|Renju World Champions||2008-04-02 03:46:47|
|Once upon a time I thought that there is only one championship in renju and only one champion. When I grew elder and participated in TWC-2002, I realized that there is quite a lot of champion titles in renju. During 2 years there are about 2(AT)+4..5(Youth)+2(Email)+4..5(Team)=12 to 14 titles being ...|
|Ants Soosõrv||2008-04-02 14:42:56|
I have made same kind of statistic and when i meet Yulia, every time i dont forget to tell to her about her titles :). As she is modest person, she doesnt like it much :).
Actually we have 6 gr. in Youth championships from year 2004, so 6 champion titles will be given there also this year in Haapsalu.
|Dmitry Epifanov||2008-04-02 18:21:09|
7 titles and 7 champions are chinese (every title except Team WC),
7 titles and 3 champions are estonian (no Team, Correspondence),
5 titles and 4 champions are japanese (no Team, no Correspondence),
2 titles and 1 champion is from Latvia (only Correspondence WC),
54 titles and 30 champions are russian (every title except AT),
1 title and 1 champion is from Sweden (only Youth WC).
Maybe it is interesting to split Russia to clubs and sections...
|Aivo Oll||2008-04-03 04:38:33|
|As long as you don`t have A-tournament champion, I don`t see any reason for that :).|
|Dmitry Epifanov||2008-05-07 19:10:32|
|Now 12 titles and 7 champions are estonian.
Waiting for Youth WC =)
|So the TWC is counted as 5 titles and 4 champions? wow! So how many world cups has Brazil won on football? :)|
|Dmitry Epifanov||2008-05-13 11:41:20|
|There are 5 titles being awarded, each team member became World Champion.
And only one of them (Tunnet Taimla) already was a World Champion, so there were 3 persons in Estonia who had WC title before TWC and now there are 7 persons who ever won WC title.
You see, I'm counting not countries, but players, because there are different WC titles - AT, TWC, YWC, CWC. Is there any world cup in football which is awarded to only one person each year? If yes, then your question is reasonable =)
|OK, I understand now that TWC is special coz it's not one title for a team but one title for each player :) I'd like to suggest similar method be used when counting gold medals for Olympics.|
|Dmitry Epifanov||2008-05-14 15:46:42|
|You see, I'm counting not Country's titles, but the title holders within each country.
Wait a bit, I'll calculate how do those titles spread among countries =)
|Dmitry Epifanov||2008-05-14 16:00:48|
|JAP A1989 A1991 A1995 A1997 Y2004 - 5 titles
EST A1993 A1999 A2001 A2005 A2003 T2008 Y1996 Y2002 - 8 titles
CHN A2007 E2003 E2004 Y1998 Y1998 Y2006 Y2006 - 7 titles
RUS W1997 W1999 W2001 W2003 W2005 W2007 T1996 T2000 T2002 T2004 T2006 E1997 E1998 E1999 E2001 E2002 E2005 E2007 Y1996 Y1996 Y1998 Y2000 Y2000 Y2000 Y2000 Y2002 Y2002 Y2002 Y2004 Y2004 Y2004 Y2006 Y2006 Y2006 Y2006 - 35 titles
SWE Y1998 - 1 title
LAT E1996 E2000 - 2 titles
That's it =)
|Ando Meritee||2008-05-14 16:37:09|
|I think Dmitry did not understand the point that luwenzhe was telling. The title holders within each country = the titles per country. In Olympic games, whenever they talk about particular sportsmen, they split the team medals, showing that these sportsmen got medals, but while accumulating the medals to represent the gains per country, the team medal is counted as one.
You created an artificial list, based on your wishful thinking, which is the opposite to common practice that is used in Olympic Games. (that is your right to do of course, but then don't deny it is an artificial list to let the country's total show bigger than it actually is). The TWC is one title, and the winning team members share this title, not getting 5 titles.
In Olympic Games they have 2 lists: sportsmen list (like you had, too) and countries list (team medal is counted as one).
But your artificial list multiplies the effect of medals. Just imagine, when there will be some future TWC event with teams of 60 people, so even though it was just 1 event, you can say the country's gain is 60 WC titles? Maybe 20 of them were actual players, and 40 were reserve players who perhaps did not play any games at all. But it will look mighty in the list the way you populated it.
The reason why Olympic Games are not using such wishful list is because there are events with huge teams. Then Imagine an olympic winner in one team-game of 30 members, will be listed above the country who got 29 individual gold medals from different events. It would be a mean joke, and that's why it is never listed that way.
Everybody understood your method of counting, there was no need to repeat it. The question here was the doubtful need of such artificial list. You just hide behind semantics, implying that players titles per country is not same as country's titles. But actually it is a same thing. And that is what luwenzhe was also trying to tell you.
|Dmitry Epifanov||2008-05-14 17:09:47|
|Maybe, Ando, you didn't notice two posts before. Where only (achieved by country) titles was taken into account, not title holders. As to me, I'm interested not in country statistics but in personal statistics. How many people has Renju World Champion title, who are those people, who is the most titled player and so on.
