Arbitrary Decision Decides the European Open Go Champion 2009
Robert Jasiek
http://egc2009.nl/?q=node/1472
# Name D CO Opponents P MM SOS DC
1 Kim Eunkuk 7D KR 14+ 10+ 7+ 5- 25+ 11+ 3+ 6+ 2+ 4- 8 42 408 1
2 Hwang In-seong 7D KR 33+ 8+ 6+ 3- 14+ 4+ 5+ 15+ 1- 13+ 8 42 408 0
3 Kim Joon-Sang 7D KR 27+ 11+ 4+ 2+ 5- 9+ 1- 13+ 23+ 7+ 8 42 407
4 Oh Chi-Min 7D KR 24+ 23+ 3- 17+12+ 2- 26+11+ 10+ 1+ 8 42 403
Besides the condition of having played in all 10 rounds, the placement
rules valid before and during the tournament were:
1. MMS
2. SOS
3. shared place
After(!) completition of round 10, the placement rules were changed as
follows:
1. MMS
2. SOS
3. Direct Comparison applied to only the players with the top MMS-SOS.
4. shared place
Background information:
After round 10, the congress organizer Martin Finke contacted me, who
I acted as a tournament supervisor, to let the EGF alter the rules and
apply direct comparison to create a unique tournament winner. So this
suggestion was discussed among us tournament supervisors (Matti
Siivola and I) but we could not agree to a decision. So the higher
body EGF Committee was called. At that time, it was represented by
Martin Stiassny and Matti Siivola. It decided to make an ad hoc change
of the placement criteria: to apply direct comparison after SOS
exactly to the players with the top MMS-SOS.
My opinion:
1) An organizer has every right to ask about clarification of a rules
issue that is unclear to him. This was Martin Finke's right. An
organizer should not want to change the valid placement criteria
afterwards though; here he made a mistake by trying to get improper
rights.
2) A tournament's placement criteria always ought to be specified and
announced before the tournament start. Never one ought to change them
during or after the tournament. The players compete under the
previously set conditions. That the placement criteria are set in
advance makes determination of the final placement order after the
last round impartial. Thereby determination of the winners is fair (as
far as placement criteria are concerned). Changes of the placement
criteria during or after a tournament makes determination of the
winners arbitrary, partial and unfair.
3) It was a failure of the tournament supervisors not to apply (2) but
to let a higher body decide.
4) Violating (2) was an extremely bad decision by the EGF Committee
because it has turned an impartial determination of the winner of the
European Open Go Championship into an arbitrary, partial and unfair
determination. Hwang In-seong has been robbed of his shared first
place (and the associated honour, effects for his career in Korea, and
parts of his prize money) by means of a political decision.
5) Applying direct comparison to only top places can be excused
because of practical problems as long as pairing programs are
incapable of implementing it.
6) There are arguments in favour of or against sharing places but they
do not affect (2). (I favour sharing places.)
7) There are arguments in favour of the tiebreaker order SOS-DC and
arguments in favour of the tiebreaker order DC-SOS but they do not
affect (2). (I favour DC-SOS over SOS-DC.)
8) There are arguments in favour of or against DC but they do not
affect (2). (I favour DC.)
9) Although the EGF General Tournament Rules allow ad hoc rules
decisions, any ad hoc rules decision that violates (2) abuses
political power. No power justifies partiality in determination of
tournament winners.
Robert Jasiek
wrote:
># Name D CO Opponents P MM SOS DC
>1 Kim Eunkuk 7D KR 14+ 10+ 7+ 5- 25+ 11+ 3+ 6+ 2+ 4- 8 42 408 1
>2 Hwang In-seong 7D KR 33+ 8+ 6+ 3- 14+ 4+ 5+ 15+ 1- 13+ 8 42 408 0
>3 Kim Joon-Sang 7D KR 27+ 11+ 4+ 2+ 5- 9+ 1- 13+ 23+ 7+ 8 42 407
>4 Oh Chi-Min 7D KR 24+ 23+ 3- 17+12+ 2- 26+11+ 10+ 1+ 8 42 403
Just for theoretical study, these results are also interesting for an
application of iterative direct comparison as the first tiebreaker to
the four top MMS players group, what surprisingly(?) IS possible here:
DCi
Application step #1 #2
1 Kim Eunkuk 2 1
2 Kim Joon-Sang 2 0
3 Hwang In-seong 1 1
4 Oh Chi-Min 1 0
The order would be different at places 2 and 3. A second tiebreaker
like SOS would not have been necessary to split places this year.