Alan Kwan has reacted.
Please read: here
Paris. Or how I managed to accept unfairness and love the game even more
- Details
- Created on Sunday, 07 June 2009 23:38
- Last Updated on Wednesday, 28 November 2012 18:00
- Written by Anton Kösters
- Hits: 3535
Is the reward for selfdraw in some types of mahjong too generous? Hong Kong mahjong scholar Alan Kwan thinks so. But, even though Kwan may be right, this is not a reason to change the reward. Claims Dutch mahjong player and columnist (for 'Mahjong Magazine') Anton Kösters. For quite some time my definition of a 'Grand Slam' mens tennis tournament was: 'you invite the best 128 tennis players of the world and let them play elimination rounds for two weeks and on the last day Roger Federer wins the title'. An indeed, just while I am writing this on a rainy Sunday afternoon, I look over my shoulder and see Roger Federer leading by two sets to love and a break in the third set of the final at Roland Garros in Paris, so I have plenty of time now to write this article for you. Today no surprises in Paris.
Do I think the reward for self drawn hands in Mahjong Competition Rules is too high? In fact, yes, I do. And even more if during a tournament a newbie player gets a few of them and manages to win the 4 table points, instead of me. Sometimes I wonder too if the 'off-side' rule in football is fair, but I realise it is useless to do so. It's the rule of the game. And this rule encourages a defensive strategy.
There is something similar with Mahjong Competition Rules. The most efficient way to win your hand is to create fast multiple opportunities to go out on. The more opportunities you create and the faster you do so, the more you will win and consequently the more you will win on self-draw. If you self draw your hand, your reward will be high. You may choose to win on a discarded tile, but then your reward will be smaller (but often still quite satisfying). But do not complain, it was your decision, you could have waited for a self-drawn hand.
Mahjong Competition Rules reward the best offensive strategies. Defensive tactics are less important. Why bother too much about discarding a winning tile if you can win back your loss in threefold in the next hand? Better use your energy to create opportunities for your own hand. The statistics of the last two Open French Tournaments in Paris prove that a high percentage of hands won (on discard or self-drawn) is more important for a good overall result than a high percentage of self-drawn hands or a low percentage of hands won by somebody else on your discard.
This reasoning is only one part of the story. There is another rule in Mahjong Competition Rules that says a game or session lasts for a maximum of 16 hands or the lower number of hands you will be able to play in a certain amount of time. And the player who has scored the highest number of points in this period wins 4 table points. This rule favours the player that made the most and biggest self drawn hands in these 16 hands. So should we discuss the statement: 'Is 16 hands or 2 hours enough to determine the player who deserves 4 table points?'. Or should we discuss the 4,2,1,0-distribution of table points itself? Or is it fair to make a player pay 8 points to the winner even if he did not discard the winning tile?
I believe it is useless to do so. Although I can imagine all kind of alternatives to mahjong Competition Rules as they are now, I accept them the way they are. The combination of the self-draw bonus and a relatively short time limit for a session make it possible that not always the 'best' player will win but all four players at the table have a chance. Unlike in tennis tournaments, a mahjong tournament can always have a surprise winner. Every session can be won by a newbie, even I might beat the World Champion and even I can win in Paris and why not the OEMC! Dream on!
Read Alan Kwan's contribution to the discussion
Comments (1)
1Wednesday, 10 June 2009 11:12
Mahjong News
I think what could work is new tournaments styled as 'invitational', where tournament organisers invite the top players (perhaps within the top 100 or so players in the European ranking) for a tournament that has a small field (perhaps 40 to 60 as Adrie had suggested).
At the very least, there is a certain level of difficulty that competitors might relish. True, as noluck as suggested, a paradoxical situation where randomness may favour winners where all players are equally skilled, but even so, the better and worse players will be separated over several sessions. So, the more sessions, the better!
But what is needed is a commitment to have as many players from different countries as possible, to still promote the elements of friendly play. Having lower costs would help attract players put off by expensive tournaments.
Personally I really enjoyed winning the Danish Open, but I enjoyed even more the people I met during the tournament that shared the same passion as I do - mahjong.
So for me it is important that the social aspect takes precedes the paid few. And as already written, why can't we have both? It is a challenge to find the balance between top quality venue and location, and price per individual. Perhaps sometimes the quality of the venue will have to be a bit less, so that the total individual cost of each player doesn't get out of hand.
If yes, it's a pitty...
Oliv'
More over I fear that (even if) only the very best players would meet, this might even increase the luck factor - sounds paradoxical? Let's try to illustrate it this way: In a more heterogeneous table better player should most of the times have an advantage to get a waiting hand before the less skilled manage, so they have more chances to get the last missing tile. If all play perfect and get to wait very early, then it's sheer luck, who's tile will show up first... so we would need even more games to balance out the luck than in a more 'mixed' player field. (on the other hand the influence of drawing a lucky lot would decrease - anyway, I think the other factor prevails)
Regarding sponsors: Why should any company be interested to give money for such a small event? Mah-Jongg is not widely known and the main reason for a sponsor (from outside the limited field of MJ suppliers etc.) would be visibility in an international surrounding - this needs a critical mass. I don't think any German company would give some thousand Euros just to be nice and enable German players to travel to an OEMC with about 50 more folks from abroad. (I also don't think that any TV station would send a team to such a small event - usually size _does_ matter in these settings...)
The members of the national associations should take care then? Even in a bigger association of 300 members this would mean 10 Euros for each of them - only to send the chosen four of the country to the OEMC... and only for MCR! I don't think they will like this idea. And thinking on a "mid-sized" organisation as here in Germany it would really be impossible to stem the sum from the members' contributions...
It is important to try making the OEMC cheaper - but to my mind a smaller competition is not the solution, because it makes the competition less interesting for the outside world. The impact on the quality of the competition is admittedly questionable and would need further analysis.
And definitely the Mah-Jongg community would loose a great happening - whatever we may think about cost and quality and championship in itself: An OEMC is a splendid opportunity to meet and play and talk and celebrate Mah-Jongg! This alone would be a reason for me to plead for a large OEMC/WMC! Smaller events we have enough...
this column by the editor.