the biggest go event in the western world and the only
go event that is big enough to be comparable to other sports events, generally speaking. The EGC
is also a great opportunity for contacts between European players and strong players from the
more developed go countries in asia, professionals as well as amateurs. As far as I know it is thanks
to the EGC that Catalin and probably a number of other top European players got in contact with the
far east pro world.

People come to the EGC to play serious games with players at their own level, whatever that may be, to have an opportunity to get feedback on their games from stronger players, to enjoy summer vacation doing something they like (play go), perhaps bringing their families too, to meet go friends from all over Europe and from elsewhere, to visit every year a new place in Europe and for the numerous splendid side activities that are organizad at the EGC.

Only to very few EGC participants it is a major attraction to watch the games at the top boards or to see who is going to become European Champion. Even fewer aspire at the title themselves. The majority of EGC participants probably don't know who is at present European Champion and don't care very much. I strongly doubt that any single player has ever participated in the EGC mainly to "brag" about having taken part in a European Championship, as you suggest, Robert.

Of course the title is important too, the Championship, and generally the elite competition, bringing the strongest European players together. But the matter of the title is clearly of secondary importance besides the bulk activities of the go congress, by any measure. For example economically: it is the large crowd of kyu and lower dan players who provide the financial resources in terms of registration fees, it is the large number of participants that attracts local sponsors, reduced accomodation charges and likely international sponsors as well. The title at stake and the Championship of course does its part too to attract sponsors, but less so than the numerous participation is what I think. If anything it is the title and Chamionship that might be termed a "marketing gag".

At the third level of general interest is precisely how the European Champion is appointed, matters of tiebreakers and what not. Yes, of course those matters ave their interest and importance too, but they are by no means comparable to the main activities at the EGC.

Now, it is true that some top players have been complaining about the sloppy way the Championship is determined, and that criticism is perfecly understandable and justified, as far as it goes. The number of ways to mend those problems that have been proposed is becoming innumerable, one more complicated than the other, but it has not been possible to agree on anything so far. We'll se how it goes this year. But the difficulties to agree may be a sign that most people like the congress as it is and that it is not so easy to fix the problem without creating new ones.

So how about returning to the idea of separating the EGC and the open European Championship from a closed European Championship to be held independently on some other occasion? For example there is some discussion now on a European Champions League, where all national champions would meet. Why not develop this into the new, closed European Championship? It could be a knock out tournament. Optionally one could include a few places for the best placed europeans in the Open European Championship (EGC). This has the advantage that it lends some more prestige to the national championships, which might be good particularly in the smaller countries. Or else the elite closed tournament could be set up with some other selection scheme, e.g. like the Ing memorial. Personally I would say that selection in qualification tournaments is better than just selecting the highest rated players, since it stimulates tournament play further down the line. What are the drawbacks with a separate closed elite tournament? Firstly the marketing value of the EGC might drop a bit (not very much is my expectation). Secondly, on the other hand, maybe the top players feel that they need the money from the EGC (the registration fees from the many kyu players and the sponsorship that the EGC can attract due to its large numbers) towards price money. In a sense, these drawbacks can not both be important - if the marketing value of the title tournament is great, it can find its own sponsors. If it is not it doesnt mean so much to lose it from the EGC. Anyway, it may be a price worth paying for not messing around too much with the EGC. Are there any other drawbacks with separating the elite championship from the summer vacation EGC family event?

best regards,
Henric

henric wrote:You call the EGC a "marketing gag".

What I call a marketing gag is the myth sold to and perceived by some low dan and kyu players that letting them play in the same tournament would give them actual chances to win the title.

The EGC has large and growing numbers of participants, from Europe and from outside.

But why is that so? Because the congress has many attractions. The main tournament is one of them because of a) a great variety of roughly equal opponents and b) the serious games due to the long thinking times. Maybe the illusion of the marketing gag also played a small role. If so, it is not needed any longer though; the tournament is already so big that some have started saying: "Too big!"

Only to very few EGC participants it is a major attraction to watch the games at the top boards or to see who is going to become European Champion. Even fewer aspire at the title themselves. The majority of EGC participants probably don't know who is at present European Champion and don't care very much.

Then what would be the purpose in keeping the EC part of the main tournament? If only few participants care, then it would not matter for the congress quality whether it is a separate tournament or not.

