EGC 2010 Top Players Results

[RobertJasiek]

These are the preliminary results (the final results can have slightly different SOS but not a different order) of the top players with 7+ wins. They were all in the supergroup.


Unedited:

Code: Select all

  1 Shikshin, Ilya        7d ru  32   12+   4+  10+   6+   5+  11+ 2-
8+   3-   9+  8   309  
  2 Kachanovskyy, Artem   6d ua  32   16+  27+   3+   5-  13+   7+ 1+
11+  10+   4-  8   307  
  3 Kim, Chaelim          7d kr  32   31+  13+   2-  25+   9-  23+ 6+
7+   1+   5+  8   304  
  4 Kim, JungHyeop        7d kr  32   70+   1-  43+  41+   6+  10+ 5-
9+  21+   2+  8   299  
  5 Kang, Kyoungnang      7d kr  31   41+   7+  11+   2+   1-   9+ 4+
10-  18+   3-  7   307  
  6 Taranu, Catalin       7d ro  31   22+  18+  14+   1-   4-  57+ 3-
19+  25+  12+  7   302  
  7 Burzo, Cornel         6d ro  31    9+   5-  28+  53+  24+   2- 12+
3-  50+  11+  7   299  
  8 Pop, Cristian         7d ro  31   15- 100+  26+  12-  29+  22+ 14+
1-  23+  10+  7   295  
 

Edited:

Code: Select all

# Name     d  co MM Opponents                               W SOS

1 Shikshin 7d ru 32 12+  4+ 10+  6+  5+ 11+  2-  8+  3-  9+ 8 309  
2 Kachano. 6d ua 32 16+ 27+  3+  5- 13+  7+  1+ 11+ 10+  4- 8 307  
3 Kim Cha. 7d kr 32 31+ 13+  2- 25+  9- 23+  6+  7+  1+  5+ 8 304  
4 Kim Jun. 7d kr 32 70+  1- 43+ 41+  6+ 10+  5-  9+ 21+  2+ 8 299  

5 Kang     7d kr 31 41+  7+ 11+  2+  1-  9+  4+ 10- 18+  3- 7 307  
6 Taranu   7d ro 31 22+ 18+ 14+  1-  4- 57+  3- 19+ 25+ 12+ 7 302  
7 Burzo    6d ro 31  9+  5- 28+ 53+ 24+  2- 12+  3- 50+ 11+ 7 299  
8 Pop      7d ro 31 15-100+ 26+ 12- 29+ 22+ 14+  1- 23+ 10+ 7 295  

SOS analysis:

SOS minus 30 (per round)
SOL (Sum of lost games round numbers)
SR1 (SOS minus 30 in round 1)
SR2 (SOS minus 30 in rounds 1 and 2)
DCEU Direct Comparison among only Europeans

Code: Select all

# Name     MM Opponents' MM minus 30        W SOS-30 SOL SR1 SR2 DCEU

1 Shikshin 32  0 +2  0 +1 +1  0 +2 +1 +2  0 8 +9     16   0  +2  0
2 Kachano. 32  0 -1 +2 +1  0 +1 +2  0  0 +2 8 +7     14   0  -1  1
3 Kim Cha. 32 -1  0 +2 -1  0 -1 +1 +1 +2 +1 8 +4      8  -1  -1  NA
4 Kim Jun. 32 -3 +2 -2 -2 +1  0 +1  0  0 +2 8 -1      9  -3  -1  NA

5 Kang     31 -2 +1  0 +2 +2  0 +2  0  0 +2 7 +7     23  -2  -1  NA
6 Taranu   31 -1  0  0 +2 +2 -2 +2  0 -1  0 7 +2     16  -1  -1  NA
7 Burzo    31  0 -1 -1 -2 -1 +2  0 +2 -2  0 7 -1     16   0  -1  NA
8 Pop      31  0 -3 -1  0 -1 -1  0 +2 -1  0 7 -5     13   0  -3  NA

SOL almost explains the player order according to SOS! As usual, losing in later rounds is better. DCEU would have reversed the order of the first two Europeans. SR1 (first round pairing luck) explains the order of the top two non-Europeans.

Unfortunately, winners were decided by tiebreaker choice and pairing luck.


**************************************************************************


Surprising 7d losses:


Main tournament:

Kim, Chaelim 7d - Kachanovskyy, Artem 6d
Van Zeijst, Rob 7d - Corlan, Lucian 5d

Weekend tournament:

Dinershteyn, Alexand 7d - Debarre, Thomas 5d

Rapid tournament:

Kang, Kyoungnang 7d - Törmänen, Antti 6d


**************************************************************************


Underranked Finnish below supergroup players playing most rounds:

fi = Finland
xx = other countries
XX = other players

Code: Select all

MMS 30

5d xx  2
XX    13

MMS 29

4d fi  4
3d fi  1
4d xx  5
XX    10

MMS 28

3d fi  3
3d xx  7
2d fi  1
2d xx  2
1d fi  1
XX    15

Conclusion: Finnish 1d to 4d is almost one rank stronger than most other EGF countries.

[topazg]

SOL almost explains the player order according to SOS! As usual, losing in later rounds is better. DCEU would have reversed the order of the first two Europeans. SR1 (first round pairing luck) explains the order of the top two non-Europeans.

Unfortunately, winners were decided by tiebreaker choice and pairing luck.

Ilya lost to someone with 8 wins and someone with 7. Artem lost to two players with 7. I'm not saying this is the right reason to award the tournament victory to Ilya, but it is the justification that SOS often awards, and it is a valid one if someone feels this is appropriate. Saying that losing in later rounds is better is indeed true - if you win your early rounds, your mid to late round matchups will be harder because the drawing system puts high performing players against each other. Therefore, your total number of wins required a higher level of performance because your draw was harder - this isn't pairing luck, it is adjusted pairing based on previous round performance.

Saying that the winner was decided by anything to do with luck is unjustified; it was based on performance, with a specific set of criteria. DCEU is also based on performance, on a difference set of criteria. There's nothing wrong with either beyond subjective preference.

[RobertJasiek]

Saying that losing in later rounds is better is indeed true

Better for one's SOS on average over arbitrarily many tournaments.

if you win your early rounds, your mid to late round matchups will be harder because the drawing system puts high performing players against each other.

For a player's final SOS, "harder" means "higher current SOS in a round". The current SOS does not know what the final SOS will be.

Therefore, your total number of wins required a higher level of performance because your draw was harder

No. This might or might not be so. Whether the draw WAS harder is known after the tournament. DURING it, the system makes only predictions on how hard opposition will have been.

this isn't pairing luck, it is adjusted pairing based on previous round performance.

Since the system does not know in advance final SOS, the basis on only previous rounds performance amounts to also quite some pairing luck: the luck of how well opponents perform in later rounds.

Saying that the winner was decided by anything to do with luck is unjustified; it was based on performance, with a specific set of criteria.

To repeat: It is justified, see above. The performance known after the tournament by far does not give complete information for the making of pairings at the moments when they were being made round by round. The opponents' performance in later rounds is not known at the time of creating a round's pairing. This missing information's impact is the luck.

(In the first two rounds, there is an additional type of luck: The missing information from earlier performance because there was none in that tournament. For other aspects of SOS, see elsewhere.)

There's nothing wrong with either beyond subjective preference.

To start with, what is wrong with SOS is especially its part of performance in the opponents' later rounds.