Life In 19x19

Hey guys, I was just wondering something.

I saw on the AGA site that Eric Lui and Zhang Mengchen tied for first at the NJ Open.

But didn't they play in the tournament?

So even if they had even SOS and SODOS, wouldn't there still be a clear winner?

It would be unfair to declare a 3rd tiebreaker after the event.

Sorry, I don't quite follow.

So the event specified from the beginning that there would only be SOS and SODOS, and the two of them tied in both?

Oh, I thought you were saying they did tie on SOS and SODOS, but thought that as they played each other then head-to-head should be the 3rd tiebreaker, and I was saying that declaring a new tiebreaker after the event is unfair.

Violence? Did somebody hack your account? Or is that really you?

Uh, yeah, it's me.

http://www.accelrat.com/ratings/Tourney ... ourney=179

I was checking these standings, and it looks like Mr. Zhang should've won, no? Seems strange to keep track of tiebreakers and then not use them.

that's really a question for the TDs, no?

some people don't like tiebreak methods for prizes, but are ok using them for pairings.
and some would even argue that tiebreaks do not produce a "clear" winner. A "clear" winner would be one without tie breaks.

Did they use the website to run the tournament? The website uses it's own formula for 'tiebreaker' it seems. It may not be the same as the official result.

Is there not a NJ Open website that has the way they normally do the tournament explained?

As an experienced TD:

• I always use tie breakers for pairing
• I generally do not use tie breakers for prize-money
• I do use tie breakers for indivisible prizes (e.g. who gets to take home the cup)
• If there is a very valuable indivisible prize (e.g. a plane ticket to the WAGC), I use play-offs where possible
• In written reports, I will generally say something like "A and B tied for first, but A's better SOS meant he got to take home the cup"