Latest News
- Doris hands over the Gourmet Cup to ‘mummy’ Gabriele
- Did you find Sherlock Holmes’s ‘Full House’?
- Moscow ‘Tesuji’ tournament for Dmitry Mikhailov
- Paris Open 2012 for Simon Bounkéo Fongue
- Axel Eschenburg wins German Riichi Open
- ‘Four Wins of Mrs. Hudson’ - the solution
- Four Wins of Mrs. Hudson
- Programme of the European Championship Riichi Mahjong 2013
- EC Riichi 2013: ten hanchan plus a team competition
- Two miniatures, two solutions
Related Articles
| Tina Christensen: ‘A less expensive championship is not easy to achieve’ |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Martin Rep |
| Tuesday, 02 August 2011 06:41 |
COPENHAGEN - Never in her life she had a more splitting headache than at Mestre, when she was elected president of the EMA. We had an arrangement to talk about a number of mahjong things the day after. But when she came to me, she looked very, very pale and she insisted that she had to rest for an hour. The next day, she felt a little bit better. But I had to wait with my most curious questions until some weeks later, when she was back home in Copenhagen. So we did the interview by e-mail.
Mahjong News: Are you satisfied with the past OEMC? About the way it was organized, and about the level of play? Is it increasing? Or did we really miss the Chinese? Tina Christensen: “Very satisfied! The organization was excellent, everything went smooth. It was Italy, so of course the food was delicious. The tables at first looked a little unstable and unfortunately they were not lipped, but in the end I actually didn't experience problems. The tiles were supposed to be without Arabic numerals, but the manufacturer delivered them with numbers. “Regarding play level, it is increasing in Europe for sure, but at this tournament we missed a lot of strong Hungarians and French. Also of course the Chinese, who are still a level above the Europeans. I think it is nice to have small Chinese and Japanese delegations at our European Championships, not only because of the increased skill level and different playing styles, but also very much for the networking and the cultural exchange.” Did the OEMC2011 set a new example in building a great and luxurious mahjong feast? Or will EMA strive for a downgrade: less expensive, more simple?
“So again, unless you have special contacts to a cheap or free venue, I don't see how it's possible to keep the registration fee below the level of €220 for an OEMC or WMC. For some countries the price levels are different from Venice, Utrecht, Vienna and Copenhagen, and maybe they can make it cheaper. It's a huge effort, I cannot stress this enough, to organize such events, and never have EMA received competing proposals. I know that every organizer has strived to keep the costs down.” Some people think that the level of play could be improved by organizing a smaller competition, with stronger players. Do you agree with that? “I don't think this is the direction we want to go. I definitely see the level of play increasing in Europe, so I don't think we need to do this for the sake of increased play level. Of course you could make a cheaper event if you only need room for 10-15 tables, but will it be as great an experience to go to such a tournament? I think the element of meeting many players, networking, exchanging ideas, making and renewing friendships is an important element. So is visiting and sightseeing a city with a bunch of your national comrades. “Also, from the position of the EMA presidium I cannot help thinking that with very small EC's it would be almost impossible to make physical EMA General Assemblies feasible, and you need physical meetings even in this modern world. “An event as sketched by Adrie van Geffen on MahjongNews.Com with some four players from each country is a future dream for a professional mind sport, I think. Mahjong in Europe is nowhere near a professional sport. All players need a surplus of time and money in order to participate in tournaments. I do not at all see the proposal that the national organizations finance the travel of a few of their top players as feasible. It's hardly feasible for the three organizations with more 200 players, and it is completely out of reach for the smaller organizations.
Will EMA continue seeking contact with WMO - an organization with an incomprehensible structure and a virtually invisible presence - or does it consider expanding its contacts in China by contacting other organizations? “In my experience, contact with other organizations in China have not been easier. The latest development with China Majiang (the Chinese organization in WMO) is that Andy Zheng (whom many will remember from the period 2005-2007) is back at the forefront, and he is one of the organizers behind the Fifth China Majiang Championship and Forum which takes place on a Yangzi cruise 19~23 Nov 2011. I am in email contact with him, and I very much hope to go there and have some nice talks with him this autumn.”
