Life In 19x19

As the TD for the coming European Go Congress 2010 Main Tournament, I'm tempted to follow the advice given here, that the Super Group should be smaller than previously, perhaps 16 Europeans and 8 selected strong Asians. If the rule is "a supergroup of up to ca 32 player, with up to ca 8 Asian" I think it means something between 0 and and those upper numbers (BTW, where is that quote from?).

I'm also happy to work with the to-be-appointed tournament supervisors and I hope they will give consideration to this idea as well. As a member of the organizing team I can also guarantee that if the Rules Committee want to reach one or several named persons registered for the Congress, we can assist in contacting them.

Robert's personal arrangements (referred by him in his previous post) for the Congress haven't been easy for the team, hopefully things will sort out well.

Best regards,
Vesa Laatikainen

RobertJasiek wrote:It is nice for you that you are an optimist:) My experience with the current congress organizers differs though: For a simple information, I am now waiting for some 6 weeks.

I do hope you've not been sitting behind your computer refreshing your inbox for 6 weeks

The wait time is not work, and if the organizers fail to reply, then at least you've made an honest effort and it is perfectly fine fall back to doing the job yourself.

And in this case perhaps Matti can use inside contacts to get what the rules commission wants faster.

Vesa wrote:As the TD for the coming European Go Congress 2010 Main Tournament, I'm tempted to follow the advice given here, that the Super Group should be smaller than previously, perhaps 16 Europeans and 8 selected strong Asians. If the rule is "a supergroup of up to ca 32 player, with up to ca 8 Asian" I think it means something between 0 and and those upper numbers (BTW, where is that quote from?).

Long Term Decisions decision of the EGF: http://www.eurogofed.org/egf/longterm.htm

Section "EUROPEAN GO CONGRESS (EGC)":

1996 Congress Tournament System: A super group should be formed of up to 32 players. Up to 8 of the 32 players may be chosen for particular reasons by the EGC Organisers (for instance for publicity, strong youth-players, visiting strong players). Otherwise the group is chosen by the Rules and Ratings Commission in consultation with the EGF Executive.

(the 1996 here is in reference to the year that the decision was made.)

I'm also happy to work with the to-be-appointed tournament supervisors and I hope they will give consideration to this idea as well. As a member of the organizing team I can also guarantee that if the Rules Committee want to reach one or several named persons registered for the Congress, we can assist in contacting them.

Already, things are moving forward

Good pro-active response by the Finnish organization, IMO.

Harleqin wrote:What is the problem? So far, I have not heard any serious complaints about the EGC tournament supervision. If the Rules Commission thinks they can handle it, why should they change it?

I think that in general, the tournament supervision has been handled fine. At the congresses I've visited, I've seen no major problems with it (The only mistake I can think of is the failure to include Yoon Kwang-sun, the EGC 2004 winner, in the EGC 2005 supergroup. I do not know whether there were special reasons for that decision, or whether it really was a mistake).

There is currently a difference of opinion on the size of the supergroup, and I think Robert has been too dismissive of changing it. But really the EGC system needs an overhaul and changing supergroup size is just a stop-gap measure for some short term relief.

In general, however, I think that the rules commission should delegate as much as possible, on the general principle that you always need more volunteers and many hands make light work. This is the same principle that tells us the editor-in-chief of a magazine should not be writing copy unless there is no other option, for example.

Volunteers:

Herman, there nothing wrong with many volunteers if a) they do exist at all and b) they are capable. E.g., I ran the tournaments section of the EGC 2000 mostly with volunteers and it was possible because there were enough. Already referees I could not find enough though. Finding volunteers for the EGF is much more difficult, maybe because the number of regular international players is rather restricted with the exception of the congress itself.

Supergroup size:

That I hesitate changing it drastically has different levels of principle considerations and within each level specific reasons.

