Finals Analysis (continued) and General Comments

For those of you who read you should note this is basically a regurgitation of what IS already on the website, except sometimes with additional personal commentary.

WYSC F3

Move 1

WB: JAUPED best. Wasn’t 100% sure of this but vaguely remembered JAUPING.. (this is how I play, folks) Cheah comments in the other room that “This is the first time Weibin has started without a bingo” to the amusement of the crowd.

SC: Sean surprises me with DOONA, incidentally the best.

Move 2

WB: SEZ is a bad miss but I wasn’t looking carefully at all. Was playing like a f00l.

SC: Surprisingly his move is the best. Probably wouldn’t have played it myself.

Move 3

WB: IURE is definitely better than GIE but again I overlook things.

SC: Playing anything which scores from the J is more preferable.

Move 4

WB: Another foolish mistake.

SC: The simple ARRIvAL scores better but I was pleasantly surprised that he found RAILcAR. Didn’t really bother much because of my next play..

Move 5

WB: Best.

SC: ELNS is not a very strong leave though there isn’t much of a ‘good leave’ you can have among all the choices listed. EEL scores too low for serious consideration, though.

Move 6

WB: Played too quickly, but at least I got the 5 points.

SC: Good find. Didn’t expect him to – underestimated him too much.

Move 7

WB: Missing the obvious spot surprisingly only drops a few points of equity. Terrible (and embarrassing) play considering how easy it is to see the best move.

SC: Best and obvious.

Move 8

WB: R(U)SK is inferior to TRUCK, surprisingly. This is possibly due to the high consonant leave and the S leave on TRUCK, coupled with the likelihood of the S hook to TRUCK the next turn.

SC: CADIE is better than ACID, the moves in between the two look worse.

Move 9

WB: Not that I didn’t see the spot, but I wasn’t 100% sure of TRAPT (!!) and at the same time neglected possibilities of keeping more consonants. Played this entire game too quickly trying to wear him down on time (for the first time in my playing history, wearing someone down on time?!)

SC: Um well…

Move 10

WB: CHIV surprisingly loses a lot of equity despite the better score than VAV (which keeps 1 more consonant). Perhaps a lot of focus is given to minimising turnover (given double N in bag), but I don’t really see the rationale for such a great equity difference, especially with an S in bag!.

SC: WEEM probably a little better on leave (keeps the Y for the next turn) and defensive ability (kills the triple line and DWS)

Move 11

WB: Don’t really like FAN, VAN, or changing and only keeping the A (no more Ns in the bag, and most of the tiles in the bag go well with the N). FAAN or FINNAN are also possibilities though I stand by my choice.

SC: Missing TWEELI(N)G

Move 12

WB: Anything which blocks all bingo lines (and sets up an improbable bingo line to the B hook) is best.

SC: Decent out-in-2 combo.

Move 13

WB: Not much to discuss here…

SC: Sean misses ISLET but it’s too late to do anything. I check (S)TILE to make sure (on hindsight DUH it’s good!).

With that, I rush to the computer to confirm JAUPED, but not before receiving handshakes from Wilma, Barry and the annotators (Olga and Jocelyn). Sean congratulates me and I return the greeting – it is honestly one tournament result to remember for him, especially against a cruel field (though it isn’t the strongest field ever it is challenging in some aspects).

I had some feelings during and after the tournament. Personally I felt the coverage for the event, despite being a little spotty here and there, was still decent for the event’s scale. A few annotation mistakes (mostly racks) here and there, which I have pointed out to Barry – beyond that there are 2 missing annotated games on the webpage for round 19 and 22.

There were a few aspects of the tournament (I’m writing this partially because I didn’t fill in the feedback form towards the end of the tourney) which I didn’t completely enjoy. I felt the registration on the night before the tournament could have been better organised – it would have been much swifter if the players were informed of the venue for registration. No biggie though – it still ran smoothly without hiccups (or at least for the time where I was there).

I gathered that some competitors did not enjoy the single challenge rule – I myself was not pleased when I had to walk up to the challenge computer 5 times for the first game I played (with all words returning as valid). It did improve later when I played opponents of higher calibre (getting 1 or 2 invalid challenges maximum per game) – but single challenge was both unnecessary and tedious. If the aim of the event is to train young players to play in WSCs (which use the 5-point challenge rule), it should adopt a similar challenge rule to the WSC and not a weakened challenge rule. 5 points is really peanuts but it actually sticks a spanner into people’s thoughts when they want to challenge something. It challenges one’s word knowledge – necessary for a worldscale (read WORLDSCALE) competition.

Personally I did not find the pairing system to be the best system for the tournament. Though from what I know it is similar to the WSC’s pairing system, but there are a few disparities between the field of WSC and the field of the WYSC – the WSC has twice the number of players, and the difference in standard between WSC players isn’t as great as the difference in standard of WYSC players, meaning that ANY game in the WSC will probably be tough, while not all games will be tough in the WYSC, depending on who you meet. There are implications – in the WSC even if you can repeat an opponent it is unlikely that this will happen (unless you’re talking about the Nigel-Ganesh-Wellington thing this time), whereas in the WYSC it will most probably happen for the top players because of the lesser number of players.

This time, I played Ong Suanne, Benjamin Chow and Charas Worapotpisut (finishing 3rd, 6th and 8th respectively) 3 times each. I also played 2nd and 4th finishers Sean Chung and Liew Kian Boon twice each. I DIDN’T play the 9th, 10th or 11th finishers, all of whom might have beaten me. The highest finisher the 10th finisher (Imron Sawamipak) played was 7th-placed Ian Tay Zhi Xian (during the 6th round, which is pretty early, therefore he climbed from the bottom). Meanwhile, the 12th finisher Thacha Kooriwat played everyone in the top 11 except for Suanne and Liew Kian Boon. This isn’t the best example though (because the field was more evenly matched in the WYSC this year) – last year Benjamin Chow, who played David Eldar and Austin Shin (winner and runner up of WYSC 2006 respectively) 3 times each eventually fell below Joshua Sng, who had played neither David nor Austin. (no complaint about fairness here, Joshua more than deserved his position, except others may not have thought so) The system allows players to climb from below much easier than it would have if it was straight KOTH No-Repeat, with repeats starting for the last 4 games (the usual way we have it in Singaporean majors, except maybe more “repeat” games because its a 3 day tourney).

Congratulations to those who did well, and commiserations to those who did not draw the necessities to do well. For those who are going to play again next year, may you have the best of luck! (I’m considering annotating the next year’s tournament if it is close by, so those who do get annotated by me may get residual luck from what I got this year) I do hope whoever deserves to win it does win it.

Comments welcome.

One for all, All for one, Venturez’ 06

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: