Life In 19x19

mikem wrote:Why not just have one tournament, and the European citizen with the best result is the European champion (though an Asian player most likely will have won the actual tournament)?

IIRC, this is how the system currently works, and people don't like it (I'm not one of them, like you, it seems perfectly sensible to me).

topazg wrote:

mikem wrote:Why not just have one tournament, and the European citizen with the best result is the European champion (though an Asian player most likely will have won the actual tournament)?

IIRC, this is how the system currently works, and people don't like it (I'm not one of them, like you, it seems perfectly sensible to me).

Change the emphasis and add a little "and a few people don't like it". This is one of the things where 95% of the discussion about the European Congress is dominated by the concerns of, possibly, 5% of the players. For the other 95% of the players, the major concern is having a good holiday, meeting old friends and making new ones, getting lessons and simuls and looking and sometimes buying the latest Go literature. I get the impression that when discussions like this happen, most of them just switch off.

Best wishes.

TMark wrote:

topazg wrote:

mikem wrote:Why not just have one tournament, and the European citizen with the best result is the European champion (though an Asian player most likely will have won the actual tournament)?

IIRC, this is how the system currently works, and people don't like it (I'm not one of them, like you, it seems perfectly sensible to me).

Change the emphasis and add a little "and a few people don't like it". This is one of the things where 95% of the discussion about the European Congress is dominated by the concerns of, possibly, 5% of the players. For the other 95% of the players, the major concern is having a good holiday, meeting old friends and making new ones, getting lessons and simuls and looking and sometimes buying the latest Go literature. I get the impression that when discussions like this happen, most of them just switch off.

Best wishes.

And, of course, playing a strong tournament

mikem wrote:Why not just have one tournament, and the European citizen with the best result is the European champion

1) Rather likely (the more non-Europeans the more likely) there will be more than one player with the most wins. Many top players consider that unsatisfactory. Tiebreakers cast further doubts.

2) The more non-Europeans there are, the smaller the number of wins of the top Europeans will be. Many top players consider that unsatisfactory. A very small ratio of the number of wins and the number of rounds casts even greater doubts.

3) The more non-Europeans there are, the fewer games the top Europeans will have played against each other. Many top players consider that unsatisfactory for mainly two reasons: a) They were not given a chance to beat the closest European competitors. b) The yearly number of European games is small, a small percentage of top European-only games makes this situation yet worse.

4) Different numbers of non-European opponents for top Europeans casts doubts whether all Europeans had about similarly strong opposition. The majority of top players considers that unsatisfactory.

willemien wrote:

Harleqin wrote:

willemien wrote:In my system the european champion is decided by

- a 7 round swiss tournament (between europeans only)
so
- NO interference of non european players on the determination.
- No inference of MM scores
Also it allows more people in the tournament


I am wondering how you can get a higher quality (in 10 rounds and still have some non european - european games.

Your proposal puts almost the entire emphasis on the closed championship. I think that the main tournament (the open championship) is crippled by having excluded the top europeans for most of the rounds.

No this proposel has not that result
In every round around 20 - 30% of the european title candidates is available to play against non european title candidates. (that is almost enough to pair every non european against an european)
It is not that there are 7 dedicated rounds in the main tournament were all european title candidates are playing eachother (Having dedicated rounds would result in the problem you describe.)
The idea is that every european title candidate plays 7 games against other european title candidates.

It is the case that the pairing for the european title tournament takes precedence over the pairing for the open tournament. But i think this does not interfere with the expected results of the Open.

OOPs made a mistake

if 75% of the games are European -European
25% is Non european- European
and no non european - non european games

then Non europeans can only be 12.5 % of the players can be

not 25% as i by mistake believed.

My proposel won't work
Back to the drawing board

maybe Hermans idea is better.


(if there are 8 asian players and 8 games is 25% of the games then there are 32 games means a topgroup of 64 players consisting of 56 European and 8 non european players)

RobertJasiek wrote:My favourite is Proposal 2. Other proposals are good second candidates though if their core is only one stage so that during the tournament tiebreakers are not needed. For me the most important criteria are:

- high tournament quality: no relevant tiebreakers, enough rounds, long thinking time, enough top European-only games
- enough Europeans in the EC

That is if i am correct:
from viewtopic.php?f=47&t=895

...