Level 1: The currently valid rules. As a member of the rules commission, it is my duty to enforce the rules - not to break them. And the rules say "ca.", "24", "32" - they do not say "very roughly 24". It is not within the power of the rules commission, the tournament supervisors or the main tournament director - it is within the power of the AGM to change or not to change from a tight "ca." to a most liberal "any number 10 or greater is ok".

Level 2: Theoretical discussion of how rules could look like if - for the sake of argument - the AGM was assumed to have given free permission to change the rules immediately. On that level, the first consideration could start from the aims that one wants to achieve. One aim might be "give all players with at least a small but non-zero chance to win the title equal principle initial chances to win it". Another aim might be "give only as few players as possible equal principle initial chances to win the title". My preference is the former aim. The weaker the seeding criteria are (and currently they are very weak: 1 rated game of an inactive player might be compared with 100 rated games of an active player) the more I prefer the former aim. - After selection of an aim, the exact size becomes the issue. We have data for 24-48 players and 10 rounds but no data for 10-22 players. Under such circumstances, the minimal standard for a drastic change in size should be a theoretical study with proofs or an exhaustive, well documented empirical simulation. It could even turn out that (slightly or significantly) smaller sizes would be better but the EC is not the place to test simulations by trial and error. The EC is too important for that. I see some opinions in favour of a smaller size but no noteworthy theoretical support for such and in comparison to previous sizes.

You know that in other cases (like rules of play) I am very drastic in proposing even radical changes. However, such proposals I base on already done study and research. If you want to make as radical changes of tournament systems, it is up to you to provide the related studies. Otherwise there is a too great risk of a change becoming a failure.

Mistakes as tournament supervisors:

Yoon Kwang-sun: It was a spelling and transliteration problem. I noticed it and ensured that he was being found to confirm his presence. I do not recall why we did not include him in the supergroup; maybe something like that his initial intention was not to play all 10 rounds.

We did make a few other mistakes: One of them I recall easily: "Punishing" a player (2004, Bernd Radmacher) by putting him into a half-point MM group while the pairing program, due to a related conceptual mistake, would constantly pair down the single player in his MM group. - Another mistake was not expected it to take hours to download the current rating list in St. Petersberg. (I.e., we should have imported a copy to Russia.)

1996 statement:

Now that is overridden by the written EC rules.

LovroKlc:

Which "are a lot of experienced and more than competent organisers and tournament-running experts in Europe"? It might help if you called some names. Of course, I know some, but not so many that I would say "a lot".

Vesa:

Opinions in discussion forums do not override the rules set by the EGF. As said before, the "ca. 24" mean about "20 to 26" (plus 8 if there are no non-Europeans).

Please send me <jasiek@snafu.de> and Matti an email WRT whether contacts should be found! I do not know Matti's opinion on that topic yet though.

Mladen Smud is one of the best. Also, there are a lot of organisers(Slovenia, Serbia, Bosnia) who regularly do great work on organising tournaments, and are good referees. Maybe you should contact every country signed in in the EGF about possible rule changes- I know it is done at the AGM, but this year it is in Tampere, too far away for Croatian players(and a lot others) probably.

RobertJasiek wrote:willemien, please describe accelerated pairings!

is described in sensei's library on a subpage of swiss tournament. (it is not yet possible to lonk to a sensei's library subpage)

(and in US Chess federations rules of chess 5th edition page 130 - 133)

I am in favour of an ordinairy Swiss tournament for the european topgroup. so no McMahon scores difference between the players) Or even better just let go of McMahon scores at all..


Ps now you have to explain cross pairings as well

Herman Hiddema gives a good overview of it. (but it is just more words for what i wrote at the sensei's library page)

willemien wrote:Ps now you have to explain cross pairings as well

This is what is described as "Slide Pairing" on SL's [sl=GroupPairing]Group Pairing[/sl] page

RobertJasiek wrote:Vesa:

Opinions in discussion forums do not override the rules set by the EGF. As said before, the "ca. 24" mean about "20 to 26" (plus 8 if there are no non-Europeans).

