Women's World Freestyle Championship

[Alex_Moiseyev]

John, but common sense ??? Anyway, thanks for information, I just learned something

I spoke with Richard about QT and he aslo mentioned that he didn't understand very well pairing in the 5th and 8th rounds. In addition: this is not a standard tournament, this is - Qualify Tournament, and it's goal is not a proper ranking of all players, but find a best player.

So - solid compress pairing from top to bottom shall be apply. What is unclear with word "compress" ? It's based on common sense.If you fail with unqique pairing at the bottom in last round - so be it.

Alex

[MostFamousDane]

Dear friends,

in a tournament as close as this with the top players as close in strenghts as that, it is useless to point out that the swiss system is to blame.

Not really - what is useless is to defend the swiss system with no arguments when in practice tournament after tournament it produces "incorrect" results.

Alex says (now in an earlier debate with me he said the opposite ) that only thing important is that the best player finishes on top. I disagree I think it would be better to have all the players distributed fairly based on their performance at the specific tournament. The worst leapfrogging in this tournament didn't happen for the top spot - even if that is of course most critical - and the leapfrogging was alot worse in Bejing. As I've mentioned time and time again - in most other sports they use different systems that easily distribute players fairly and there is therefore little debat over the system used.

The swiss system is an abomination and needs to DIE DIE DIE

[Ingo_Zachos]

Not really - what is useless is to defend the swiss system with no arguments when in practice tournament after tournament it produces "incorrect" results.

What is an "incorrect" result if I may ask?
And how would a "correct" result look like in your opinon, as that is the point.

Igor Martynov made a very good prososal to me last week:
He said with 20 or less players in a GAYP QT, why not play a single round robin with one game per round?
With 10 or less players a double round robin would be possible and with 5 or less players (women, youth) four rounds round robin.

To me that looks like the best solution.
With more then 20 players I am afraid we can't avoid swiss system.

In 3-move it is much harder as then the drawing of the opening adds another problem.
In Italian draughts they play round robin with one ballot drawn each ROUND for all pairings, so all get the same openings.
Of course they use a reduced deck without the most critical openings for such events.
They define different decks.
One has all 174 ballots, another one those openings regarded as playable, but that have to be played with both sides or in team events to avoid the luck factor and another deck which includes only openings that are not critical to one side, which can be used if only one game per round against the same opponent is played.

Could be a solution for future 3-move QT's.

Greetinx from sunny Dortmund, Germaany

Ingo Zachos

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Of course they use a reduced deck without the most citical openings for such events.
Could be a solution for future 3-move QT's.

Yeaaa ... with one imporvement - play critical openings only

What is an "incorrect" result if I may ask?
And how would a "correct" result look like in your opinon, as that is the point.

Thats a good question. It's also remind me a Russian humoristic quote:

Egoist is someone who thinks about himself and don't think about myself

[MostFamousDane]

What is an "incorrect" result if I may ask?
And how would a "correct" result look like in your opinon, as that is the point.

Ingo Zachos

Hi Ingo

I have purposedly tried to be vague because I don't think it is fair to the leapfrogging players to have their performance secondguessed afterwards - but here is a couple of examples:

Example 1:
A number of years ago I played the German Open and lost to one opponent and I finished number 8 out of 12 players - the 3 players that I had beaten finished above me. Had I draw the round against the player who beat me I would've finished number 7 out of 12 players being undefeated - and having beaten many of the players above me. Since that tournament I haven't studied checkers seriously - what is the point ?

Example 2:
In Beijing a player who had lost many games (8 ?) leapfrogged William who was undefeated.

Example 3:
A player who lost two games against Frank Moran plus a lot of other games leapfrogged Frank Moran.

A system that allows players who have been beaten to leapfrog undefeated players is incorrect - case closed

[MostFamousDane]

Igor Martynov made a very good prososal to me last week:
He said with 20 or less players in a GAYP QT, why not play a single round robin with one game per round?
With 10 or less players a double round robin would be possible and with 5 or less players (women, youth) four rounds round robin.

To me that looks like the best solution.
With more then 20 players I am afraid we can't avoid swiss system.

Ingo Zachos

Yes we can and should always avoid swiss system - just pick another system that is fair - like double knockout.

[john reade]

Alex,

The question is how do you translate 'compress' into a procedure for choosing the pairings for the following round?

Sune,

I agree round robin is the fairest, but what can you do when you have too many players for a round robin?

I like Igor Martynov's answer that you play one game per round at GAYP.

A more controversial solution might be to have a ratings cutoff. For example, restrict nominations for QT's to players in the top 100 in the ratings.

John.

[MostFamousDane]

Sune,

I agree round robin is the fairest, but what can you do when you have too many players for a round robin?

Hi John

I didn't argue for round robin but for double elimination - which works quite well with many players - 64 players can still play in 8 rounds - with 9 rounds you can have more players than currently play tournament checkers .

I like Igor Martynov's answer that you play one game per round at GAYP.

