A page to hold old requests to the EGD
| Table of contents |
gaius: I looove this feature. But it's extremely slow when you request the winning probabilities from 1995 up to 2010 (basically, the whole period). I can also imagine that processing such a request puts a fairly big strain on the server... Maybe it's an idea to save the winning statistics of the *entire* database in a text file which is periodically updated, so that it can be retrieved quickly?
European official ratings, and imported from there. Perhaps Ales Cieply can better answer that.
15213374 Oh Chimin DE Ber 7d 2785 11 3 14237795 Han Sang-hun KR xxx 3p 2782 2
http://gocafe.blogspot.com/2008/08/ales-cieply-gibt-egf-rating-ab.html), he'll maintain the GoR in future? I don't understand the relation between GoR and EGD at all...
http://gemma.ujf.cas.cz/~cieply/GO/gor.html "The EGF ratings are moving to the European Go Database. We intend to complete the move by the next (April) update. A new system for results submission is already functional."
http://gocafe.blogspot.com/2009/03/egf-rating-verschmilzt-mit-egd.html - merging of GoR and EGD - with an online access and semi.automatized result processing + the old issue FIGG/AGI, with the AGI maintaining the EGD while not officially EGF member.
http://www.godiscussions.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4075). Imho these graphs (normalized rating distribution etc.) show more about the population and the influx of new players than about deflation.
http://www.dgob.de/yabbse/index.php?topic=1054.msg117798#msg117798 ).
Svetlana Shikshina's playing card. I noticed she'd had a reset when she was promoted (purely for ceremonial purposes) to 3p. Is this normal practice in the pro ranks? Applying the policy used for amateur dan ranks it's an unquestionable decision, but I wondered if this was an eyebrow raiser. :)
http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/EGF_rating_system.php (the official rating lists).
Dutch Go Competition was added, which dates to march 9 of this year. I noticed that despite a very good result, the rating for
Frederik Spanhoff did not actually seem to change. Now when I look at his GoR evolution, I can see that both this event, and the next one he played (Nijmegen, played march 21) are given as being calculated from a start rating of 2328.688. So apparently, the earlier event (which was entered later) is not taken into account when calculating the rating after the later event. Perhaps this is normal and there is a periodic recalculation, but I was curious about it.
Frederik Spanhoff's card now: everything is ok.
http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/Tournament_Card.php?&key=T090502B&pin=14337147 which lists my opponents. Both the "12801932" and "Kiyohiko Tanaka" links go to his results for the same tournament. I think the "12801932" link should go to his player page, i.e
http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/Player_Card.php?&key=12801932. Currently I can find no way to do this other than copying the PIN and typing it into the URL directly.
The last step in submitting results is a list of ratings resets in the tournament, and EGD asks you to check their grades before submitting. It would be really handy if you could include a link direct to the player's graph so that one can check on each one without having to go out of EGD.
It also doesn't accept spaces. This does not reflect reality. There are many names with characters and/or spaces. Such flaws leads to an inability of accurate input of many names. I see no reasonable reason for this, nor do I see how this isn't something that shouldn't be fixed.
Latin alphabet. There are several good reasons to have such limitation, the first one being that Latin character set is the only one fully ASCII. So, unless we use this limitation, it would be quite difficult to make sure that a) incoming data are always correctly typed and b) data from the database are always correctly rendered by every user's browser. Fortunately, for every non-latin alphabets (including Asian languages, Hebrew, Cyrillic, etc...) there are transliteration systems widely accepted. The reason for not accepting spaces is different. The fact is that EGD is feeded by results tables exported by pairing programs, and in these tables fields are always spaces-delimited. So the space cannot be accepted within a name. When it occurs in real names, it is easily replaced by an underscore "_", and everything is fine :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet#Extensions
The very one you linked to. If that's not enough...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_letters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_alphabet#Old_English
If that's still not enough...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_characters_in_Unicode
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin-1_Supplement_unicode_block
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Extended-A_unicode_block
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Extended-B_unicode_block
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO-8859-15
I obviously don't hold (and have indeed clearly gone against)? That is rather rude. Did you not pay attention to what I said?