“The decision of the EMA General Assembly was to go from a two-year cycle to a three-year cycle for European Championships. Thus I would expect the next riichi EC in 2013 and the next OEMC in 2014. But since EMA has not as yet received acceptable proposals for these events, nothing is announced yet. I hope we can reach agreement with the Kasu Club who has proposed a Riichi EC in Vienna. “As reported on MahjongNews.Com, the Kasu club has proposed to play by a rule (the rule that a player can go bankrupt and which stops the game immediately) which is not included in the EMA rules. This is a cash game rule which EMA finds inappropriate for tournaments, and which is not used in professional riichi tournaments in Japan. A single rule set for riichi across Europe is essential for the success of international tournaments, and I really hope that the Kasu Club will decide to accept this, because I would love to play in Vienna, and I know many of the Kasu Club players as skillful riichi players and wonderful people. “Regarding the OEMC 2014, I am sure that EMA will receive one or more proposals before the end of the year, and that a decision can be announced early in the new year at the latest. Regarding WMC, China Majiang has announced that they will organize a WMC in 2012, but there is no date or place announced as yet. I expect to learn more over the next months. “It would be convenient for Europe if the WMC could also enter a three-year cycle, so that the three big mahjong events will never occur in the same year. I have lately learned to my great delight that the idea of Riichi World Championship has been launched by the Netherlands, and this obviously complicates the issue, but in the best possible way, if you know what I mean.” Note by Mahjong News: Tina Christensen here refers to an investigation into the possiblities of organizing a similar championship, which is lead by Martin Rep of Mahjong News, under the authority of the Dutch Mahjong League. Mahjong News has contacts with various Japanse mahjong organizations. The investigation is in a prior stage. |
| Last Updated on Monday, 19 September 2011 05:44 |
Tina: “I am sure a very vast majority of European players would like less expensive championships, but it's not simple to achieve! Unless you have contacts to a special venue, you need a deal with a professional place, hotel or conference centre, as we have seen at OEMC 2011, WMC 2010 and OEMC 2009. At such places you cannot choose your own catering; the catering is included in the package, and the price level is high. Attracting sponsors is extremely difficult, and this situation is not likely to change in the near future.
What will be the sequence of OEMC, WMC and ECR in the near future?
I believe this would also reflect on the end results with more skilled players further up instead of (I know you don't want to hear this) a couple of guys that had one or two of those +60k tables.
The claim that this is not used in tournaments in Japan is also simply not true. It is the norm in Mahjong parlors, but at the same time often used in real tournaments/leagues. Besides that, comparing japanese and european professional tournaments directly like this seems inappropriate.
Another hugely useful side-effect of just exchanging point sticks is that it also eliminates the time-consuming and error-prone job of writing down scores on paper sheets after each hand. This eases the job on players, (especially those volunteering to write the scores down) and organizers checking the sheets afterwards as well.
And if it concerns worrying about standards, why not make it THE new standard in the first place? I think many players will agree that the rulesets of the still young european Riichi community will have to evolve and adapt over time. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but a look ahead to what is may yet to come in the future undoubtedly requires being open to change.
It is similar with the open tanyao debate, although I mostly agree with keeping it closed only for now.
Overall, I fail to see any objective argument that justifies dismissing this rule right away like this. That is, except for the "We always did it like that." argument.
I don't particularly have an opinion one way or another for which rules are decided for Europe, but I just wanted to clear up this part of the comment.
The bankruptcy rule in the mahjong parlors was implemented so that the games would end faster and the parlors could make more money off of the players. I play almost exclusively tournaments here in Japan but the only events I've played in that implement the bankruptcy rule have been special promotional tournaments for a mahjong parlors.
Generally we start with 30,000 points and when you run out you have to borrow from another player or there are people walking around handing out more sticks. This is true for every open and professional tournament I've ever played in.
So while it is the norm in parlors, it is only rarely used in tournaments or leagues that are not for profit.
