Forum for European Professional System

EPS operational rules [#3121]

Back to forum     Back to page

New reply

 
reply
kmr: EPS operational rules (2015-03-06 09:59) [#10411]

I must express my words of anger and displease as EPS rules are not available to public.For me its just worst way of handling things.I assume both Pavol Lisy and Ali signed some sort of contract with EGF.So i think they know what they signed.And this is so big secret?For participants of new pro qualificatin to?I found it extremely disgusting.

X
tapir: Re: EPS operational rules (2015-03-06 11:59) [#10412]

Are you sure they exist and are kept secret as opposed to "not yet written"?

kmr: Re: EPS operational rules (2015-03-06 13:37) [#10413]

Lol no, i am not sure, thx for pointing it, very good call.But.... According to my knowledge all pro must sign a kind of contract with EGF (according to this [ext] http://www.eurogofed.org/proqualification/EU-Pro-System_%20final-version-5_2014-04-09.pdf). This rules mention EPS Operational rules and there is: EPS Operational rules describes how management fee (paid by pros to EGF) is calculated. EPS Operational rules describes how pro can be promoted. EPS Operational rules describes exact number of players and possible candidates selection criteria. EPS Operational rules describes all technical details of European Pro System.

Would you sign any contract not knowing what is inside those EPS operational rules?I doubt.

Liso: Re: EPS operational rules (2015-03-12 20:20) [#10428]

I saw your question during KGS broadcast from pro qualification in Pisa. So I asked. EPS OR doesnt exist yet and probably won't exist in 2016. It is not so easy to find good version. Contract says that deadline to be written is in 2017. (I checked it -> [ext] http://www.eurogofed.org/egf/CEGO_contract.pdf )

kmr: Re: EPS operational rules (2015-03-13 10:41) [#10429]

Thank you very much for your answer, and efforts to reveal truth.I assume that these EPS rules when will be written, must be signed by EGF pro's separately (otherwise it would be very bad for them if they must agree with sth that can be written strongly not in they favor,like 95% management fee ;) ).If yes, then i think EGF pros are safe from what EGF will write in these Operational Rules.But anyway its very bad that these rules are not written yet.

Timm: Re: EPS operational rules (2015-03-13 15:23) [#10430]

You're not in a position to blame others, IMO.

kmr: Re: EPS operational rules (2015-03-13 16:02) [#10431]

Really good that its not up to you, who i can criticize and who i cant.

reply
OscarBear: ((no subject)) (2015-03-06 15:18) [#10415]

Indeed, it seems likely that a lot of implementation details in the system are yet to exist - remember, there are only 2 professionals so far.

X
kmr: Re: ((no subject)) (2015-03-06 16:35) [#10416]

Yeah i know the system is in the birth phase so it needs to still much work, but rules are crucial (before important game rules must be agreed), and transparency is very important too. And btw, 2 professionals is "only 2" now.If they keep pace with promoting, who will become pro in the 20 years future?EGF 2530?It must be thinked in advance, not - "omg Houston, we have problem".

HermanHiddema: Re: ((no subject)) (2015-03-07 20:52) [#10417]

Please do go and volunteer at the EGF then. They can use all the manpower they can get.

kmr: Re: ((no subject)) (2015-03-08 06:27) [#10418]

This response would be much better if you wouldnt be a member of any EGF comission.Try better defense of your collageus.Is this so hard to publish document which should exist for long time?

Iepur: Re: ((no subject)) (2015-03-08 10:17) [#10419]

It is better to ask for the documents at an AGM. Probably they started writing them in 2014, rather than having them finished and available in 2014.

HermanHiddema: Re: ((no subject)) (2015-03-08 14:26) [#10420]

Defense? I am not discounting your criticism, I agree it would be good to have these documents. The reason that not all of them have been written yet is quite simple: too little manpower. So I am seriously saying: The EGF needs all the help it can get. Please volunteer, we need more people.

kmr: Re: ((no subject)) (2015-03-08 17:12) [#10421]

So, you are saying that this crucial document isnt written?!Thats close to...absurd?!I am really lacking words.

Timm: Re: ((no subject)) (2015-03-08 17:21) [#10422]

Things need people to be created. Quite the discovery. :)

HermanHiddema: Re: ((no subject)) (2015-03-08 18:17) [#10423]

I have no idea whether it is written or not. Perhaps you can join the EGF as a volunteer, find out, and help people write/edit/publish or whatever still needs to be done? I cannot stress enough: EGF really needs volunteers.

Iepur: Re: ((no subject)) (2015-03-08 19:07) [#10424]

The EGF ought to have a page that sets out what people can volunteer for. The smaller the scope, the more likely it is to get done.

RobertJasiek: clarification of ambiguous ko rules (2015-03-10 05:43) [#10426]

Maybe, now, such rules exist somewhere but I have not seen them yet: since Chinese Rules are used, there ought to be a clarification of the ambiguous ko rules. When I was in the EGF Rules Commission (now EGF Tournament and Rules Commission), I offered that the commission could write the clarification but Martin Stiassny, EGF President, considered it premature. Now, if such a clarification does not exist yet, it is not premature any longer but already delayed. Is the EGF Tournament and Rules Commission working on a clarification? When will it be published? This is not a matter manpower because a simple solution is possible: positional superko and, in the EGF General Tournament Rules, add 1.1.4.4 Chinese Rules as one of the possible rules of play. Example text under this heading: "Chinese Rules with 7.5 full counting komi, by default Chinese Half Counting [if this is the used or preferred counting procedure] and always Positional Superko." Further clarifications could be added, the PSK could be spelled out explicitly or a different ko rules clarification used, but this is an example solution for the core ambiguity.

kmr: Re: clarification of ambiguous ko rules (2015-03-10 08:58) [#10427]

Robert, i think you are misunderstanding sth.EPS Operational Rules, have not much in common with under what tournament rules they are playing (i.e. Chinese or Japanes, what komi, etc - you know the stuff).They are all about professional system (management fees, system of promotion to higher dans,obligations, etc).Your remark is valuable, but this is kind another story :D.

reply
89.94.21.7: The Ages (2019-05-20 01:20) [#11375]

I search a little and see no where what is the maximum year old for participing at the European go qualification. Globaly EPQ rules are not writing on the EGF site and i can't find them anywhere. Thanks for your help. And if my answers have their ask adding them on the main page can be a good idea.

 
Back to forum     Back to page

New reply


Forum for European Professional System
RecentChanges · StartingPoints · About
Edit page ·Search · Related · Page info · Latest diff
[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]
RecentChanges
StartingPoints
About
RandomPage
Search position
Page history
Latest page diff
Partner sites:
Go Teaching Ladder
Goproblems.com
Login / Prefs
Tools
Sensei's Library