...oh, and BTW, about à,è,ì,ò,ù: Any, not too unusual, keyboard can produce those, with the `-key (the same goes for letter with ¨,~,^ or ´)
Having said this, it's clear that we do not agree. Not a problem, right ? Peace :-)
There are keys for ¨,~,^ and ` on any QWERTY keyboard (actually... that one seems a bit lacking, and I'm unsure how common
this version is. Well, any non-English keyboard will have the proper keys ...with the curios exception of the Italian one), but again: why should limitations of input, limit the EGD? Either way, I accept that I won't be able to change your mind on the issue. As to the spaces...
Zarlan: Oh wait! Alt-n!? do you mean like ALT + <number>? Alt codes? That's more something for letters like å and ß (I've memorised the Alt code for ß BTW. That and ¯).
Herman: I think you have an overly optimistic view of the simplicity of this issue. As the discussion already shows, there is no clear definition of what the "Latin alphabet" is. For computers, this might be Basic Latin (ascii) with the possible addition of
Latin-1,
Latin_Extended-A,
Latin_Extended-B,
Latin_Extended-C and
Latin_Extended-D. My browser (FF3 on WinXP) can render Latin-1, Latin-A and part of latin-B, but none of Latin-C or Latin-D.
You reference
ISO-8859-15, which discards the signs ¼, ½ and ¾. But these are extremely common in tournament tables. An alternative might be Windows-1251, which includes all printable characters from ISO-8859-15, as well as ¼, ½ and ¾, but that charset has its own problems, especially on non-Windows systems.
You dismiss Cyrillic with "should be transliterated anyway (they should, after all, be readable by Europeans).", but Russia is a part of Europe, and a member of the EGF, so why not
cyrillize western European names for Russian easy of reading?
I think that instead, an approach that uses both an ascii representation and a "native alphabet" representation (so including Cyrillic, Hebrew, Chinese, etc) would be better. If things like integration between EGD and OpenGotha move ahead, players could simply be referred based on PIN, and tournament organizers could choose to either use the simple ascii representation when printing, or use native alphabet. Using PIN numbers for the results sent to the EGD would also preclude confusion on spelling and transliteration.
Tapir: Hi all, the cyrillic, hebrew, arabic letter argument in a discussion about latin alphabets pretty much looks like a straw-man. As well the ¼ argument in ISO-8859-15, since it is so very uncommon in names. However, contrary to Zarlan I believe adding all diacritical signs and language-specific special-letters to the package may allow to add the single correct spelling but will generally increase confusion as a lot of players may habitually write simplified-latin-alphabet e.g. in online forms, correctly in on-site forms etc. I would address this only after the PIN (integration) issue, however I don't like that Herman mixes things up conceptually - i.e. non-standard signs in latin alphabets with other alphabet types as native alphabet, because both are different issues. E.g. a name written in non-standard latin alphabet other latin alphabet users may at least read (and pronounce more or less wrong without need for transliteration) while cyrillic, hebrew, korean names will definitively need a transliteration at the European Go Congress.
Flatline: The discussion was not about Latin alphabets, until I had the bad idea of using this definition. I meant it strictly related to the Basic Latin, but unfortunately this messed things up because there are many "Latin alphabets". A couple of posts ago I suggested to drop any reference to Latin since it clearly drives us on a slippery floor, and stick to the ASCII definition. What I'm saying, is that for all the above mentioned reasons, I think that - for the time being - players names in EGD must be in ASCII characters, in order to avoid further complications.
tapir: Well, the request was about names with certain non-standard latin letters and diacritic marks. Regarding complications, I don't disagree :)
Herman: Actually, I was not arguing against you. I was arguing that although I like your idea in general, you seem to have an overly optimistic view of the simplicity of implementing it. I think it is a good idea for the EGD to support extended latin characters. But I also think it is a good idea to support other alphabets, like cyrillic. I think these are part of the same issue, and should not be solved separately, but together. I don't understand why you do not want Cyrillic. Over 10% of the EGD players have a Cyrillic name, are they second class go players?