Proposal 2

(modified Swiss 9+ rounds)

+ The Swiss system is well understood.
+ The system is simple.
+ The champion and his closest competitors play the same number of games.
+ The champion has more wins than his competitors.
+ After at least 9 rounds, the championship stops just when there is a single leader.
+ The champion is determined by European-only games.
+ Enough players start in round 1 to be sure not to exclude the strongest player.
+ Most players, who drop out due to too few wins, become available as opponents for non-Europeans in the main tournament.

o There is much scope for using good pairing strategies.
o In case of 10+ rounds and during the rounds 10+, there are two options: a) No repeated pairs but usual Swiss pairing. b) As far as possible, the top players are paired against each other even if that should create repeated pairs.

- In case of 11+ rounds (necessary when 3+ players have the most wins after round 9), shorter thinking times (e.g., 2 hours + 10 seconds byoyomi) need to be used in some or all rounds from round 10.

The main problem is that strong european players become only late or even not available for playing non european players

Other problems are in the first 2 rounds (that is 25% of the tournament ) no non european - european games. (do you want to start with the Open tournament winning games)

Modified swiss is not quicker (and can be slower than normal swiss )
See my post in the modified swiss tread. viewtopic.php?f=47&t=1034


The drop out players are difficult to put in the general McMahon System. A better idea is to let the topgroup grow with people with many wins from below the bar group. (as in a normal McMahon tournament)

I just acknowledged that my idea won't work now my preference reverts back to Hermans Idea http://senseis.xmp.net/?HermanHiddema%2 ... lusMcMahon

willemien wrote:and no non european - non european games

This is a not wanted feature though.

willemien wrote:The main problem is that strong european players become only late or even not available for playing non european players

Other problems are in the first 2 rounds (that is 25% of the tournament ) no non european - european games.

Therefore for all Proposals without non-Europeans in the (closed) EC, the suggestion is to have also a Top Players Tournament.

Modified swiss is not quicker (and can be slower than normal swiss )

The intention is not to have the fastest possible tournament.

The drop out players are difficult to put in the general McMahon System.

I consider it very easy: Have them pro forma in the supergroup from the McMahon's beginning.

A better idea is to let the topgroup grow with people with many wins from below the bar group. (as in a normal McMahon tournament)

Why better? How then do you suggest dropped out EC players to enter the McMahon?

RobertJasiek wrote:Therefore for all Proposals without non-Europeans in the (closed) EC, the suggestion is to have also a Top Players Tournament.

I am sorry for repeating myself, but why not leave the main tournament alone then and make a top-europeans closed EC in place of the top players tournament?

One thing I am not entirely clear on, aside from voting on the proposals that we wish to see implemented, is what the proposals are being put forward for?

Precisely, what are the failings in the current system and what goals are in place to be achieved by a new system?

Harleqin wrote:why not leave the main tournament alone then and make a top-europeans closed EC in place of the top players tournament?

From the view of those supporting a parallel schedule:

- For the top Europeans, the EC is more important than the Open-EC.
- As the more important tournament, it (also) deserves the current 2.5h basic thinking time and therefore must start in the morning, which is better for concentration anyway than games ending during the night.

topazg wrote:what the proposals are being put forward for?

Precisely, what are the failings in the current system and what goals are in place to be achieved by a new system?

Current failures (repeated):

1) Rather likely (the more non-Europeans the more likely) there will be more than one player with the most wins. Many top players consider that unsatisfactory. Tiebreakers cast further doubts.

2) The more non-Europeans there are, the smaller the number of wins of the top Europeans will be. Many top players consider that unsatisfactory. A very small ratio of the number of wins and the number of rounds casts even greater doubts.

3) The more non-Europeans there are, the fewer games the top Europeans will have played against each other. Many top players consider that unsatisfactory for mainly two reasons: a) They were not given a chance to beat the closest European competitors. b) The yearly number of European games is small, a small percentage of top European-only games makes this situation yet worse.

4) Different numbers of non-European opponents for top Europeans casts doubts whether all Europeans had about similarly strong opposition. The majority of top players considers that unsatisfactory.

Goals:

Solve these current failures by avoiding them by installing a new system that does avoid them.

RobertJasiek wrote:

topazg wrote:what the proposals are being put forward for?

Precisely, what are the failings in the current system and what goals are in place to be achieved by a new system?