I also very much agree that at the podium at tournaments we want to see the skillful players, not the lucky guys who scored some big hands by sheer luck. I find, however, that this an argument against the banktruptcy rule. If the game ends after a big lucky hand, the opponents have no chance of regaining lost points. If the game continues, skilled opponents have a chance to minimize losses. For skilled players it is surely an advantage that the game continues. Let’s say a skilled player feeds a mangan in the first hand of the game. In the second hand someone else pays a yakuman to East. Game ends, and our player gets a third place after just two hands. I find this unfair. If the game continued, he could still have won the table or at least increased his score.
I think that very big scoring hands are problematic and we might want to consider to remove the current description where certain yakuman hands become double value (Four Concealed Pungs going out on the pair, 13 Orphans with 13 chances etc.)
The scoring sticks is a separate discussion. I have some concerns about the transparency in the scoring with sticks, I but certainly agree that scoring on paper especially for riichi is complicated and often time consuming. For me scoring sticks is not a show stopper. Personally, I think it is okay to try tournaments or an EC with scoring sticks.
Personally I do not like using sticks at tournaments as it makes it harder to tell how much I am behind or in the lead (which would be even more important with larger Uma).
So in MCR, you are competing against the players at your table, but in riichi (and WSoM last year) you are competing against the entire room. Not that mahjong is a sport, but I don't recall any sport where you compete against the entire field: In sports, if you win your match, even by the slimmest of margins, you advance and play other winners.
However, it did struck me as strange that EMA riichi rules did not use table points (as per MCR rules) and use uma and carry over the points. The way I see it, it is possible for a skilled (and lucky) player facing three very weak players in any particular round to gain a huge advantage that other skilled players cannot overcome, even with a huge uma. On the other hand, it is also possible for all three skilled players to gain at the expense of a very weak one at a table, which would not be possible in an MCR setting. So, there are some pros and cons to this, and perhaps this is best seen as the Japanese flavour of the ruleset.
On a different note, I personally find bankruptcy a terrible way to end the game, prematurely. I can imagine that players have travelled long distances just to compete in a tournament, and hoping to play as much mahjong as possible. The moment bankruptcy happens, the game ends (and as Tina points out, it could happen very early in the game). What are the players to do? Sure, they may carry on a private game outside the competition area, but there is less excitement and competition in a non-official game. The bankruptcy rule would create very short games for some players, and I do not think that is good for tournaments.
Other than lending a more japanese flavor to the game I think that Uma works better here.
I find thatUma is a good middleground between table-points and pure mini-points. Since japanese mahjong has a much more defensive element to it I think Uma works better since it is more about not ending last than ending first at least compared to MCR.
Of course the size of the Uma need to be sufficiently high for this to matter and yet not so high that it might as well become table-points.
Martin Rep
At least, with paper scoring, all scores have been recorded, and players can use these scoresheets for further analysis (of opponents' playing styles etc.). Using chips, all of these details are lost, since there would be no records. Of course, such analyses would be less useful without records of the actual hands played, but it's a start. In the long run, this would help the development of mahjong as a more scientific mind sport.
But I think (in context), Chris seems to be just comparing tournament formats: round-robin versus knock-out. While the knock-out format is exciting (and cruel), it is used partly to save time (compare football leagues versus cup events) and to avert the problem of resources (less courts/fields will be needed).
For mahjong, I think whether we use accumulated points and uma or table points and minipoints, we are still competing against the whole field. It is just that the way how winners are determined differ. I always felt that table points are fairer in that it prevents unfair advantage to players who get lucky (i.e. whether they are drawn to play much weaker players or they get very lucky with their hands and win very high scores). Using table points, if such players win, they are limited to just that maximum, the same as any other winner. But using accumulated points as in riichi tournaments, every point counts, and the strategy becomes different.
A case in point: in WMC2010, Luca Gavelli won a prize for getting the highest score in a single session. He obtained 588 points, partly through some luck (I believe with two Little Three Dragons, one of them self-drawn). Had WMC (an MCR tournament) used accumulated minipoints, Gavelli would have been ranked 9th, instead of the actual 25th he obtained. In fact, 3rd place would have been won by Miyagawa Kyoko (ranked 32th by table points)!
But the fact is, MCR uses table points, so the strategy of playing for position is somewhat different.