Zarlan: Not arguing against me? You were arguing against my supposed overly optimistic view of how simple it is. How is that not arguing against me? (and what has your liking my idea, have to do with anything?)
Aaanyway...
Around 90% of EGD players can't read Cyrillic. 100% of EGD players can read Latin letters. Therefore, it is highly impractical to use Cyrillic, seeing as barely anyone would be able to read it. "Basic Latin vs Extended Latin" and "Basic Latin vs Complete Unicode" are completely different issues. To equate them, is an obviouscategory error. I don't think, say a Japanese person, would be offended at having his name written in latin letters, in the EGD. Everyone else would have reason to complain, if his name was written in kanji though, as gibberish (which it'd be, to anyone not able to read Japanese) has pretty much zero usefulness.
Herman: The current (basic latin) representation of the EGD is readable by 100% of players. What is the added value of using extended latin, when not all of extended latin is readable by 100% of the players? How many of the "extensions and ligatures" at the
list of latin letters can you read? How many of the letters with diacritics? How many can you pronounce correctly?
In my opinion, the added value is that you can write a persons name correctly, even if that means that not everyone can read or pronounce it correctly. This especially has value in domestic tournaments or rating lists, where all the players will know how to correctly read and pronounce the names.
My suggestion was to use a basic latin representation, as well as a "native alphabet" representation. A solution that allows absolutely everyone to have their name represented in a readable format for Europeans in general, but also in a correct format for domestic use. So Russians at a Russian tournament can print names in Cyrillic, Hungarians tournaments can print them in the Hungarian alphabet, etc.
Zarlan: Well Herman... "How many can you pronounce correctly?" you ask? Can you pronounce the name... "Louis" correctly? Or "Aron"? There are more than one way of doing it, you know. How do you pronounce the letter v? Basic ASCII, yet you still don't know how to pronounce it. The problem isn't the ability to pronounce, but to read. How many can I read? All (more or less correctly). Well, my browser might not render all of the letters, but as I've already said, I seriously doubt that any of those exist in names. As to the rest... I fully agree with tapir.
Herman: Er, yes, exactly. The point I was making above is that neither basic latin nor extended latin really allow non-native speakers to pronounce the name correctly. You claim you can read all of them. But what do you mean by that? Obviously, you don't mean you can pronounce them, so what do you mean when you say you can "read" them?
As I have said, multiple times now, I am not arguing against the inclusion of extended latin. I am arguing against the exclusion of Cyrillic (and other alphabets). Why should a large part of the European go players not be allowed to have their name spelled correctly? What is wrong with having both a correct (native alphabet) spelling and a general use (basic latin) spelling? Sure, as tapir suggests, we can have it in three formats (basic latin, extended latin and native) if we want. We could even have the software try to automatically convert between such representations (through iconv and things like that), based on what usage is intended.
Flatline: Forgive me if I may be repetitive, but I'd like to better explain my point of view.
1) people who send tournaments data to EGD are many, with many different systems and skills; I want to make things as easy as possible for them, and at the same time I want to reduce the possibility of serious mistakes. Please consider that such people often are handling players coming from different countries, so - for instance - an italian organizer can have in his tournament players coming from Lithuania (such as Janavièiûtë Þivilë and Damoðiûtë Rûta), from Norway (such as Vestgården, Øystein), France (such as Seailles Jean-François) etc... Well, this guy has neither an adequate keyboard nor the necessary skills to handle correctly these names. So, he will have troubles (first problem) and the data he will send to EGD will suffer of likely errors (second problem). And it's not a good answer saying "go and ask the player himself", because sometimes this can be difficult.
