The purpose is to have reasonably educated TDs / referees at EGF tournaments. About once a year, mostly during the EGC, a whole day workshop is held. Active participation gives a participant the certificate. Contents: what / how to do as TD / referee, T systems, contents and application of tournament rules and rules of play.

I sent email to all the EGF-certified referees in Finland (10) and asked if I can give their e-mail addresses to the EGF. When they reply and give me the permission I will send the information forward. To which address?

--Suvi

To Matti and / or me. My address:

<jasiek@snafu.de>

It does make much sense. E.g., if there are 3 Asian 7d and many Asian 3d, then we will seed exactly 3 Asians into the supergroup. E.g., if there are 9 Asian 7d and then some unrated Japanese 6d, we will seed exactly 9 Asians. E.g., if there are 16 rated Asian 7d, then we will seed only 8 of them.



As explained before, ca. 24 neither includes 16 nor 32.

***

Since some of you can't imagine the purpose of the ca. 24 and ca. 32 rules parameters, let me recall for you the cause of motivation for this rule: The presence of 9 (sufficiently) strong Asians in 2005 when the rule allowed us to seed only up to 8.

It is a minor seeding rule correction and is not a major system change rule!

Anyone wanting a major system change should make / let his delegate make a(nother) proposal to the AGM. Anyone wishing his proposal to succeed should support it by careful reasoning or studies.

Instead questioning obvious an rules interpretation (which is even supported by the persons in charge) is a ridiculous path. Politicians want to be convinced - not to be entertained by jokes.

You have missed the point. In English, "up to" means "not more than". Therefore ca (literally circa, loosely translated as "around", "roughly", or "approximately") makes no sense in a sentence with "up to". 9 is more than 8, and would be fine for "ca. 8", but not fine for "up to 8". All you achieve with both is an ambiguous near-oxymoron. "ca. 8" would serve a precise definition much better.



Nor does it exclude them, as there are no bounds specified for the "ca." I think the ambiguity, whilst allowing for flexibility, increases the chance of resentment and unhappiness through misinterpretation. There may be no better alternatives, but it is important to recognise the vagueness of the terms and the extent to which people may interpret them differently.



Some politicians believe strongly enough in their own righteousness that they cannot be convinced, regardless of the evidence put in front of them, unless it already agrees with their own beliefs.

Just to introduce some honesty or clarity

At Leksand the AGM voted to allow the Rules Commission a degree of latitude in their execution of the rules. Thus the rules, such as they are written, can be changed in small ways. For instance, a smaller population of the supergroup would be allowed. Robert asked for this flexibility. He was wearing a grey t-shirt, grey shorts, and (I think) white socks at the time. I'm sure Breakfast remembers Robert asking for this and the AGM accepting it. Therefore I see no problem with lowering the supergroup from 32 to 24 members in the right circumstances.

topazg, the intention is neither "at most 8" nor "ca. 8" but is "at most ca. 8". See the examples I have given. Maybe it is not perfect English but the alternative would be to use three sentences to describe the same intention.

There are bounds for "ca. 24", as explained before. They are not exact but tight. In particular, as a member of the rules commission, I declare that tight interpretation. In particular during the AGM I asked for allowance of SMALL changes. This has been confirmed. I have NOT asked for big changes because then very probably the AGM would have recognized what it would then have been - a major system change -, the AGM would not have let pass any change at all and we would still be at "exactly 24".

It is possible for "ca." being interpreted differently. Such interpretation has to be within the bounds allowed by the official rules commission's interpretation though: 22 to 26 is ok, 20 to 28 should be an exception. A yet wider range is hardly within the allowed bounds, except for ultimately exceptional player fields. E.g., with 18 Europeans 6d+, no present 5d (and a related rating gap), some present 4d, such a rare exception would be given.

Javaness, during the AGM I specfically asked for small variety of the numbers of supergroup members and the 4d criterion. A more general "degree of latitude in their execution of the rules" was not asked for. E.g., I did not ask for changing thinking times.

BTW, currently the EGC Committee is pretty conservative WRT to ad hoc rules changes. E.g., this winter I suggested to apply the tiebreaker change also the Closed EC and not only to the Open EC, to have a consistent setting. I also suggested to fill the last gap of tiebreaker ambiguity in case of inconclusive MutualGameScore (12th criterion) in the Open EC by stating explicitly that then the title is shared. Both were rejected; the EGF Committee wants neither. (For 2010. In later years, a new system is expected though.)

For the theoreticians: How likely is it that also the 12th criterion does not split places?:)

Could someone explain to me any interpretation of "ca."? The only interpretation I have ever seen is "circa". In that context it means `approximately', but it is properly used only in citing a date which is not known exactly.

I think at most ca. is worse than either of the alternatives.



Now this is more useful. Actual numbers with subjective levels of acceptability provide a guideline that offers considerably more information. The same on the 8 figure would be equally useful.

"Up to ca. 8" means to me: "0 to 8, but may occasionally be a bit more".

_________________
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.

That is exactly my interpretation too. However, it seems to be an opinion only and not a rule, and as an EGC team member, I have to take what's given by the superior power.

Vesa

Harleqin, yes, thanks, good and short rewording!

pwaldron, "circa" is clearly less scope for variety in both directions than "roughly" but optionally more scope for variety than "exactly".

A "circa" applied to a precise figure like 24 suggests a tighter scope of variety than a figure with a zero as its last digit would suggest.

Additionally, functionally severe side effects indicate a scope outside a "circa" range. E.g., a significantly smaller supergroup size like 11 to 16 would have the side effect of not allowing pairing without thinking. Instead very much organizational (and / or theoretical) preparation effort would be required for still creating fair pairings, if they exist.

Have we had enough elementary school now?:)

Sorry, but I cannot agree. Up to ca 8 (circa 8) would be written as 'Up to around 8'. One can go above and below 8. The AGM did not suggest to the Rules Commission that they could only increase the size of the supergroup.

In a more normal usage of the word circa, if we say that the Beatles became popular circa February 1965, that can be taken to include January just as much as it might include March. So I don't understand where this 8 or more comes from, it is certainly not from linguistics