Thursday 24 April 2014


Related Articles

No related articles found


Readers’ Comments

162Monday, 14 April 2014 03:10
Debbie

How do you start an online game?

161Wednesday, 12 March 2014 11:34
Vitaly
World and European championships provide ideal space for maneuvring, both in terms of number of sessions and participants. Purely random (still with constraint of team or country) scheme does not seem to reasonable at all -- though to use it as a part of any other scheme looks acceptable. IMHO, best scenario is: equally-matched scheme to days 1-2, then top 20-25% struggle within a group for prizes + side-event for the rest of players.
160Wednesday, 12 March 2014 10:09
Vitaly
But what about the idea to split a tournaments in two at certain point? (One can use "stepping", for instance, cut top-24 after session 4, then top-16 after next session, then top-12 etc.).
In ma-any other sports it is quite acceptable that "toppers" play THEIR event fighting for the prizes while all others may play in "side-event" which still may gather a bunch of players (and may be processed separately, with lower MERS coefficient).
And, surely, such schemes are pointless for 1-day events.
159Wednesday, 12 March 2014 09:57
Vitaly
Second day may require more time between session to organise proper sitting. Please, be careful here, "more" in this case means that 15 min is no good though 20-30 minutes is quite acceptable. Current software provides "no-problems" seating (say, in 5 min) for 6 sessions starting from 32 players, 8 sessions -- starting from 60 players. More players-sized 2-day events are welcome (they are easier to be calculated)!
158Wednesday, 12 March 2014 09:52
Vitaly
Now, let's move to "longer tournaments" as stated.
2-days event may use 6-10 sessions, depending on rules, transportation factor (somebody needs to catch a train?), cultural program etc. Sophisticated software (like RiTour.exe) may produce seating for the first 4 session right "on spot", so the first day is "clean" for organisers. Of cause, provided there is no protocol errors.

Nice idea, but I think it's a bit premature

I think this is a really good idea, and I love the concept of a proper European Championships with national teams (and it opens up the concept of some sort of mahjong World Cup, which would be amazing). I think the main issue wouldn't be for the tournament itself, but for participants and wannabe participants, specifically with deciding who will feature the national teams. For countries which do not have enough players, I presume things would be fairly straightforward, and whoever wants to compete will be able to. However, for oversubscribed countries, how will they decide the teams? The UK at least doesn't really have anything resembling a domestic league, or regular tournaments, so how would the top five UK players be judged? Most of the players are spread out, and can't play each other regularly to really judge skill, so how would you judge who should represent the team for Great Britain with so little data? It could go on the UK Open results, but that's just a single tournament and wouldn't be a fair reflection of skill. It could go on EMA rankings, but there are mostly likely skilled players in the UK who don't have the money and/or free time to travel to all the EMA ranked matches on the continent, but who would most likely make the effort for the European Championships. I think it's a really good idea, and it could be a really good team tournament, but I think it's a bit too early in the development of the game to start breaking teams up by nationality. I know for example that the Cambridge University society could probably send a fairly strong team of five players, and that's just one group of players within the UK. When you've got such an uneven distribution of players across countries, it doesn't make sense to go for national teams just yet.
This is a comment on "Austria wants next European Riichi Championship, ‘for Europeans only’"


Mahjong News | Copyright © 1997-2014 | About Us | Sitemap | Contact