From: Larry Kaufman WIZARD NET> Date: 20 may 1999 Subject: Re: Still Problems with the US Shogi Championship -----Original Message----- From: tiger22 IX NETCOM COM IX NETCOM COM> To: SHOGI-L techunix technion ac il techunix technion ac il> Date: Thursday, May 20, 1999 4:20 PM Subject: Re: Still Problems with the US Shogi Championship >I think Sam raises a number of valid points that should not be so cavalierly dismissed. >A tournament advertised everywhere as being held in Chicago ought to be held in Chicago not 35 miles NW. >Much more importantly is the dubious way the winner was selected. I always thought that the best score among the eligible participants would >win the prize, but so far that name has never been mentioned. (Maybe I missed it in the long, LONG posts). So who had the best score? >As far as I know, the final results table has never been posted to Shogi-L. The Europeans always post the results of their tournaments. >Also, I think the notion of handicap games being played in a serious tournament is ridiculous. I can't imagine going to the US Open (chess) >and expecting knight odds after losing 2 games. I always thought handicap games was a way to insure an interesting FRIENDLY game between 2 >players who were not evenly matched. It is even more ridiculous when there was no certain way to tell who was the stronger player. (Was it >mentioned in the advertising that the consolation section would be handicap games??) Finally, Why wasn't this very serious tournament >organized as a 7 round Swiss system with even games? Just because they don't do it that way in Japan, doesn't mean we can't do it in the USA. >Save elimination after 2 losses for backgammon tournaments! I find myself in partial agreement here. Elimination tournaments work okay to determine a winner, but are very poor at deciding who is second, third, and fourth best etc., and are totally unsuited to picking class winners, in this case the class being those players with five year residency and who have never played in the Ryo-o before. This last rule was decided by the sponsors, as is their right, but if you think about it it's almost like saying that the titleholder is ineligible to play the next year! Anyway, as long as a tournament needs to pick a winner from some subset, elimination simply won't do, I agree that an even game Swiss system is the most appropriate for such an event, and I "vote" for such an arrangement next year. I disagree that handicap games don't belong in a serious event. They don't belong in an event in which a substantial prize such as a trip to Japan is being awarded, but they certainly do belong in events with nominal prizes (say up to $100 or so in value). The point is that in tourneys with modest prizes, the important thing is that everyone has many enjoyable, close games, and it's not so big a deal who wins the prize. I had to laugh when I saw that the latest tourney in Europe had one five dan and everyone else in the 5-15 kyu range, and yet was apparently conducted without handicaps! It would have presumably been much more interesting for all concerned if the five dan had given everyone at least a two piece handicap. He would probably still have won, but unless there was a big prize at stake, I'm sure he would not have complained if he failed to win. It is simply not true that handicap games are only for "friendly" games. Unless things have changed, the world's largest shogi club (Shinjuku) runs a daily handicap tournament, the Shoreikai (Pro training school) has about one-third of its official games (which decide promotion and whether or not the players will become pros) played with handicaps, and nearly every club in Japan calls for games to be handicapped when the players are more than a rank apart. I do agree that in this particular event, handicaps were not appropriate for the consolation section, because a large prize was being awarded. As for the awarding of the Ryu-O spot to Mr. Bekele, I can only say that no eligible player really earned the spot, and Mr. Ishikawa's choice was not easy. As already noted, an elimination tourney does not settle the question of who did better among the non-winners. Among the U.S. citizens who had not played in Ryu-O before, Rob Uechi was by far the strongest player, with Bekele being rated a distant second but far above any others (including Sam Sloan). Since Bekele won his game with Uechi, the choice of Bekele was not unreasonable. My son Raymond made a much better overall score than the others and defeated Mr. Ishikawa at a smaller handicap (Rook and Lance) than the other eligible players except for Uechi, but perhaps by playing in the consolation event he took himself out of running for the Ryu-O prize. Sam Sloan has no claim to the Ryu-O spot, but if his protests are heeded it is possible that one of the Japanese players with five year residence might be considered to have a more legitimate claim to the slot than Bekele, though I can't imagine that anyone would take away Mr. Bekele's spot, especially since the injured party (whomever he might be) hasn't complained. As for Sam's complaints about the location being outside the Chicago city limits, I feel that that is really nitpicking and irrelevant. "Chicago" can mean greater Chicago. In my opinion it is the awarding of the other trip to Japan which should be questioned, as the winner apparently entered under a false rank (even if it might be technically correct in terms of diplomas paid for). In a chess event, a player who won a section to which he was not eligible would have his prize revoked, and I believe this might be appropriate in this case, although perhaps part of the blame must rest with the organizers for not asking enough questions. The USSF will not let problems of this nature occur in the future in events over which we have sole control, I am confident. Sincerely, Larry Kaufman, USSF Chairman