|
UTRECHT - A talk with Dutch mahjong player and analyst Anton Kösters about the just finished World Mahjong Championship. Mr. Kösters is the most experienced international mahjong player in Europe and writes columns about mahjong for the Dutch ‘Mahjong Magazine’.
Are you surprised with the results?
Anton Kösters: “Yes and no. No, because China won both the individual classification and the classification by nations. I believe that China should always be able to send players who will take away the first price. And, yes: I was surprised with the fact that the European top players are on the same level now as Japanese MCR players. During the World Championships in Chengdu in 2007, I sometimes had the feeling that I was an easy prey for the Asian players. This tournament, I never felt helpless, I knew that I could beat anyone at every table.”
Do you have an explanation for this?
“Europe certainly has an edge over Japan and indeed China. Mahjong Competition Rules are played by hundreds of players in Europe these days. Players who stimulate each other in good competition. In Japan however, richii mahjong is by far the most popular variant, and the few experienced MCR players envy the massive amount of tournaments all over Europe. Since the first OEMC in Nijmegen in 2005, Europe has indeed learned its lesson and improved its skills.
“For China, the situation is similar. I spoke with a Chinese player who participated with her mother, aunt and husband in the tournament. I asked her if she played often MCR and yes, she played every week with family and friends. But she also said that very few Chinese actually know and play MCR. So China has an huge potential of mahjong players; however, few of them play MCR and came to Utrecht. I do not think that we have seen the very best of players of China in this tournament.”
What did you notice of the individual European players?
“Another thing that surprised me was the relative poor performance of players I esteem highly, like Sebastian Berret from France or Bo Lang from Switzerland. It makes me wonder about the psychological aspect of the game. Everyone sometimes has more than his fair share of bad or good luck during a tournament, but all that is just a random result of the way tiles are arranged in the wall. The question is: 'After a few strokes of bad luck, are you able to dispel negative sentiments from your brain and concentrate to make the best of the next set of tiles you get?' Bad luck doesn't last for three days. A good sign, however, is that most players did get a few table points, so nobody was really without luck. It looked more as if they were just sitting on the wrong side of the tables. And they will probably kick my ass next time we meet.
“On the good side of the tables, there were mostly players you might have expected there and maybe an odd surprise. Looking at the Europeans in the ranking, I see in the upper quarter mostly players who have been claiming medal positions in MERS-tournament before.”
And more specific about the strength of the European countries?
“The country classification speaks for itself: China invincible, France and Denmark strong, Austria suffers a bit from the absence of a few players who choose to retire. Italy still good and Germany better than ever. The Dutch were numerous but did not convince. Hungary a bit disappointing.
“But if you look at things another way, you must also notice the very strong performance of Denmark, with 10 out of 17 players in the first quarter. That is even more than China (11 out of 20) and more than France (7 out of 22).”
...and rules and referees...?
“At last, everybody is well aware now of the rules of the game and the applicable penalties for violations. So if something goes wrong, the players solve the problem and the referee assists. I did not notice any major problems, apart from a few incidents that were more communication problems between Asian and Europeans. I enjoyed the competitive and fair atmosphere at the tables.”
Average of the country scores during the WMC 2010 (also countries with less than four players are included)
| 1 |
Denmark |
17 |
7141 |
| 2 |
China |
20 |
7043 |
| 3 |
Sweden |
4 |
6751 |
| 4 |
Russia |
4 |
5435 |
| 5 |
Germany |
11 |
5419 |
| 6 |
Japan |
32 |
5393 |
| 7 |
France |
23 |
5316 |
| 8 |
Italy |
22 |
5173 |
| 9 |
Austria |
13 |
4786 |
| 10 |
Hungary |
12 |
4138 |
| 11 |
Great-Britain |
2 |
3768 |
| 12 |
Singapore |
1 |
3623 |
| 13 |
Spain |
4 |
3309 |
| 14 |
Belgium |
4 |
3056 |
| 15 |
Netherlands |
35 |
2907 |
| 16 |
Portugal |
2 |
2705 |
| 17 |
Switzerland |
2 |
2560 |
|
I fully agree with that, and if you look on the European ranking, you will notice that there is 5 Danish players in the top 10, where other "strong" countries had only 1.
Moreover, there is "only" 25 Danish players in the all ranking, where, for example France, has 84 !
So the performances of the Danish players are more than good !
I don't know if the chineese and the japaneese players I've meet during this WMC are strong or not, I don't know if they have had luck or not, but 2 of the 3 tables I've ended on the second place was won by a Danish players. And I've meet more japaneese and chineese players than danish ones...
For Anton :
"Looking at the Europeans in the ranking, I see in the upper quarter mostly players who have been claiming medal positions in MERS-tournament before."
I'm happy that you noticed this, because it is exactly the goal of the NEW EMA ranking.
This is done by the 50% of the "Best 3 results average" in the global calculation of the rate.
This system also allow you to "miss" a tournament without falling in the deep abyss:
If you miss a tournament, by definition, this result will not enter in your "Best 3 results average", so only your "global results average" will be affected.
This NEW system will then also encourage players to play a lot of MERS tournament : the more tournaments you play the more chances you have to improve your "Best 3 results average"
Oliv'
"Looking at the European ranking," and not that you wrote so, my remark regarding the NEW EMA ranking is not suitable...
Oliv'