That is exactly the thing that I find OK in most tournaments, but unacceptable in a championship. I would expect objectivity to come first, especially when there is global participation. If a participant's rank isn't good enough to use for drawing, then no ranks should be used at all.

If MacMahon is to be used (and OK, I can now see the motivation behind it), it shouldn't be set according to referee's feeling at the beginning of the tournament (which is the impression I got from the results and reports), but should have rigid and in advance published parameters (size of top group, bars...) preferably avoiding the use of self-declared rank. Otherwise, the impression is that some East European national championships are better prepared in terms of the tournament system than the WAGC.

Especially with Ranka website stating "Players from six continents and assorted islands will gather at the Montien Riverside Hotel in Bangkok for eight rounds of Swiss system competition at this year’s World Amateur Go Championship June 7-10." and a brochure stating that Swiss system is used: http://rankauploads.intergofed.org/36WA ... C_Book.pdf, the system looks quite weird to say the least.

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

The ranking is based on EGF ratings, not the feelings of the referee. If a participant does not have an EGF rating (note that most participants from outside Europe do have one, because international events like KPMC, WAGC, WMSG and SAWMG are also input for the EGF rating system), they get one assigned according to their declared rank, which puts any unknown Chinese/Korean/Japanese player (always at least 6d) into the supergroup.

Thanks for the info . Could you please point me to the source?

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

Source: Proposal by WAGC referee Martin Finke to the IGF board, which was accepted a few weeks ago. He asked my opinion on it beforehand (at the EYGC), so that's how I know. I'm not sure whether the IGF publish documents or minutes from their meetings anywhere.

The IGF of course has the right to change the draw system, although you might expect it to tell its members that it was going to do so in advance. Perhaps it did indeed tell its members in advance about the change, I have on idea. The programme explicitly states that Swiss draw will be used, but it was not used. If this was a deliberate error, and I have no idea if it was deliberate or not*, then I find it distasteful. Fair enough, you make the draw better quality, but why not be honest about what you are planning on doing? For a tournament of this standing, that kind of deception shows a certain lack of respect for normal process. Having said that, I expect very few people particularly cared very much, and some were probably quite pleased with it.


*Can well imagine it was a translation error

_________________
North Lecale

I don't think it is deliberate error, they probably just copy and pasted the text from last year.

While I respect that certain decisions can be kept secret, like referee nomination procedures, venue selection process... I think that a tournament system should be published in advance. Especially since this is one of the few things many spectators are interested in and that might effect certain players willingness to come.

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

IGF and KBA were fine with that proposal, so what else do you want ?

After round 8, there will be a survey amoung the participants ...

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

Is this: https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/regs ... es2016.pdf or this: http://www.iihfworlds2015.com/en/inform ... ent-format or this: too much to ask for?

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

Apparently, it takes a lot of time to transfer Western standards on an East Asian Game.

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

Yes, this is quite likely

_________________
North Lecale

I think that it is fair to say that since it's inception the WAGC has been as much about popularization of Go as it has been about crowning a champion. The decision to include representatives from around the world is great for Go and we should be very grateful to the various sponsors that have allowed it to continue so long. At the same time we should be under no illusion about the overall level of competition that results. It would be a better 'championship' if they required participants to demonstrate, say, EGF-6D performance in at least two events to qualify. However, it would not be nearly so good for world Go.* Given the situation, we should relax and enjoy the show. Although they could certainly do a better result of describing what is going on!

*Sad to say (for me anyway), this strikes me as much the same as the continued seeding of Japanese pros into the finals of the LG Cup. These days they are just there to make sure that people recognize it as a 'world' title. Because of the knock-out format of pro events, they can be relied on to get out of the way of the 'real' competitors quickly.

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

This pairing system sucks... Costa Rica is +2-4 and is playing Slovakia +5-1

Well Costa Rica won, so I don't think you should complain so much. But this is an example of the the point I made:

Wouldn't surprise me if this Slovak 2k and the Costa Rican 2d are similar strength. Also our UK rep Des Cann's grade is listed as 5d but he is only European 3d strength as his GoR shows (and enters British tournaments as 3d or 4d now).

Finally I got the Mcmahon system they used:

Top 32 get +5
4 dan get +4
3 dan get +3
2 dan get +2
1 dan get +1
All kyu players get 0.

I only count about 23 for 5d+. How come 32 player got +5?

2 4 8 16 32 is the reason

_________________
North Lecale

I still think that with fewer than 64 entrants they could have had a first round with the top half in the seedings playing the bottom half. Then the next 5 rounds would have produced a single winner with the last round pitting two 5-0 players.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Now that the championship is over, I would like to do a bit of a review from my point of view (European kyu spectator).
Seven boards broadcasted, that feels epic compared to the European standards. That was defenetly a strong point. The letdown for me was the hushed up tournament system. I admit that most people watch the results and tables much less than I do, but I don't think that excuses the fact that the tournament system had to be reported by someone on a forum to become public. There was no way of knowing who still had the chance of finishing in the top 10/20... The Ranka reports were great, a very interesting read including those things one would have otherwise never found out (58 minute time penalty...).
So Thailand thank you, and IGF: please take inspiration from other sports bodies and start publishing rules before a tournament starts. Chess already has 2016 candidates tournament rules and regulations published.

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