2) EGD wants to be as easy-accessible as possible. So I say that yes, I'm also concerned about the fact that not every browser renders correctly extended charsets. I agree that this can be played around by storing two different formats (maybe three, as tapir suggests), so I think that this will be the way. Not a trivial one, by the way...
tapir: I guess additional name formats will be possible/convenient to handle only after the PIN-age started, anyway. P.S. Just to make sure, EGD is wonderful even in basic latin letters.
Zarlan: I don't quite feel like explaining how people can read a name like say Vlad Ţepeş (aka Dracula), despite not quite knowing how to pronounce it and as it's not really that important in affecting the EGD anyway... Also, I should perhaps clearly state that I understand and acknowledge Flatline's concerns now. Not the rendering issue, on which I am still unconvinced, but the rest is enough by itself. I hope that the PIN-age will come soon :)
deft: I can only say that the situation for scandinavian players is very bad, as there is a big difference between A and Å, O and Ø and in fact they may be completely different names. We normally substitute aa for å but in fact we have people who have this substitution in their family name for historic reasons. I think these letters are present in all Latin codepages and I know for a fact they are supported by the MacMahon software so I don't see any good reason why the EGD doesn't support them.
mohsart: Having reported the Swedish results for some years, I don't know how many DAYS I've spent changing spaces to _ or - and å, ä, ö to aa, ae, oe... And if we by any chance would like to use the data in other circumstances, it is not really possible to change back to the real, original, spelling since for example one player spells his name with a "oe" in his name. I have had thoughts about a workaround to spell these three characters with capitals, but it is such a ugly thing to do. Except for a small quarrel with Ales about this a couple of years ago, the last time I saw anybody defending 7 bit ascii was in the mid 90-ies, when email programs started to be able to handle extended ascii/ansi relatively consistent. Oh and if you didn't get it, the åäö, as well as the Polish L with a dash over it, are unique characters, they are not variations of a, o, and l, as e.g. ä is in german. So 1. The 7 bit ascii convention is not used by most programs today, and the less we support the use of it, the more programs will start accepting modern (well) standards like iso 8859-1. 2. Disallowing e.g. åäö and spaces makes it A LOT more work to report tournament results, my guess is that it tripled the time needed for me. 3. Not allowing e.g. åäö and spaces makes the database more or less useless for other uses, e.g. for a club to list their members. 4. For clubs, exchanging åäö with two character transcriptions brings more confusion about which club the player belongs to. Not is only e.g. Karlskoga and Karlshamn hard to separate, but also Örebro and Öregrund.
Laman: i know this was already answered, but nevertheless, i would like to repeat how much more convenient would be the inclusion of native forms of names. with the Czech diacritics being simply stripped when converting to ASCII, one has to only guess real forms of some unusual surnames. i also sometimes post tournament results to a news site egoban.cz and if i want to write foreign names i don't know with the original spelling (which i believe everyone deserves), it often requires a non-trivial effort to find it out on the national association ranking list, if such exists at all by the way, what separates us from the awaited PIN-identification age?
chtz: Would it be possible to give every player the opportunity to provide a real name, in cases where the transcription differs? Afterwards, it might be possible to optionally either search for real names or EGF names (or automatically transcribe names with non-ASCII characters when searching, but still additionally show the real names in result lists). You might even allow non-latin alphabets to be used for real names.
Not really that important for the EGD, but I noticed the eta parameter seemed to be at 0.0016 recently, it used to be lower. Did I miss when this was changed? Maybe a record could be left here?
Edu: Currently the chart shows tournaments on the x-axis equally spaced. Could you think of changing it so, that the x-axis would really represent time. In other words, if there are tournaments in the beginning of 2004, 2005, and 2008, the spacing between the last two would be three times the spacing between the first two. This would help interpretation of any single chart as well as comparison of several charts.
