The uncertainty principle

[gowan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/23685153

I think the above story is very relevant to go. I find the go scene rather boring at the moment, just waiting to see which new Chinese teenager emerges on top this week. Go was more fun when there was a bigger dollop of certainty: titles were fewer, they were anchored in a tradition, and specific rivalries were few but intense. I also feel that the Mickey Mouse time limits have put the balance between certainty and uncertainty out of kilter. It seems my feelings are close to the norm among sports fans.

I agree with these comments about the go scene. I think the international arena is chaotic because there are too many players, no focus, and little continuity. International titles have no tradition. Any sponsor who wants to put up the money can create one, and when the sponsor loses interest the title just disappears. And the practice of calling international tournaments world championships is ludicrous; there are just too many of them. I find the same thing happening in other sports.

[oren]

This is largely to do with seeding, so that titleholders or previous winners (or, until recently, higher dans) start much higher up the ladder.

Much higher in the case of NHK is just the second round (along with other major players since the field is 50). I think Yuki Satoshi's success in this tournament is pretty amazing.

[snorri]

International titles have no tradition. Any sponsor who wants to put up the money can create one, and when the sponsor loses interest the title just disappears.

Is there a solution to that which doesn't involve making it harder for the sponsors? Maybe you can have the same base name but have different sponsors as they cycle. Like the Fiesta Bowl (Sunkist, IBM, now Tostitos).

[ez4u]

http://www.chessvibes.com/luck-needed-i ... cup-part-i

On the assumption that having longer thinking times reduces the element of luck in the result, the above post seems to explain why Mickey Mouse time limits lead to (too) many different winners.

Part 2 http://www.chessvibes.com/luck-needed-i ... up-part-ii

But this analysis seems to only be based on short matches to knock out players. It makes no attempt to adjust for more random results from shorter games. That's if I understand what the author actually did (a big Hmmm... right there).