WOC rules

[graham]

For my take on tiebreaking systems, see pp20-22 of the July 2002 BOF newsletter "Splodgy Words", available from http://britishothello.org.uk/newsletters.html
One thing I hope you'll get from that article is that I _don't_ claim that BQ is the be-all-and-end-all of tie-breakers.  Probably the single best argument for using it in a tournament is that everybody else uses it, so the organiser will be spared arguments about tie-breakers.  

If you think about the "attempted justification" given in that article, you'll see why the constant C should depend on the number R of rounds: two players of differing abilities will tend to drift further apart in total score as the number of rounds increases.  (Let me repeat here that I actually think C = 64/R is too high; indeed, it's not clear that C = k/R is the right dependence -- but see above for why I'm not proposing to change it.)  

One merit of the currently implemented version of BQ is its simplicity and transparency -- people are able to track how the tiebreak is going, see roughly what they need to achieve in order to improve their tiebreak position, and understand roughly how and why their tiebreak is good or bad.  It's easy to suggest ways in which the `accuracy' could be improved (I haven't thought about Vladimir's particular suggestion), but at the expense of simplicity.

[Ben Seeley]

To be concrete, I suggest:
(a) deleting Section V,
(b) putting in (say right at the beginning): "The body responsible for these rules is the World Othello Federation".
(c) amending section I.2 to say who appoints the Chief Referee.  [Also in this section, the requirement that table judges be found for all tables is too strongly put.]  
(d) adding to VI.1 the phrase "The decision of the Chief Referee shall be final."

I agree with all of these. They seem very common-sensical.

I especially agree with this, below-

Another institution we can do without, surely, is the need to delay the WOC to hold a mass meeting every time there is a dispute about a decision made by the tournament referee.  A perfectly good position is (a) the Council of the WOF appoints (or at least ratifies the appointment of) the Chief Referee at the WOC, (b) regarding the conduct of the WOC, and in particular the application of penalties, the Chief Referee's decision is final. It is possible to design more elaborate systems, with a deputy referee, or an appeals committee, but I think we ought to - and do - appoint referees who are sufficiently experienced and trustworthy to deal with the small number of disputes that arise.

It seems like whenever something is controversial enough to go up for a vote, there is not really any universally obvious and satisfactory solution. So, the head referee's experienced judgment is good enough, and possibly best.

I can also attest that Jonathan Becker and other sponsors have been annoyed with the long delays in the past, too.

[George]

At the last WOF meeting in Ghent as we were running out of time, we decided to deal with all the WOC rules issues on the internet which would then be considered by a WOC rules committee.

Is this the place to discuss such issues ?  (this topic has been inactive for almost a whole year so I just thought I'd double check)

[Geoff]

Yes. This is a good place. Here is the list of things that were mentioned in the WOF meeting.

Change of seeded player rule.
Playoff switch to choose colour or draw win. - currently both.
Final four: First place choses who to play.
Playoff for women on same points.
Top 4 women in same format as men.
Update on rule changes proposed last year.
Different tournament for team vs team

[George]

OK then I'll start with the first issue from that list, since it was mine    :
Change of seeded player rule

I should first assume that we want to continue doing this first round seeding in the future (see the discussion on Accelerated Pairings : http://othello.nu/wofforum/index.php?topic=310.0).

The current rule described in section 5.1 First Round reads as :
those who have played in at least one semifinal of the previous ten World Othello Championships

I think this can be simplified. If the main purpose is to honour semi-finalists of previous years, then why stop at the last 10 years ?
If on the other hand we want to make sure only the current top players are seeded then why not use the WOF/FFO rating?  For example : all players rated above 2200 are seeded.

Basically trying to remember the cutoff point from 10 years ago seems an unnecessary memory challenge to me.

[Geoff]

What is the point of the seeded player rule?

[Jorge Bandrés]

What is the point of the seeded player rule?

If I'm not wrong, seeding players you get the same effect as accelerated pairings though in less degree.

[Lazard]

We have started our discussion about WOC rules in the new WOC-rules committee appointed at the last WOF meeting in Gent.
If you have any idea, remark or comment about WOC rules, please feel free to send me a note or to write here about it.

I've tried to include in our agenda all topics that have been opened here about rules changes.

[Lazard]

Dear all,

During the last WOF meeting in Ghent last year, it was decided to set up a rule committee to review and propose updated WOC rules. I headed this committee which also included Randy Fang, Geoff Hubbard, Caroline Sandberg-Odsell and Linsue Panajarn. We worked and came up with several proposals which I would now like to present you so that you can discuss them inside your federation. A mail was sent to the WOF contact in each federation asking him/her to vote before the end of July. Please fell free to review the proposals and start the discussion inside your federation.


I. NEW SET OF RULES

The first work we did was to rewrite the current set of rules without changing any specific othello rule but with the intention of clarifying several points. Modifications include::
- Adding the "what if no table judge?" in the rules,
- Getting rid of the council of federations (there is now the WOF),
- Rewriting who can participate in agreement to the WOF statutes,
- Changing chief referee references to Tournament Director,
- Rewriting the tie-breaking rule to include more than two players,
- Changing "scorer/table judge/official..." references to "table judge" everywhere,
- Being more precise concerning mobile phones and electronic devices,
- Being more precise about moving on opponent's time,
- Adding the current format for the women title,
- Adding the possibility of live broadcasting.

