From: Pieter Stouten EU PNU COM> Date: 5 sep 2000 Subject: MSO 2000 format: time limits, number of rounds, format Hello Shogi fans, Marc Theeuwen wrote: >As for more than 30s byoyomi, I would like to express my fatigue >after 5 days of shogi at the MSO (even though I did not play myself >the first day as tournament leader of the team match) and therefore >would welcome a 'lighter' programme where more time off is available. >With 60s of byoyomi that is not possible with the current number of >rounds. Larry Kaufman wrote: >A time limit of 45' + 50" (which would roughly equal 1 hour + 30" >in average length) would give more time off for those players who >avoid byoyomi; at least the player would have some control over >whether he would get more time between rounds. This a multivariate optimization problem. Although, I have not yet fully processed the MSO 2000 Festival questionniare, a large majority favour 9 rounds, while most people do not want to increase the duration of the ESC/MSOWSC from 3 to 4 days. To provide for more time off (I assume Marc refers to a significant block of time, say, at the end of the day rather than smaller amounts in between rounds), one would have to reduce the total time per round. The organizational rule of thumb is that a round takes 2 * time allotment per person + byoyomi * 60. Therefore, games of 45' + 50" require 140 minutes per round (2*45+50), while the currently used 1 hr + 30" requires 150 minutes per round (2*60+30). Either option leads to approximately equally busy schedules with a serious time problem the final day when people need to catch trains and planes home. The notion that 30 second byoyomi is short for 1 hour games is duly noted, though, and FESA may decide to run the 2001 ESC/MSOWSC edition with altered time limits. Chiaki Ito suggested a play-off when players share top spots rather than employing the sum of opponents' scores (SOS) as a tie-breaker. That is in fact very similar to how I ran the Pan-Atlantic Shogi Championsip at the 1999 MSO: after 8 rounds the best 4 American/European players (L Kaufman, S Lamb, Segers, Fernandez) were split off and played semi-finals (round 9) and a final and game for 3rd place (round 10). Because I wanted a true final splitting off the best 4 was done regardless of whether they had equal scores. The other players played only one more round (9), so that everybody could watch the final and game for 3rd place (round 10). However, the drawback is that it costs 2 rounds, so with 9 rounds in total, a 5 round closed ESC, the 4 best Europeans and the top players from the rest of the world have only 2 rounds during which they can meet and determine the rank ordering for the semi-finals and final. Reducing the closed ESC to 4 rounds does not seem to be an option as this year's event showed several times that players with Elo ratings in the bottom half (places 17-32) beat higher ranked opponents. However, Chiaki does have a good point as especially the SOS of the highest ranked Europeans can be affected negatively by their pairing with the lowest ranked players during the closed ESC (Swiss pairing is 1 vs N/2+1, 2 vs N/2+2, etc. while KO pairing is 1 vs N, 2 vs N-1, etc.). Although a McMahon system would accelerate separation of stronger and weaker players in the open MSOWSC, it would not change the fact that the top 4 of the closed ESC enter the MSOWSC only in round 6. An alternative might be to start with one large group, play 7 rounds Swiss (preferably McMahon). Split off the best 4 Europeans to contest the closed European Championship (semi-finals: round 8; final/3rd place game: round 9), then split of the best 4 of the remaining players (probably all non-Europeans) to contest the open MSOW Championship (in the same way as the closed ESC), and let the rest of the field play one more game (round 8) so that all can watch the finals and 3rd place games (round 9). I am not sure I like this very much because the players that contest the closed ESC cannot participate in the open championship. I am offering the suggestion merely as food for thought. No doubt FESA will discuss these issues at length before making decisions. Ciao, Pieter