I don't like this suggestion much since there is a big difference between playing with black and playing with white - and obviosly it doesn't work for 3-move.

A more controversial solution might be to have a ratings cutoff. For example, restrict nominations for QT's to players in the top 100 in the ratings.

John.

I dislike that that - the point of the qualifying tournament shouldn't be exclusivly to find a opponent for the world champion but also a chance for the best players for other parts of the world. This is how it is done in all other sports, football, olympics etc. Also this would exclude a lot of players who have turned out to be in the world elite like Kondlo. Lastly someone with a high rating might be sick, have jetlag etc. and perform badly - the tournament system should be able to survive this.

[Ingo_Zachos]

Hi Sune,

I know about your concerns.
And to a part I share them.
That is why I made a proposal to change things.

As I said with less then five players a four rounds round robin could be played.

That would probabaly apply to the Women and Youth section.

With 5-10 players a double round robin should be played.
With 10-20 players a single round robin should be played.
With more then 20 players I am afrain we still would have to use swiss system.
One of the main problems of CH-system is the problem of pairing if all top-players have already played each other, and one can get "paired down".
This problem is less apparent with a larger number of players.

This is a GAYP solution.
In 3 move something similar could be made, but we would have to use a reduced set of openings for a single round robin event.
I think a set without the most critical openings would do, but Alex argues that he would like to see a set with only the most critical openings played.
I think he forgot that I proposed to play only one game per round )

With that system a maximum muber of 19 games in 5 days would have to be played, which is hard, but possible, though I would suggest to reduce the time for each game to 3 hours Maximum, by playing 30 moves in one hour and 30 moves for the rest with quick play finish.


Your examples are not quite correct:

number 1:
I agree that the GO 2005 were a mess. The problem was that with 11 players you should not play swiss sytem, but rather round robin.
In 2008 we made the same mistake again, but I promise with less then 12 players I will never play swiss system again!
Especially not in GAYP.
I know that one of the joint winners in 2005 even recieved a bye in the last round, which turned his HP's down and punished him!
I agree that this shows the deficits of swiss system.

number2:
Wrong.
William lost a game to Mustafa Durdyev in round two, though he did not lose a round (both won a game each). The WMSG page could not provide a solution to give the result of each game and so misleads in saying William did not lose a game.
Only Alex Did not lose a game in Beijing.

But most of all you forgot that William did not win that much games.
Blame it to the swiss system, but as Oldbury put it "I do not play to draw. I play to win. Maybe that is why I am a master".
Why do you think that producing dull draws and remaining undefeated is better then winning many exciting game, and losing one or two?
Is this a competitive sport or Tic Tac Toe?
Maybe we should play worldwide thermonuclear war, Joshua,ehm, sorry Sune?

So this example is not as telling.
Though I agree that William had a harder tournament in Beijing then Paegle, Raivis also gave a stunning performance and beat Baghtiyar Durdyev and Mustafa Durdyev, which even Alex could not match. Also Raivis blew many games in time trouble in the first rounds, which I think he could have drawn easily if he only had more experience. He is a very strong player.

number 3:
Let's name the player Frank Moran beat twice.
It is Anthony Bishop. He "leapfrogged" Moran. But it seems he also won more games then Frank Moran, despite his loss to Frank.
How much better must he have performed in the remaining rounds to leapfrogg Frank! Think about that.
In fact, he outperformed him by 5 points if you don't consider the round they played aginst each other.
Should he be punished for one bad day?
I don't think that is correct.
So this example is also not as telling as you think it is.

To conclude:
Example 1 is an example of a failed swiss system, but the other two are not as telling, as the players that you claim to have performed bad in contrast performed very well.


Which system would you prefer, Sune, and keep in mind that the time (5 days) is limited.

Greetinx from Dortmund,

Ingo Zachos

[Alex_Moiseyev]

stunning performance and beat Baghtiyar Durdyev and Mustafa Durdyev, which even Alex could not match.

Thats quite interesting ... and sounds fresh I beat in Beijing Mustafa Durdyev, Ron King (twice), Jim Morrison (twice), Amangul Durdyeva, Shane McCoskey and couple more. Do you think it is not enough or someone had tougher collection of opponents ?

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Alex,

The question is how do you translate 'compress' into a procedure for choosing the pairings for the following round?

John.

"Compress" means create as much as possible pairs for players with close points starting from top. This is criteria #1. And only if there is a choice after meeting this criteria - use second criteria: Berger

[MostFamousDane]

Hi Sune,

Your examples are not quite correct:

number 1:
I agree that the GO 2005 were a mess. The problem was that with 11 players you should not play swiss sytem, but rather round robin.
In 2008 we made the same mistake again, but I promise with less then 12 players I will never play swiss system again!
Especially not in GAYP.
I know that one of the joint winners in 2005 even recieved a bye in the last round, which turned his HP's down and punished him!
I agree that this shows the deficits of swiss system.

number2:
Wrong.
William lost a game to Mustafa Durdyev in round two, though he did not lose a round (both won a game each). The WMSG page could not provide a solution to give the result of each game and so misleads in saying William did not lose a game.
Only Alex Did not lose a game in Beijing.