But the matter of the title is clearly of secondary importance besides the bulk activities of the go congress, by any measure.

Presumably not by the measure "for those strong and interested in winning the title".

If anything it is the title and Chamionship that might be termed a "marketing gag".

It is very sad to see you lowering the title quality that much.

by no means comparable to the main activities at the EGC.

Determination of the title is one of the main activities.

one more complicated than the other,

No. Some proposals are really simple.

the difficulties to agree may be a sign that most people like the congress as it is

Then all(!) the delegates would extremely badly represent the players. Otherwise the absolutely one-sided votes of last year (EC at congress, EC with European-only games) could not be explained.

So how about returning to the idea of separating the EGC and the open European Championship from a closed European Championship to be held independently on some other occasion?

If you want to try undoing the 21-0 vote...

For example there is some discussion now on a European Champions League, where all national champions would meet. Why not develop this into the new, closed European Championship?

Because it would greatly decrease the playing quality and thus the title's value. (A European Champions League in itself as an additianal tournament is a nice idea though.)

some more prestige to the national championships

The German Championship has (within Germany) a very high prestige because the tournament system requires the players to exhibit great playing quality. Is this different in other countries?

the elite closed tournament could be set up with some other selection scheme,

Many selection systems can be imagined.

selection in qualification tournaments is better than just selecting the highest rated players,

Yes. Even small improvements would be an alternative: Set a minimal number of rated games. Use average instead of last rating.

RobertJasiek wrote:What I call a marketing gag is the myth sold to and perceived by some low dan and kyu players that letting them play in the same tournament would give them actual chances to win the title.

I do not believe that anyone actually entertains this delusion, nor that anyone is trying to "sell" it. I perceive this notion of "marketing gag" as a strawman argument.

Having everyone play in the same tournament simply means that there is a continuum of opponents available, so that, for example, no one gets only mismatched opponents due to having been put into the wrong group.

Harleqin wrote:I do not believe that anyone actually entertains this delusion, nor that anyone is trying to "sell" it.

It is possible that 5+ years of discussion have had their impact. Before this argument had been used.

Having everyone play in the same tournament simply means that there is a continuum of opponents available, so that, for example, no one gets only mismatched opponents due to having been put into the wrong group.

Those in the Open will like to play for the first (European) place in it. In a (relatively) small Closed (like in national championships with similar systems), it happens that some players get only few wins; I have not heard complaints by them about too tough opposition though. So your argument is a technical observation rather than a real problem.

RobertJasiek wrote:If you want to try undoing the 21-0 vote...

Well, I'm not so convinced that vote really reflects what people think.
It had certainly not been announced on the agenda and I don't think that Sweden would have voted for discarding a separate EC, irrespectively of all other aspects involved. It says in the minutes that there was no discussion, maybe the delegates didn't think so much about what a separate EC could be like.

regards,
H.

henric wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:If you want to try undoing the 21-0 vote...

Well, I'm not so convinced that vote really reflects what people think.
It had certainly not been announced on the agenda and I don't think that Sweden would have voted for discarding a separate EC, irrespectively of all other aspects involved. It says in the minutes that there was no discussion, maybe the delegates didn't think so much about what a separate EC could be like.

regards,
H.

It is against the constitution to introduce new motions without an agreed vote at the start at the meeting. (Or am I wrong?)

I think using Congress as a qualifier for 8 player European Championship would be a nice idea. So I would be interested in hearing the opinions of some strong players about the idea.

Javaness wrote:It is against the constitution to introduce new motions without an agreed vote at the start at the meeting.

Practice suggests that major votes should be on the agenda while minor votes can be ad hoc. I am not sure though about ad hoc motions if all or the absolute majority of the listed present delegates wants to allow them.

I think using Congress as a qualifier for 8 player European Championship would be a nice idea. So I would be interested in hearing the opinions of some strong players about the idea.

Depends on whom you mean to consider "strong players". If you mean only the top 8, you might get affirmation. IMO (strong enough player to have been in many supergroups so far), 8 players are too few because they do not necessarily include the currently strongest player and because 7 rounds are too few.

henric wrote:I'm not so convinced that vote really reflects what people think.

Maybe this years' delegates can ensure to set the topic early during the agenda and to participate actively in discussion? Then there is less motivation to doubt careful intentions.