Before discussing rule changes, we would like everyone to agree on this new set of rules which tries to build upon several years of WOC experience.

You will find the new set of rules at http://www.katouche.fr/NEW_WOC_Rules.pdf.


II. PROPOSALS AND SUGGESTIONS

We then discussed several changes that were proposed by us or had before been proposed by other federations. Some were rejected, we agreed on four modifications (proposals), and could not decided on two of them (suggestions).
We would therefore like to present you the 4 proposals and 2 suggestions for WOC rule changes. You will find all 6 of them at the address: http://www.katouche.fr/Proposals.pdf.

[Jorge Bandrés]

Thanks for such a good work.

About the proposal 3, I don't completely understand it.

For example, in the case "If the second and seventh-ranked players in the provisional list have the same number of points", who will play with who? and how many games will be needed?

Thanks,
Jorge

[Lazard]

Thanks for such a good work.

About the proposal 3, I don't completely understand it.

For example, in the case "If the second and seventh-ranked players in the provisional list have the same number of points", who will play with who? and how many games will be needed?

Thanks,
Jorge

If player 2nd and 7th have the same number of points, it means that players 3, 4, 5 and 6 also have the same number of points.
So player number 1 is qualified and there are 3 spots left for the semi-finals:
one spot for a 2nd vs. 7th playoff,
one spot for a 3rd vs. 6th playoff,
one spot for a 4th vs. 5th playoff.
That's three playoffs all played at the same time.

[Uladzimir Khlebnikau]

Player A has 10 points and BQ=1500 , players B...Z-9 points ...
Player A has a good motivation to play 13 round.
AND
after
1 - 8 0-1
2 - 7 1-0
3 - 6 1-0
4 - 5 1-0
Who is the first for to choice the opponent?
I think #2 is.
AND
Current rule.
MBQ defines who will be a semi-finalist in top of the group.
New rule.
MBQ defines who will be a spectator in bottom of the group.
It is better.

[Lazard]

Player A has 10 points and BQ=1500 , players B...Z-9 points ...
Player A has a good motivation to play 13 round.
AND
after
1 - 8 0-1
2 - 7 1-0
3 - 6 1-0
4 - 5 1-0
Who is the first for to choice the opponent?
I think #2 is.
AND
Current rule.
MBQ defines who is in top of the group for 4-5 play-off.
New rule.
MBQ defines who is in bottom of the group for Top-play-off-s.
It is better.

The proposal says:

a) The four players qualified for the semi-finals are ranked 1 to 4 according to their respective order of finish in the provisional list.


so it's the MBQ that will decide the order.

[Jorge Bandrés]

Now I think it's quite clear for me. Just in case, would you mind telling me if I'm right or wrong in the following examples?

1.  Makoto Suekuni             (SIN) 10   (1130).
2.  Masaki Takizawa            (JAP)  9.5 (1137).
    Yusuke Takanashi           (JAP)  9.5 (1103).
    Sébastien Barre            (FRA)  9.5 (1077).
    Matthias Berg              (GER)  9.5 (1069).
    Nicky van den Biggelaar    (NED)  9.5 (1058).

In this case, 4th and 5th, and 3rd and 6th are with 9.5, so they play a playoff (Barre vs Berg and Takanashi vs Van den Biggelaar), but not Takizawa with 9.5 too (if 7th is with 9.0).


1.  Kenta Tominaga {JPN} 12 (1133)              .
2.  Tetsuya Nakajima {JPN} 10 (1106)            .
3.  Stéphane Nicolet {FRA} 9.5 (1153)           .
4.  Imre Leader {GBR} 9 (1123)                  .
    Matthias Berg {GER} 9 (1118)                .
    Ben Seeley {USA} 9 (1113)                   .
    Tomohiro Ohno {JPN} 9 (1042)                .
    Vladislav Dolezal {BEL} 9 (986)             .

In this case, only 4th vs 5th (both with 9.0)

Thanks,
Jorge

[Lazard]

Now I think it's quite clear for me. Just in case, would you mind telling me if I'm right or wrong in the following examples?

1.  Makoto Suekuni             (SIN) 10   (1130).
2.  Masaki Takizawa            (JAP)  9.5 (1137).
    Yusuke Takanashi           (JAP)  9.5 (1103).
    Sébastien Barre            (FRA)  9.5 (1077).
    Matthias Berg              (GER)  9.5 (1069).
    Nicky van den Biggelaar    (NED)  9.5 (1058).

In this case, 4th and 5th, and 3rd and 6th are with 9.5, so they play a playoff (Barre vs Berg and Takanashi vs Van den Biggelaar), but not Takizawa with 9.5 too (if 7th is with 9.0).

Exactly. And Suekuni is number 1 for the semi-finals, Takizawa number 2 and the last two spots are for the two winners of the playoffs, in their respective order of finish in the swiss.

1.  Kenta Tominaga {JPN} 12 (1133)              .
2.  Tetsuya Nakajima {JPN} 10 (1106)            .
3.  Stéphane Nicolet {FRA} 9.5 (1153)           .
4.  Imre Leader {GBR} 9 (1123)                  .
    Matthias Berg {GER} 9 (1118)                .
    Ben Seeley {USA} 9 (1113)                   .
    Tomohiro Ohno {JPN} 9 (1042)                .
    Vladislav Dolezal {BEL} 9 (986)             .

In this case, only 4th vs 5th (both with 9.0)

You're correct.