From: Larry Kaufman <lkaufman <at> WIZARD <dot> NET>
Date: 27 may 2000
Subject: Re: Shogi World Championship - Analysis

At 06:14 PM 5/26/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Larry Kaufman wrote:
>
>
> $B#I#n#d#e#e#d!" (Btwo strong players disappeared on the early stage but
all of
>the 16 players won to the 3rd round were also very strong players. It means
>that there were many strong players and some of them must be knocked out in
>any way. To become Champion he must win all the way as K. Egoshi did. In my
>opinion he is truly a champion.

     I agree, but the same cannot be said about some of the other top few
places.  The players who placed third and fourth did not defeat anyone
above four dan, although there were many in the tournament.  This is one
flaw of knockout events.

>They won without giving the 2nd chance and I think it is very fair. In my
>personal opinion it is difficult for me to accept some player as the champion
>of the world saved by the 2nd chance after losing at the early stage.
>I will respect the Champion who won all games.
>
     But the system used did indeed allow for a champion who lost early!!
Any player who won 2 out of three in the qualifying rounds could still
become champion!  If a loss in an early round does not knock out a player,
why should a loss in a later round?  I can't see the logic of this.


>Yes, if he is too weak to compete on such a level as an invitee. However he
>could have many other serious games such as Shogi Dojo and Pro's lesson
>corner with big suitable handicap.
>We may consider then to give an option to such a weak invitee whether he
>wants to play at Pro/Am or go to qualifying matches to enjoy serious games
>with general participants. In any way he will be illuminated at the early
>stage as there are many strong players in the general participants.
>
>>
>>      To give just one example, T. Christoffersen, a seeded player who is
>> around shodan in strength, lost his first game in the main event to a 2
>> dan, and lost his first game in consolation to a four dan.  Of course he
>> got to play three games with the pros at bishop, but for a shodan that is
>> far too small a handicap.  So he actually got to play only one game
>> (excluding team event on Monday) in which he had any realistic chance of
>> winning.
>
>I personally do not think it is necessary to change the system of the
>tournament simply because of a few weak invitees.

     No, that is not the main reason I propose a change.  My reasons are
basically two:  All players should be paired for an official game
(including a pro game) every round; there is simply no point in not doing
so.  I am sure that if knockout were used in amateur chess events, chess
would never have achieved the popularity it has.  People come to
tournaments to play serious games, and they should be given the chance to
play as many as the schedule permits.  I must admit that even with your
system the Shogi Dojo still made that possible, but I think the players
playing there did not have the same feeling of being part of the main
tournament that they would have had in a Swiss system.
     My second reason is that knockout is hopeless for deciding who is
second best, third best, etc.  It is heavily dependent on luck of pairings.
 Suppose Habu and Sato Meijin had been in the tournament.  If they happened
to be in the same half, it would be impossible for them to take the top two
places!  This shows the flaw in knockout system.

 He will recognize his level
>and he and his country will work harder to up grade their level. As mentioned
>above we could give them an option to pass Pro/Am and join with qualification
>tournament if he he prefers to enjoy more serious games. We simply believed
>it might be a fun even for weak players to play against Pro with Kakuochi
>once in their life.

     I don't dispute this.

>As you are well aware, pros are also very well experienced to play with weak
>players to let them play up to their capacity and at last to beat him. These
>weak players had plenty of chance to get lessons from pros at the Lesson
>Corner with adequate handicap at free of charge.
>I really wonder if Mr. Christoffersen did not enjoy playing in the Pro/Am
>with Kakuochi knowing that he could not win.

     Probably he did enjoy the games.  But nevertheless he had only one
truly competitive game in the whole event, whereas with a Swiss he would
have had five or six.

>As the matter of fact, 15 players out of 19 invitees did not win at all but
>many of them told me that this was a great idea. Isn't it enough to accept
>this format if many of them really enjoyed it.

     This Pro-Am event was great, and I'm not talking about changing it,
except perhaps to find a way for all players to participate in at least one
such game!

>Please remember the fact that almost all of the participants regardless of
>their skill enjoyed and learned from Pros through Pro's lesson corner with
>adequate handicaps.
>
>>
>
>Shigeki Masui
>
>
     Again, thanks for a wonderful event.  I only make this criticism of
knockout system because I think it could be even better in the future.
Knockout makes some sense for pro events, where the main point is to decide
the winner, but for amateur events where the emphasis should be on giving
all the participants a chance for good competition it is inferior, I believe.

     Larry Kaufman