But most of all you forgot that William did not win that much games.
Blame it to the swiss system, but as Oldbury put it "I do not play to draw. I play to win. Maybe that is why I am a master".
Why do you think that producing dull draws and remaining undefeated is better then winning many exciting game, and losing one or two?
Is this a competitive sport or Tic Tac Toe?
Maybe we should play worldwide thermonuclear war, Joshua,ehm, sorry Sune?

So this example is not as telling.
Though I agree that William had a harder tournament in Beijing then Paegle, Raivis also gave a stunning performance and beat Baghtiyar Durdyev and Mustafa Durdyev, which even Alex could not match. Also Raivis blew many games in time trouble in the first rounds, which I think he could have drawn easily if he only had more experience. He is a very strong player.

Ingo Zachos

You are completely forgetting the whole point - firstly players are not getting the same opponents and secondly you can conclude absolutely nothing about a drawn game. The game could be one of the hardest fought exciting games where the strong player played the best checkers in the history of the world and still his opponent managed to scrape by and get a draw in this particular game. There is no reliable information to extract from a drawn game - period.

number 3:
Let's name the player Frank Moran beat twice.
It is Anthony Bishop. He "leapfrogged" Moran. But it seems he also won more games then Frank Moran, despite his loss to Frank.
How much better must he have performed in the remaining rounds to leapfrogg Frank! Think about that.

In fact, he outperformed him by 5 points if you don't consider the round they played aginst each other.
Should he be punished for one bad day?
I don't think that is correct.
So this example is also not as telling as you think it is.

Ingo Zachos

Did they play the same opponents ? Nope in fact Moran had much much harder opponents. You effectivly conlude that since Bishop got 4 points from Bednall and Moran only got 2 that Bishop played better - this is a logical fallacy called abduction. It is just as likely that Bednall just played better against Moran.

To conclude:
Example 1 is an example of a failed swiss system, but the other two are not as telling, as the players that you claim to have performed bad in contrast performed very well.

Which system would you prefer, Sune, and keep in mind that the time (5 days) is limited.

Greetinx from Dortmund,

Ingo Zachos

As I have mentioned many times I prefer a double knockout system because:

1. It guarantees perfect ordering of the top 2 players and close to perfect ordering of the rest.
2. The results are undebatable after the tournament.
3. It is practical to use even with many players.

[Ingo_Zachos]

Thats quite interesting ... and sounds fresh I beat in Beijing Mustafa Durdyev, Ron King (twice), Jim Morrison (twice), Amangul Durdyeva, Shane McCoskey and couple more. Do you think it is not enough or someone had tougher collection of opponents ?

No, Alex.
Your performance was undoubtedly the best in Beijing.
But that was not Sune's point if I got it right.
He thinks it is "incorrect" that Raivis Paegle placed higher then William Docherty.
I agree that William had harder opponents and lost less games then Raivis. Raivis did not play Alex or Ron, in contrast to William.
But the point is that Raivis medal was not undeserved and yes, he, like Richard Beckwith at the IOW, were lucky, but they deserved their places and it took a lot more then luck to score these results. It took a world-class player.

That was all I wanted to point out.

Greetinx,

Ingo

[MostFamousDane]

No offense Ingo, but you seem pretty gay for the Italian players. According to you, the Italians are the best thing to come to Checkers since the invention of the square.

Yes they did quite well especially Roberto - who had very hard opponents (only 1 out of top 10) only Jim had worse opponents. Do you disagree ?

Also Roberto is quite handsome with big curly black hair .

My favorite moment of the tournament:

A couple of masters were debating a position where my opponent had gone out of published play and we couldn't figure out how to handle the position which looked quite weak for white. We looked at board for minutes discussing it when Roberto came by looked at the board for 1 second and said (while performing the moves) - "thats easy - pitch, pitch, squeeze, white win" and then left the room. +1 Checkers Jedi points from me

[Ingo_Zachos]

Dear Sune,

a knock-out or a double knock out is quite hard to handle.
In the days when the ACF and their predecessors ACA and NCA played this, they always had the problem that they took longer then scheduled and some events were decided as one player had to leave in the final or semi-final, and some just resigned because they were tired of playing the same opponent 24 times or so.
It is simply a mess and there is a reason why it was replaced by swiss system.

Also, in a knock-out or double knock-out you also don't get the same opponents. and the luck of the draw is even more telling.
That flaw is even bigger in that system then in swiss system.
So where is the point?

Abduction?
For instance if one concludes that a player won both games against another played is better.
That's abduction as well.
That is my point.

In round robin you get the same opponents (not quite, as you don't play against yourself) and the schedule is clear.

To Alex:
Yes. It was only a proposal for GAYP.
For 3-move it would not work.

To Josh:
I am quite "gay" about checker players. I think I am quite a freak.
BTW: I am married to the most beautiful woman. You've got no chance.


Greetinx,

Ingo