Life In 19x19

All group size suggestions (Gerlach, BGA, AGA, vDiepen, I) are pretty much educated guesses from experience. AFAIK, serious model simulations are still missing. Even Boscole did not do them, I think.

You theoretical boundary observations N versus 2^N are correct, of course.

Are there any practical experiences with as few as 16 players in a 10 rounds tournaments?

The top group (aka super) was mostly 32 players (24-32 Europeans), except one a few years, where there was no super group and so the top group was 48. (I recall Dublin and Italy, where we had 48.)

tj86430 wrote:

topazg wrote:Controversial opinion: Why is it we need a European champion in the first place?

This is as valid question as why do we need a world champion? Or a national champion (well, if your examples are true, then all nations don't)? Or any champions at all?

Not really, I raise the question because now there is the potential for racial discrimination (by proxy, but it is how it will be viewed by the rest of the World). Without definition of European, I think it's all on very dodgy ground.

RobertJasiek wrote:The purpose of a championship per se are clear:
a) To determine the currently strongest player.
b) To honour him.
c) To enable him to receive honour.
d) To create interesting games for the players themselves and, if games are broadcasted, for everybody.
e) In principle, one could use a championship for promoting the game in the media, but so far this has hardly been done successfully.

Now to the more specific question whether to have an EGC: The top players and many ordinary players want it for all or some of the above reasons, where "European" is inserted in (a).

But what defines European? If a Korean ex-insei is living in Europe I would consider them eligible to be "European champion". They aren't going to enter a national championship in their country of birth if they have to travel round the World to do it. I am happy with this being extended to having a valid VISA of European Nationality, or joint nationality, or national residence, but simply doing it by actual birth seems, frankly, racist.

If I moved to live in Australia because of work or something, I would expect after a year or so to be eligible for Australian championship status because it's where I live, where my home is, and where I would be intending on being for the indefinite future. I see no reason to discriminate against people who are simply living in Europe who wish to have a chance at being European champion.

"European" is not a race. Some, who think that races exist, call Caucasian a race.

RobertJasiek wrote:"European" is not a race. Some, who think that races exist, call Caucasian a race.

Nor is it a nationality. So why is Cho Seok-bin not eligible to be European Champion, or "Strongest European", exactly?

topazg wrote:But what defines European?

I don't know how EGF defines it, but I think in most sports the definition is something like "a person who is a citizen in a country, whose <insert name of sport here> federation is a member of European <insert name of sport here> federation". (The definition can be something else too, e.g. permanent resident instead of citizen, as long at is the same for all countries)

tj86430 wrote:

topazg wrote:But what defines European?

I don't know how EGF defines it, but I think in most sports the definition is something like "a person who is a citizen in a country, whose <insert name of sport here> federation is a member of European <insert name of sport here> federation". (The definition can be something else too, e.g. permanent resident instead of citizen, as long at is the same for all countries)

Citizenship in an EGF member country is pretty much the current definition. I would be fine with changing it to "resident for at least X years".

Regardless, the distinction is not race based. Guo Juan moved to the Netherlands and applied for a passport. Once she had a passport, she was eligible and won the title of European Champion four times. If the Koreans currently residing in Europe received a passport, they would similarly be eligible.

Whether someone wants to apply for a passport is a personal choice, I guess. If you identify as e.g. "German" more than as "Korean", then you could apply and in time be European Champion. If you identify as "Korean" more than as "German", then you don't apply and don't get to be European Champion, which is perhaps only fair.

HermanHiddema wrote:

tj86430 wrote:

topazg wrote:But what defines European?

I don't know how EGF defines it, but I think in most sports the definition is something like "a person who is a citizen in a country, whose <insert name of sport here> federation is a member of European <insert name of sport here> federation". (The definition can be something else too, e.g. permanent resident instead of citizen, as long at is the same for all countries)

Citizenship in an EGF member country is pretty much the current definition. I would be fine with changing it to "resident for at least X years".

Regardless, the distinction is not race based. Guo Juan moved to the Netherlands and applied for a passport. Once she had a passport, she was eligible and won the title of European Champion four times. If the Koreans currently residing in Europe received a passport, they would similarly be eligible.

Whether someone wants to apply for a passport is a personal choice, I guess. If you identify as e.g. "German" more than as "Korean", then you could apply and in time be European Champion. If you identify as "Korean" more than as "German", then you don't apply and don't get to be European Champion, which is perhaps only fair.

I would agree, this seems very fair.

topazg, find many endless threads on the topic "What is a European" at rec.games.go or godiscussions.com!

RobertJasiek wrote:topazg, find many endless threads on the topic "What is a European" at rec.games.go or godiscussions.com!

Indeed, but if a thread is to state "How to find the strongest european", it's bound to come up again

RobertJasiek wrote:All group size suggestions (Gerlach, BGA, AGA, vDiepen, I) are pretty much educated guesses from experience. AFAIK, serious model simulations are still missing. Even Boscole did not do them, I think.

You theoretical boundary observations N versus 2^N are correct, of course.

Are there any practical experiences with as few as 16 players in a 10 rounds tournaments?

Not that I know of. The Dutch Championship is Swiss with 16 players over 8 rounds. Usually, the 8th round starts to be challenging to pair. However, this is mostly due to having to pair both the small group of strongest players down and the small group of weakest players up. In McMahon, the problem does not exist for the weaker players, because they will have been paired with players from outside the top group, and for the stronger players the problem will be smaller, because they can meet the best performers from just below the bar

The top group (aka super) was mostly 32 players (24-32 Europeans), except one a few years, where there was no super group and so the top group was 48. (I recall Dublin and Italy, where we had 48.)

Since the current size of 32 seems to be working rather badly, and since several experienced TDs advocate it, perhaps making it smaller should be tried? The larger size of 48 in Frascati certainly does not seem to have helped.

HermanHiddema wrote:Citizenship in an EGF member country is pretty much the current definition.

By that definition I would be European, despite having only visited Europe for a few weeks over my life.

pwaldron wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:Citizenship in an EGF member country is pretty much the current definition.

By that definition I would be European, despite having only visited Europe for a few weeks over my life.

Well, it's a definition. Different organizations use different ones. The Netherlands allows you to be Dutch Champion after two years of residency, and there are two strong players competing at the Championship regularly despite not having a passport. Those same players, if they win, are not eligible to go to the WAGC, because the WAGC requires a passport.

If you come to the European Go Congress and win it, you'll be European Champion

pwaldron, welcome to the EGC! May you win it!:)

I think that 24 Europeans works rather well together with fold pairing by SOS (or slightly better: cross pairing by an external criterion during rounds 1 and 2, then fold pairing). What does not work well is, of course, the usage of tiebreakers for the final players ordering. Remvove that usage, share the title (or play playoffs after round 9 or 10), and all is about as fine as it can get under the current system! (Except for an arbitrary number of possibly too strong non-European opponents, which might mean a particular European gets too few wins.)

I do not know though whether 24 is optimal.

Are you sure the randomness in the process is a problem?

I believe the peak of a player lasts more than one year, and EGC is an annual event. So, taken a few successive years, each top player would receive his/her fair share of European Championship -titles.

Then the question is not to remove randomness from the process, but to make sure there is no bias in it.