Herman: Is it an idea to have the graph size at a fixed width per year, instead of a fixed width for the whole graph? As it is, the graph will crunch further and further together as years get added. Instead, perhaps a format that uses 1 pixel per week (so 52 per year) would work? Those longest in the database (1996-2009, almost 14 years) will currently have a graph about 700 pixels wide, which is quite acceptable for any display resolution. I think it would also stay acceptable for quite a long time (eg: after 20 year, in 2016, the width will be just over 1000 pixels, easily acceptable even on today's screens).
tapir: What is the policy regarding pictures and .sgf-files? Should not pictures be uploaded only with approval of the person showed? And what happens with kifus... if someone prefers not to have a game uploaded, but the opponent did?
tapir: Once more concerning .sgf's. What if a .sgf uploaded by one player contains mistakes? (Not only the mistakes made by the unhappy opponent who don't want to see it online, but recording mistakes.)
eko410: What about to combine the .sgf files and game pictures? It would be great if we can upload a photo taken during a game like uploading the .sgf file of that game (the photo may show two opponents or the go board during the game).
sh: In some countries (e.g. Germany, Netherlands, Belgium) it is common practice to allow kyu ranks in the range from 1k to 30k. The EGD database however only allows kyu ranks from 1k to 20k. I think there are several arguments in favor of expanding the valid range to 30k:
1) It is more beginner-friendly. Especially for children who play casually on tournaments, because their daddy or mommy or elder brother/sister attends the tournament. When I started to play on tournaments (after having played on KGS and having studied the game intensely for four months) I was 20k, and I noticed that there was a huge difference to the 30k players. So some of these kids who are nominally 20k but actually 30k would get creamed by someone whose playing strength is really 20k. This would not be very motivating and possibly even scaring off newbies to attend tournaments.
2) Sometimes the pairings of tournaments are created based on these ratings (opposed to those based on self assessment which is actually the majority of tournaments in Germany). They claim to make the pairings so, that players of equal strength play each other, hence the (very useful) method according to McMahon is applied. However with the narrow range this claim would really go astray in the ddk ranks.
3) A 30k player can actually reach a rating of 400 if he beats other 30k's in a tournament (one of my daughters is an example for that). This means that all the ranking tables below a rating of 400 are completely meaningless and it would leave only 16 relevant kyu ranks (which has also an influence on pt. 2)
4) One thing that makes go unique is that it has such a huge broadness of difference in playing strength. It is said that there are 40 ranks from beginner to professional, if a difference of one rank is supposed to be a 2/3 vs. 1/3 win probability. In other games there much fewer ranks, even in chess and chess like games the number of ranks does not exceed 20. So if you subtract the maximally 10 dan ranks it would leave 30 ranks for kyu players. So here we are.
I wonder why the EGD opted to allow only 20 kyu ranks when it was created.
Herman: Agree. Actually, I think there should be no bottom at all. The AGA rating system seems to function just fine without a bottom. The effect that sh mentions in point 3 for ratings under 400 can be very easily seen in this graph:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Distribution_of_EGF_ratings_over_Ranks.png
Dieter: Just another opinion (oh, how fun is it to flood the web with one's opinions): I cannot distinguish between 22k or 17k. When I have to assess a newcomer at the club, by the time I can, they have already progressed up to 15k. I think 15k is the real starting point of a meaningful rank. So, absolute beginners will always get a rank of 25k, which means "default beginner rank, soon to progress to a meaningful rank". The ranks between 25k and 15k are just there to give some consistency to the ranking system. From that point of view, a 30k must be someone who doesn't know the rules or doesn't see any atari: indeed, such condition gives little potential for progress.
tapir: In my opinion one should start fetishizing rank as late as possible, better never. Considering yourself as a "my strength is 27k, i have nearly no chance against this 22k" holds you back. Kalli Balduin lets people (children) start at 50k, adding one rank per win (never subtracting) til they reach meaningful ranks to give some feeling of progress. That is not relevant to EGD though.
sh: It seems reasonable that a 2d player cannot distinguish between a 17k and a 22k. To him both players are incredibly weak. However when I was 17k, I had a tough game with a 23k on a tournament, giving him three stones. So the rank difference at these stages do make sense in my point of view, even up to 30k. Being 30k is a little bit more than just knowing the rules. It includes knowing about some very basic concepts as shown (and trained) on
playgo.to. Rank is not an end in itself, it just serves to roughly indicate one's playing strength and create interesting matches on tournaments.
tapir: The main argument wasn't handicap is of no use for beginners (sure it is and it should be used - and is used - in play but reported as 20k) but it changes too fast for a rating system based on tournaments (at most one a month often less) to cope with. Rank adjustment by 2 stones between the tournaments -> reset of rating may well be the rule there.