Anyway, now both kinds of statistics are represented, just read posts above bit more carefully.
|Ando Meritee||2008-05-14 18:17:04|
|This is ridiculous. My WHOLE statement was EXACTLY about your titles list, so it has nothing to do about "not careful reading". Did you understand the point of my comment at all? Let me repeat again:
Making such list "title holders within country" is an artificial and wishful list, even thought it is your right to make any kind of statistics, no matter how misleading it is to readers. And I explained it why it is not used in Olympic Games, in order to NOT mislead the readers with wishful statistic. You may feel personal excitement about making such accumulation which makes the country stand in higher position, letting people feel that country is much stronger than the others, but just remember it is confusing and misleading to others. It is what I was hoping you to understand, but in vain...
you didn't notice two posts before.
just read posts above bit more carefully.
Don't you ever tell me again to "read something more carefully"!! It was not the first time you are acting like this. If you want to be taken seriously, then don't question people's ability to read the text. Also, please confirm the facts before blaming anyone (like you said I was wrong when I mentioned the RIF funding issue to CWC before). Don't get a reputation of a person who says something first, and thinks later.
If you ever talk in such manner again, do believe, I will ignore everything you write or speak for the rest of my life.
|Dmitry Epifanov||2008-05-14 21:43:46|
|It seems that we are talking in different languages.
OK then. You may call personal statistics published here 'ridiculous', 'artificial', 'wishful', 'misleading', 'confusing' and so on. But a few posts above there is a correct statistics concerning not title holders within a country, but trophies took by countries. Each TWC means 1 trophy. Is that what you call Olympics? If no, could you please provide here your point of view on that (your statistic), hope it will take less time than to continue discussion is that tone we have now.
And... maybe each reader can decide which statistic is interesting and which is misleading and artificial by himself?..
|Ando Meritee||2008-05-14 22:40:47|
|First, don't twist my meaning. If you did not understand what "ridiculous" meant, then let me say it out long - it was my response to you didn't notice two posts before., not saying that the statistics is ridiculous. And yes, such statistic you first presented is "wishful" and "misleading". A typical demagogue always takes 2-3 true items, and pops 1 untrue item into list, making all seem true for the reader.
I was explaining you luwenzhe's meaning because you seem not have understood what he was telling you. And your responses to him were all made before you published another one, similar to Olympics.
Or do you think, as soon as you modify something, people cannot continue unfinished issue that was initiated before it?
When it comes to statistics, it is a complicated issue, and there is always a temptation to present "favorable statistics". I give you a good example: during this TWC, Estonia had a big lead in points after the first 3 rounds. On the renjunet first page, i could have just shown the gains, to make Estonia look powerful, but I chose a fair approach and put the losses behind too in brackets, so that people could easily notice that actually Russia and China are not really behind. Maybe you can think of these when you produce public statistics. You can always hide behind "let readers decide", but I am sure you have the ability to judge what kind of statistic can be misleading and what not. I just hope you can follow it through. If you don't have the ability, then I was wrong about you.
Some words to the ending of this endless dispute:
It is very hard to discuss anything with you. Just like in the topic of TWC Predictions, when I suggested that using the average of 4 players is one way to estimate the team's strength, while you suggestion was average of 5 players. Later you agreed that the actual strength of a team with a reserve player is 4 players average + something.
"average of 5" < "average of 4" < "4 players plus something"
Obviously my answer was closer to true value than yours, but you stated it as:
It seems that 2 models that you offered are quite poor (read above about that). My model (just avg rating) is also not fair.
Not very modest about yourself, are you? Just saying "not fair", while my solution was "poor". (for your request, I did not mention anything further about it in your topic there).
Some advice for you: Do not easily use the words like "you did not read carefully" or "you are wrong", because they are very personal. You can say freely there is a "misunderstanding" or "you did not understand me", because that only refers to miscommunication, that is a teamwork of 2 people, both responsible. Sometimes "not understanding" is maybe caused by poor explanation, not poor interpretation. It is a neutral expression, feel free to use it.
"you did not read it carefully" is very personal - this accusation implies that the person was very superficial and did not focus on reading, therefore not respecting the discussion partner. So, from targeting the topic, you are then targeting the person and his personality. And very seriously and in insulting manner.
"you are wrong" - it should only be used if you are 100% sure of what you are saying, and at the same time 100% sure that there has not been any miscommunication. Better never use it, if possible. You have said it several times to me, and each time in totally wrong place. You can imagine my reaction and feeling.
Even your critical comments on my d11 history article, you should have thought of how to be less aggressive and not crush my statement about d11 being balanced nowadays. t seems to me that now 11d gives a significant advantage to a white player because of 12-K8. As you saw in TWC, the wins of d11 were distributed as 12/13 to both side, nearly 50-50, played by the strongest players of the world. Against you ("expert"), black side gained 75% in d11. I know, the emotions, and the tournament situation pressure and all can influence the result, or the choice of variant against particular opponent. In fact, that was the very point of my article, to show how the d11 is handled throughout the times based on real tournament world.
You do not need to worry about my comments any more - I won't be responding to your writings any more. I wish you a nice life and nice renju career.