Life In 19x19

For the EGF AGM 2013 there are two proposals for the European Championship system. Here is one more system, which is of course late to be included.

Stage 1

64 top players are divided into 16 groups of four players.
Lower players start in the traditional main tournament.
Each group may have one non European player.
Round robin is played in each group.
European players who have lost no more than one game against other European players will qualify for the 2nd stage.
Others will enter the main tournament.

Stage 2

Players with no losses against Europeans in first stage will be entered in the upper group.
Players with one loss against Europeans in first stage will be entered in the lower group.
Players in the upper group are paired with each other and players in the lower group are paired with each other.
If there is an odd player in the upper group he will be paired with a player from the lower group. If there is an odd player in the lower group he will get a free round.
Players winning in the upper group remain in the upper group for the next round.
Players losing in the upper group go into the lower group for the next round.
Players winning in the lower group remain in the lower group for the next round.
Players losing in the lower group will be entered into the main tournament.
if after 5 rounds there is one player in the upper group and two players in the lower group, the two players in the lower grops play each other in the 6th round.
The final is played in the 7th round.

Notes
A round robin group will provide either one player to the upper group and at most one player to the lower group or no players to the upper group and two or three players to the lower group. If all groups provide al player into upper group we will have 16 and 16 players, who after four round reduce to 1 and 5. If n groups fail to provide a player into top group we have at most 16-n and 16+2n players, who after four rounds reduce to 1 and 5 or less. I n is large the tournament may finish before 7th round. If we consider this a problem we may create a lowest group where players can still stay in the contest.

Your suggestion: 7 rounds is much less meaningful than the current 10+ rounds.

Which are the two proposals to the AGM?

@Robert: See http://www.eurogofed.org/egf/index.htm#agm2013

Both proposals result in a decision for the EC by Sunday in the middle of the EGC, so have also fewer rounds.

And since this is being discussed anyway, here's one I wrote: First To Eight

RobertJasiek wrote:Your suggestion: 7 rounds is much less meaningful than the current 10+ rounds.

The suggestion is 3+7 and the current system is 7+(1)+3 rounds. Your comparison is fails.

HermanHiddema wrote:And since this is being discussed anyway, here's one I wrote: First To Eight

That is a good system and one of the basic ideas to start with. I attempted to have one modification of it to utilize the ten rounds. Basically my initial round robin does the same split as your first round. However, if we start with 32 players I prefer to let the champion leave the tournament after he has won the final. Another possibility to have an option for another final game on the 9th round if the two top players both are on 7 wins after 8 rounds.

Matti wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:And since this is being discussed anyway, here's one I wrote: First To Eight

That is a good system and one of the basic ideas to start with. I attempted to have one modification of it to utilize the ten rounds. Basically my initial round robin does the same split as your first round. However, if we start with 32 players I prefer to let the champion leave the tournament after he has won the final. Another possibility to have an option for another final game on the 9th round if the two top players both are on 7 wins after 8 rounds.

My system does not really prohibit the Champion from leaving after he has won his 8th game, but since there is no guarantee that that moment occurs before round 10, the players should be prepared at the start of the tournament to play all rounds if necessary.

I do not understand your remark about a final game in the 9th round if both have 7/8. That is what happens in my system already.

Matti wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:Your suggestion: 7 rounds is much less meaningful than the current 10+ rounds.

The suggestion is 3+7 and the current system is 7+(1)+3 rounds. Your comparison is fails.

Ah, ok, so your "in the 6th round. The final is played in the 7th round." refers to rounds in the 2nd stage, I see.

(Dis)advantages of similar systems have been discussed during the previous years. However, the AGM proposals very much lack the following:

- a profound study of their quality or missing quality as tournament systems for the purpose of EC determination (minor and off-topic reasons do not replace a study)
- a comparison to the quality of the current system as a tournament system for the purpose of EC determination
- a good explanation why ca. 7 rounds in 7 days should be better or worse than 14 rounds in 7 days (e.g., it is very much possible to play two games per day, each with 2.5h thinking time per player + 10*10s byoyomi)

Without a careful discussion of these aspects, the proposals just look like forcing a change towards a 7 days EC no matter what.

Not to forget Martin's note that the EGC round 10 could be dropped entirely. Uh, why remove 10% of the congress fun?!

Concerning Herman's First to Eight (supposing it works as advertised; I have not studied the details yet), it looks like an intelligent system, if one cares only about the first place and prefers at most 8 wins (I don't).

RobertJasiek wrote:Concerning Herman's First to Eight (supposing it works as advertised; I have not studied the details yet), it looks like an intelligent system, if one cares only about the first place and prefers at most 8 wins (I don't).

The system requires that the winner has at least 8 wins, not at most.

In your system, the "at most 8" refers to the crucial number of wins reached when becoming the EC. In the current system, usually it is 7 (scarce), 8, 9 or 10. In your system, it is at most 8.

RobertJasiek wrote:In your system, the "at most 8" refers to the crucial number of wins reached when becoming the EC. In the current system, usually it is 7 (scarce), 8, 9 or 10. In your system, it is at most 8.

If the winner has already reached 8 wins after 8 rounds, he can still play the remaining two rounds to get a better score of 10/10 or 9/10, similarly if he reaches 8 wins after 9 rounds, he can use the remaining round to get 9/10. The only change at this point is that those games might be against non-European players. So the player could reach at most 10 wins.

Really the system is just 10 rounds McMahon with a few restrictions on the pairings of the top European players to avoid outsider interference, and an additional tie-breaking rule for the EC.

@Matti: Your proposed system has an inherent unbalance due to the optional presence of a non-European player in the round robin. If you are in a group with 4 Europeans, you must win at least 2/3 games to continue, 3/3 to get in the upper group. If there is one non-European, you only need 1/2 for going through and 2/2 for getting to the upper group. How do you propose to decide which European players get the relatively easier groups?

What is the point of trying to fudge a European Championship into an Open Championship?

I am not in Europe, so perhaps I am missing something, but I don't understand why there is a tournament with non-european participants who are apparently not allowed to win?

HermanHiddema wrote:I do not understand your remark about a final game in the 9th round if both have 7/8. That is what happens in my system already.

I cancel my remark. I did not read your description carefully enough.

HermanHiddema wrote:@Matti: Your proposed system has an inherent unbalance due to the optional presence of a non-European player in the round robin. If you are in a group with 4 Europeans, you must win at least 2/3 games to continue, 3/3 to get in the upper group. If there is one non-European, you only need 1/2 for going through and 2/2 for getting to the upper group. How do you propose to decide which European players get the relatively easier groups?

I would anticipate getting 16 non-European players to the groups, if not at the first, later. Anyway I would put the weakest European players into groups of four Europeans.