The rules of the EC have been published: http://www.eurogofed.org/egf/ECS_2015on.pdf. This year will see a double knock out inspired system for the first time. Firstly, I think it is great that the new system was published well before the tournament (unlike the WAGC). Secondly, what are your thoughts? Do you think the system will make the EC more dramatic?

I think that a definitive objective advantage is that the European knock out does not interfere with the final rounds of the open, unlike the previous system.

_________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.” ― Robert Quillen

I am not sure what to think of this system. 7 rounds instead of the previously 10 rounds greatly devalue the European Championship. At the same time, the tiebreaker "initial rating" means that players should play well and lots of tournament games before the congress to a) qualify for the EC and b) win the tiebreaker during the EC's preliminary stage; this raises the quality. What is the net effect? A decreased or increased quality of EC and pre-EC competition? I do not know. Where is the theoretical study evaluating and comparing system qualities?

(Only) for top Europeans, ratings are reasonably meaningful. However, there cannot be meaning in small rating differences, such as 1 rating point. The rating tiebreaker retains an element of luck to some extent. Each player can minimise its impact by playing enough (and well enough) before the EC; but the late application of the tiebreaker means that it has more impact that should be for an important tournament.

The wildcards are terrible - politics replaces playing skill.

The great thing about the EC past and present is its integration of amateur and playing-professionals in one tournament. Nobody is excluded by playing status. (Presumably the impact of rating resetting of new EGF professionals is not too great and can be seen compensated by the achievement to qualify as an EGF professional at all.)

However, the restriction to EGF country passport holders devalues the tournament; since it is an EGF country tournament, the title "European" Championship promises more than the tournament is worth. It would be honest to rename it to "EGF Championship", but actually it would be much better to go back to European country participants instead of EGF country participants. Again, politics replaces playing skill.

EDIT:

Participation in at least one tournament per year, uh, what does it mean? Is 1 played game enough...?

What I find a bit strange is the shift from double to single elimination halfway through the tournament. This setup seems inconsistent.

_________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.” ― Robert Quillen

Especially because the results of the preliminary rounds are thrown away.

This means that there are TWO tournaments.

Does the EGF not trust the quality of their initial settings for inviting EC-participants ?

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

I think the basic idea of switching to some kind of double KO is fine, but the implementation is terrible. Starting with 24 players and doing two phases is frankly retarded. It should 16 or 32 and then Swiss style double knock-out.

I am sure I have heard this before, but I cannot remember or find what it is. Could someone please explain or post a link.

_________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.” ― Robert Quillen

@tiger314:

Roughly:

With 16 players: Play 4 rounds Swiss, except any players with 2 losses drop out immediately. After 4 rounds there will be 1 undefeated player, and 4 with 1 loss. The 4 players with 1 loss play two more rounds, knocking out 3 of them, after which the remaining player plays the undefeated player for the title.

With 32 players: Play 5 rounds Swiss, except any players with 2 losses drop out immediately. After 5 rounds there will be 1 undefeated player, and 5 with 1 loss. These are paired again (repeat pairings allowed if unavoidable), after which there are two cases: 1. The undefeated player lost, so there are now 4 players with one loss, who play two more rounds KO for the title. 2. The undefeated player won, so beside him there are two players with 1 loss. Those players play each other, and the winner plays the undefeated player for the title.

There are some minor variations/decisions:
If the final is between an undefeated player and one with 1 loss, the undefeated player might be allowed 1 loss, so the final might take 2 games (this is called "pure" double knock-out, because it always takes two losses to be out of contention for the title), but sometimes it is considered a sufficient advantage to have receive one or more byes, and then it is only one game. If it is one game only, one might give the undefeated player the advantage of black with only 0.5 komi for white.

Herman you are on the EGF tournament & rules commission, what sort of comment is this?
Where did these rules come from though - are they a modified version of something else previously voted in?

_________________
North Lecale

This system was introduced by the 2013 AGM.

_________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.” ― Robert Quillen

Despite being on the tournament & rules commission, I did not have any significant influence on this. This was proposed at the AGM and voted in with pretty much all the significant details in place. When the EGF executive asked us to work out the details, I already told them this system is an abomination that should not be implemented, and that "working out the details" would amount to nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig. But the EGF executive cannot ignore the AGM, so they were powerless as well.

Some perfume and a skirt and the pig is ready for the party

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

Interesting comment. Who controls the agenda for the AGM? How was the proposal included? Was it approved by the rest of the tournament & rules commission over your objections or do such proposals not go through the t&r commission in advance?

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

The EGF member countries or members of the executive can make motions to the AGM and the members vote. In this case, it was a direct motion.

At that time, the tournament and rules commission was the "rules commission" consisting of Matti Siivola and me (until shortly before the AGM 2013). We had not been consulted.

Things had been different for the previous European Championship rules, when the rules commission had been consulted before.

During the recent years, there have been different factions in the EGF council and among the member countries, such as those wishing a 2 weeks versus 1 week European Championship. So in 2013, the latter faction prevailed.

Motions to an AGM can be unspecific or specific. In this case, it seems that the related motion was specific, i.e., that the proponents thought they would understand well the tournament system details they were proposing in the motion. IMO, this is political arrogance. At the AGM, the member countries can choose and accept a particular motion or reject all motions. Discussion tends to be by far too short and would hardly even consider tournament system details. So if a basic concept of a motion finds its majority, chances are great that over-regulated tournament system details are also accepted at an AGM while many delegates hardly understand the consequences of such details or can hardly judge on their (missing) quality.

Quite a few delegates would think that the EGF has the (tournament and) rules commission, which can work out the details properly, but if most details are already specified, the damage cannot be cured by a commission any longer.

Well, since we think that the Rules Commission was dysfunctional, trying to get them to consider anything in a reasonable time-scale was perhaps a step too far.

If they had accepted any responsibility they should have considered the proposal after it had been approved (perhaps even submitting comments to the 2013 AGM for consideration in relation to the proposals?) and definitely submitted reasoned comments to the EGF Executive and the 2014 AGM (perhaps to the EGF members directly before the meeting?) requesting the implementation be delayed until the problems had been ironed out.

I don't remember seeing any such response.

Jon

At the time of them AGM 2013 the rules commission wasn't dysfunctional. It didn't exist any more. The commission was functional as long as it existed.