New Super Meijin tournament

[John Fairbairn]

I see there is to be a new Super Meijin contest at the end of July 2010. It will bring together the Meijin, Myeongin and Mingren: Iyama Yuta, Yi Ch'ang-ho and Gu Li. Because of the different forms of the word for meijin in the three CJK countries, maybe we should politely call it the Super M.

It will be held in Changde in Hunan Province, which is close to Lake Dongting. Lovers of old go problems will fondly recall the famous (and very hard) problem where the white stones convincingly represent the moonlight flickering on the ripples of this dark, enormous lake formed by black stones. (The name Hunan means being south of this lake).

The format will what the Orientals call a reverse knockout. A draw is held. The two shortest straws play each other. The long straw then plays the loser of this first game. The winner of this second game then goes on to play the first winner in the final, so that the ultimate Super M is the only one to win two games. For this gargantuan effort, Super M will pick up 3 million yuan. Not bad for a bit of moonlighting!

[Violence]

EPIC.

[dfan]

Awesome.

The format is tough on the long-straw player; he is playing with single elimination while the short-straw players are playing with double elimination. By my calculations, if all players are equally matched, the short-straw players each have a 3/8 chance of winning the contest while the long-straw player has only a 2/8 chance.

I'd prefer to see some sort of series of round robins as necessary until ties are broken, but I guess the sponsorship is for a set number of games.

[Dusk Eagle]

So drawing a short straw means you can lose once and still be in it, but drawing the long straw means that losing once puts you out of the tournament? If we assume for a moment that each player has a 0.5 chance of winning each of their games, then both shorter-straw players have a 0.375 chance of winning the tournament, but the long-straw player has only a 0.25 chance of winning the tournament. I don't really like tournaments where luck (in this case, the drawing of straws) plays such a strong part in determining how likely it is for a contestant to win the tournament.

Oh well, at least we'll get to see some good games! I just hope that both shorter-straw people don't end up in the final. We'll get to see more variety in match-ups if they don't.

[tealeaf]

This looks very exciting. I'd be interested to know where you heard about this. Actually, I would be very interested in an overview of your regular, or at least favourite, sources if you were willing to write a few lines on the subject.

[trout]

To win title, player must win 2 times whether he/she draws short straw or long straw.

[Dusk Eagle]

trout: I know that, but that doesn't make it fair. Reread what I or dfan wrote. The short-straw contestants are allowed a loss, but the long-straw contestant isn't. That is what makes it unfair.

[Bill Spight]

How about using komi to adjust the odds?

The first game is with 6.5 or 7.5 komi, the other games are with 0.5 komi. The loser of the first game takes White vs. the player who sat out. Then the winner of the first game takes Black vs. the winner of the second game.

[zinger]

The short-straw contestants are allowed a loss, but the long-straw contestant isn't. That is what makes it unfair.

If this is accurate, it is a really really bad format.

[John Fairbairn]

Just as with rules, I see more evidence here of western mathematically minded people trying to impose rationality on the Oriental go scene. Tut-tut.

This format is actually built into the long-standing repechage events such as the Judan. The winner of the winners' section meets the winner of the losers' section to decide the overall challenger, and if he loses - his first loss - he gets no second bite at the cherry. Yet this format has been copied so many times, we have to assume the pros like it.

In the mini three-player version, the usual arrangement is to have a two-day event. Two games are played on the first day. The loser of the first game does get a second bite at the cherry, but he has just played an exhausting game and is now playing someone who is fresh. On the second day, both players have had the benefit of a night's sleep to recover.

Pro tournament formats are not designed to satisfy mathematical notions of elegance. They are designed primarily to give the sponsor what he wants and secondarily to give as many pros as possible a chance to play. In practice there are quite a few aspects that are not rigorously fair. The most egregious is seeding, then there is the common practice of some players having to play extra partial rounds before a knockout gets down to a factor of 2. On the other hand, the players who have to be more active get more game fees...

[Harleqin]

Just as with rules, I see more evidence here of western mathematically minded people trying to impose rationality on the Oriental go scene. Tut-tut.

I would not say that anyone "imposes" rationality. We just notice that the system is objectively not completely fair. Of course, they may decide that this degree of unfairness is acceptable. I find the condescending tone of these statements ("You with your western spoiled mind cannot understand the deep mystery of oriental thought") quite annoying. The rest of your post is informative and relevant. Thank you.

This format is actually built into the long-standing repechage events such as the Judan. The winner of the winners' section meets the winner of the losers' section to decide the overall challenger, and if he loses - his first loss - he gets no second bite at the cherry. Yet this format has been copied so many times, we have to assume the pros like it.

In the mini three-player version, the usual arrangement is to have a two-day event. Two games are played on the first day. The loser of the first game does get a second bite at the cherry, but he has just played an exhausting game and is now playing someone who is fresh. On the second day, both players have had the benefit of a night's sleep to recover.

Pro tournament formats are not designed to satisfy mathematical notions of elegance. They are designed primarily to give the sponsor what he wants and secondarily to give as many pros as possible a chance to play. In practice there are quite a few aspects that are not rigorously fair. The most egregious is seeding, then there is the common practice of some players having to play extra partial rounds before a knockout gets down to a factor of 2. On the other hand, the players who have to be more active get more game fees...

I think that the last paragraph is the decisive point. It works like this, there is a predefined number of games, and you do not need any kind of tiebreakers. That is all the reason behind it, no mystery.

[pwaldron]

This format is actually built into the long-standing repechage events such as the Judan. The winner of the winners' section meets the winner of the losers' section to decide the overall challenger, and if he loses - his first loss - he gets no second bite at the cherry. Yet this format has been copied so many times, we have to assume the pros like it.

Quite so, John. As a compensating factor for not getting a second change, the winner of the winner's section gets to the final having played one fewer game than the winner of the loser's section.

[ketchup]

Putting aside the whole debate of fair or not, the news itself is great. Having more international type tournaments such as these are a good sign for the future.

[quantumf]

This is a normal double elimination format, which is used in numerous sport and game tournaments around the world. There is always the slight unfairness that the winner of the winner's bracket may not lose once they get to the final, this particularly short format merely highlights this. The format remains very popular. It tends to ensure that the best players contend the final, as a shock upset for a top player doesn't eliminate them entirely.

[Will]

This is a normal double elimination format, which is used in numerous sport and game tournaments around the world. There is always the slight unfairness that the winner of the winner's bracket may not lose once they get to the final, this particularly short format merely highlights this. The format remains very popular. It tends to ensure that the best players contend the final, as a shock upset for a top player doesn't eliminate them entirely.

It seems to me that this is not a 'normal double elimination format' at all. In a normal double elimination everyone would have to lose twice to be eliminated. In this format the drawer of the long straw is eliminated if he loses once, as is the winner of the initial match between the short straws.

I look forward to following the tournament - please keep us updated.