I have trouble finding that written rule. A link would be very welcome.

Please send me <jasiek@snafu.de> and Matti an email WRT whether contacts should be found! I do not know Matti's opinion on that topic yet though.

And I have trouble understanding this sentence. Please elaborate. As I stated previously, we can help in getting contact with named persons by email.

Vesa

RobertJasiek wrote:1996 statement:

Now that is overridden by the written EC rules.

At what AGM was that change accepted? I can find no mention in it in any of the minutes.

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/EuropeanCha ... Rules.html

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/turrules.html

viewtopic.php?f=45&t=304


The interpretation of "ca. 24" comes from a) the creation context of changing from "24" to "ca. 24", b) the usage context of the "ca." within the rules text, c) previous supergroup formation practice.


Vesa, I do not have your email address ready. Therefore I have stated mine.

Herman, as explained before, the written EC rules were NOT adopted by an AGM but earlier this year by the EGF Committee, when its autumn Open tiebreaker rules had to be incorporated into what previously were the valid verbal EC rules. The latter describe the practice from 1997-2009, as implemented by rules commission, tournament supervisors and EGF Committee members sometimes supervising / helping with our supervising job, with a few tiny changes (like those made during the AGM 2008).

From 1997 to ca. 2003 (don't recall the year by heart), the EC rules were spread over various places from Fujutsu GP Guidelines and Regulations to verbal rules in the form of precedental decisions etc. It become so foggy that within the rules commission I introduced a written collection of all the valid verbal rules. The rules commission agreed on the contents and this was the predecessor of the current, adopted written version. The AGM, postponing again and again because of new and newer system change dreams, never bothered to confirm the facts by a formal decision. So the semi-formal state lasted until earlier this year.

In general, where the AGM does not act, the other EGF bodies are responsible. The EGF Committee and the rules commission acted accordingly. The result now is the written EC rules.

My mistake, I was expecting something starting with http://www.eurogofed.org like http://www.eurogofed.org/egf/index.htm

As the EGC2010 organizers work as a team, we prefer to get all related emails to the address info@egc2010.fi (which is redirected to me as well).

Best regards,

Vesa

RobertJasiek wrote:Herman, as explained before, the written EC rules were NOT adopted by an AGM but earlier this year by the EGF Committee, when its autumn Open tiebreaker rules had to be incorporated into what previously were the valid verbal EC rules. The latter describe the practice from 1997-2009, as implemented by rules commission, tournament supervisors and EGF Committee members sometimes supervising / helping with our supervising job, with a few tiny changes (like those made during the AGM 2008).

From 1997 to ca. 2003 (don't recall the year by heart), the EC rules were spread over various places from Fujutsu GP Guidelines and Regulations to verbal rules in the form of precedental decisions etc. It become so foggy that within the rules commission I introduced a written collection of all the valid verbal rules. The rules commission agreed on the contents and this was the predecessor of the current, adopted written version. The AGM, postponing again and again because of new and newer system change dreams, never bothered to confirm the facts by a formal decision. So the semi-formal state lasted until earlier this year.

In general, where the AGM does not act, the other EGF bodies are responsible. The EGF Committee and the rules commission acted accordingly. The result now is the written EC rules.

So lets see if I have this straight:

1. The AGM made a decision in 1996 on supergroup size, saying it should be "up to 32"
2. The rules commission, when supervising congresses 1997-2009, decided on ca. 32 players every year.
3. In 2010, the EGF committee want to make a rules change about tie breakers.
4. As part of this, the rules commission wrote down the "verbal" rules, based on "usual" practice.
5. The rules commission told the EGF committee that the supergroup rule is "ca. 32" (a mistake)
5. The EGF committee trusted the rules commissions on this, and accepted the written down rules in April 2010.
6. The rules commission is now claiming that their own mistake overrules a valid AGM decision.

No. I will try to help you sorting this out later. In the meantime, you might read more on the topic elsewhere, where I have explained most (RGG, SL, GD, here?).