Page 1 of 1

Pro Qualifiers 2016

Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:15 am
by Javaness2
What do you think of the tournament system used this year to decide the next EGF professional?

There are 16 qualifiers, who play in a kind of double elimination tournament for 1 final spot.
As there is only 1 pro spot available this I thought that single elimination ( a straight knockout) would have been a more obvious choice. Does anyone agree?

In the chosen system, it looks like some people just get 1 extra life for no obvious reason.

Re: Pro Qualifiers 2016

Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:56 am
by RobertJasiek
KO would make obvious sense.

Double KO to qualify one player makes sense in a more complicated manner. It presumes that the "Loser" does not get any advantage other than losing his game earlier. The "Winner" has to prove that he can continue winning. The "Loser" is given a second chance because nobody can always win, so the tournament system models top professional reality that even the best players cannot always win and that winning more decisive games is more important than winning less important games.

Re: Pro Qualifiers 2016

Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 5:40 am
by Elom
I don't think KO is very good for finding the absolute best player (1 loss and your out, more luck involved)-- RR is of course theoretically the best possible method, however knowledge of wins/losses may change outcomes, and it takes a while to complete. KO is good for finding the best "half" of players, maybe. DE has the advantage of removing half the uncertainty of an "upset" loss from the best player affecting the winner of the tournament. Also, there are more match-ups between the players, making for a better test. I like it.

Re: Pro Qualifiers 2016

Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 5:56 am
by DrStraw
Between two players the best player is more likely to win a best-of-three rather than a single game. He is even more likely to win the best of five.

So in a tournament of this importance it is more desirable to have the best two players play one another more often. A double elimination achieves this without unduly lengthening the tournament.

Re: Pro Qualifiers 2016

Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 6:12 am
by Javaness2
The tournament didn't use double elimination throughout though.

Re: Pro Qualifiers 2016

Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 6:48 am
by Hrabanus
Javaness2 wrote:The tournament didn't use double elimination throughout though.

Could you explain where it deviates from that? On eurogofed.org i found only the information that it is double elimination.

BTW:
The final game will be between Andrii Kravets and Artem Kachanovskyi, both from Ukraine. [...]
The game will be broadcasted on KGS from 15:00 CET and it will be live commented from 16:00 CET by Pavol Lisy, the 1st EGF Professional.

Re: Pro Qualifiers 2016

Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 7:05 am
by Javaness2
You can look at the chart they made: http://eurogofed.org/proqualification/index_2016.html
From the quarter finals it is just single elimination.

Re: Pro Qualifiers 2016

Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 7:28 am
by Hrabanus
Javaness2 wrote:You can look at the chart they made: http://eurogofed.org/proqualification/index_2016.html
From the quarter finals it is just single elimination.

Thank you!
It took me some time, but finally i could see it.
(those charts and sheets really make my brain hurt :-? )

Re: Pro Qualifiers 2016

Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 9:16 am
by Jhyn
Intereting to note that Thomas Debarre beat Andrii Kravets in the first round, for Andrii to get a second chance, and finally to come back in the semifinals and take his revenge on Thomas.

No second chance for Thomas though.

I don't really see how this system makes sense except that they wanted to play exactly 6 rounds for 16 players and thought it was the easiest way. Even though I supported Thomas, I won't call it unfair since the same rules apply to all players.

Re: Pro Qualifiers 2016

Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2016 8:54 am
by Matti
Jhyn wrote:Intereting to note that Thomas Debarre beat Andrii Kravets in the first round, for Andrii to get a second chance, and finally to come back in the semifinals and take his revenge on Thomas.

No second chance for Thomas though.

If tow players have played with each other, they should only meet in the final next time. However I have not worked out, if this can be achieved, when the pairing chart is fixed in advance until to the finish.
I don't really see how this system makes sense except that they wanted to play exactly 6 rounds for 16 players and thought it was the easiest way. Even though I supported Thomas, I won't call it unfair since the same rules apply to all players.

Another way would be to have three rounds of knock out and then tow remaining players play best of three, but then there is a risk that the tournament finishes in five rounds.