Current failures (repeated):

1) Rather likely (the more non-Europeans the more likely) there will be more than one player with the most wins. Many top players consider that unsatisfactory. Tiebreakers cast further doubts.

2) The more non-Europeans there are, the smaller the number of wins of the top Europeans will be. Many top players consider that unsatisfactory. A very small ratio of the number of wins and the number of rounds casts even greater doubts.

3) The more non-Europeans there are, the fewer games the top Europeans will have played against each other. Many top players consider that unsatisfactory for mainly two reasons: a) They were not given a chance to beat the closest European competitors. b) The yearly number of European games is small, a small percentage of top European-only games makes this situation yet worse.

4) Different numbers of non-European opponents for top Europeans casts doubts whether all Europeans had about similarly strong opposition. The majority of top players considers that unsatisfactory.

Goals:

Solve these current failures by avoiding them by installing a new system that does avoid them.

1) Who are "many top players", and what proportion of the players does this represent?
1b) What proportion of the top players is "many" (for example, out of all 4d+ players that have entered more than two congresses since 2001)
2) Why should the system be redesigned because the top players are unhappy with it?
2b) Who is the EGC designed to serve?
2c) Does this include non-Europeans?
3) What positive aspects of the current system have been considered that it is equally important not to lose when implementing a new system?

1) Who are "many top players", and what proportion of the players does this represent?

I cannot give exact figures because I do not recall exactly all with whom I have talked or of whom I have read something. Typically it means: I have seen only at most one top European (current supergroup members) player with a contrary opinion.

2) Why should the system be redesigned because the top players are unhappy with it?

To make them happy. They know from their own and relevant experience what matters for a good system.

2b) Who is the EGC designed to serve?

I assume that you mean EGC = (Closed) European Championship.

Your use of present tense makes it necessary to distinguish between current system and possible future system. I explain a bit for the latter:

- Those top Europeans wishing to find out the currently strongest among themselves.
- Those top Europeans wishing to have interesting games against each other.
- Those observers wishing to enjoy the games, the event, the players, the winners.

2c) Does this include non-Europeans?

Given that I assume you to mean EGC = (Closed) European Championship and further assuming that it should have European-only games: no. (Except for non-Europeans as observers.)

3) What positive aspects of the current system have been considered that it is equally important not to lose when implementing a new system?

Besides those mentioned earlier? None. For those wishing the EC to be separate, aspects like a) letting top non-Europeans play top Europeans during the morning or b) having a single tournament with a continuous players field from bottom to top are considered less important.

RobertJasiek wrote:

1) Who are "many top players", and what proportion of the players does this represent?

I cannot give exact figures because I do not recall exactly all with whom I have talked or of whom I have read something. Typically it means: I have seen only at most one top European (current supergroup members) player with a contrary opinion.

This could be one against one vote. It is not clear that you are aware of proportions - does anyone have these figures?

RobertJasiek wrote:

2) Why should the system be redesigned because the top players are unhappy with it?

To make them happy. They know from their own and relevant experience what matters for a good system.

Yet there are many more players than the strong players who attend the Congress who may be having their happiness impacted by a change - have non-strong players been consulted?

RobertJasiek wrote:

2b) Who is the EGC designed to serve?

I assume that you mean EGC = (Closed) European Championship.

No, I don't. I mean the Go Congress main event, the open. Any change in format to the open that is designed to cater for European vs European games is going to impact the open overall. So the question is - who is the Open designed to serve.

RobertJasiek wrote:

2c) Does this include non-Europeans?

Given that I assume you to mean EGC = (Closed) European Championship and further assuming that it should have European-only games: no. (Except for non-Europeans as observers.)

See last point. There is no Closed championship at present as far as I am aware. Until any proposals are implemented, the EC winner is the leading European in the Open, is it not ?

RobertJasiek wrote:

3) What positive aspects of the current system have been considered that it is equally important not to lose when implementing a new system?

Besides those mentioned earlier? None. For those wishing the EC to be separate, aspects like a) letting top non-Europeans play top Europeans during the morning or b) having a single tournament with a continuous players field from bottom to top are considered less important.

There are many positive aspects of the current system. There are plenty of views that can be canvassed to identify what they are, and to whether any of the proposals may negatively impact them. Any changes made prior to this seem premature, if the decisions made are to impact the Open as a whole.