Flatline: Just for answering sh who asked: "I wonder why the EGD opted to allow only 20 kyu ranks when it was created.": EGD was created this way for the simple reason that this was (and is) the provision stated by the EGF rating system. Having said this, I think it works fine. Tournament directors are of course free to use ranks below 20k, and to compute handicap basing upon these ranks. But these results - for the reasons explained by tapir - are not relevant to the rating system.
Herman: I think that the largest problem with the current system is the fact that many ranks stronger than 20 kyu are also affected. If, for example, a 13 kyu defeats a 25 kyu with a 9 stone handicap, then under the current system this is considered equivalent to him winning an even game against an 11 kyu. This is because the system silently upgrades the 25 kyu to 20 kyu (rating 100, because it doesn't go any lower), but does not adjust the handicap. The player will receive some 60 rating points for this match, while realistically it should only be worth 10 or so.
Dieter: I can understand the existence of a 25k rank. A 30k would lose with nine stones to a 21, who's someone who barely understands the most basic concepts. One cannot forbid such people to play 19x19, neither in tournament conditions, but I wouldn't encourage it either by encapsulating it in a rating system.
Herman: I agree that there is probably little point in trying to calculate ratings for players under 20 kyu, because such players usually improve so rapidly that their rating is unlikely to ever be accurate. I do think that it is bothersome that such players do influence the ratings of other players though. How about a solution where any player weaker than 20 kyu is put in the database at their reported rank, with a rating of zero (so they will be sorted below all 20 kyu's for purpose of generating lists), and their game are ignored for other players ratings.
Ian? I was looking at this event,
http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/Tournament_ShowGoR.php?key=T090831B
My understanding was that games using handicaps greater than 9 stones were not entered into the rating system. I see from this event that they are.
tapir: agagd and egd using the same technics may be an opportunity to approach the RankWorldwideComparison statistically at least between aga - euro-ranks. is something like this planned?
tapir: With the AGA-EGD link in place right now... is there any possibility to see an output of AGA-EGD rating relations soon? Basically all is in place, one just needs to extract this data.
Tapir: I read on a german go blog (Makko's Go Café) and the DGoB-Forum about some players wishing to be anonymous (in tournament play) and ongoing discussions between EGD and EGF and DGoB how to handle this. While I don't endorse this (tournaments are public, finally - though I dislike the excessive photographing at tournaments), I would be interested to read something about the current situation.
Herman: In my opinion, a go tournament is a public venue. If you do not want your name published, don't visit the tournament or register under a false name. You simply cannot run a tournament without publishing pairings and results. I do think we can expect tournament organizers to respect privacy insofar as to not publish personal details like email address, date of birth, or similar personal information, but I do not think that that privacy protection extends to the name of a player.
Flatline: I've tried to read the blogs, even if I had to rely upon Google for the translation, since I cannot read German. Anyway in the reported case EGD didn't accept the tournament results, so the player agreed to move back to his real name. This must be regarded as a standard policy: nicknames are not allowed, for all the reasons already pointed out in the blogs as well as here.
PeterHB:
Looking at this couple of examples:
http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/Stats_Country.php?ricerca=1&country_code=UK&club=Read
http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/Stats_Country.php?ricerca=1&country_code=UK&club=Purb
There is a 'JpGraph Error'. This appears to be caused by trying to create a graph from a single data point. I wonder if this special case might be intercepted, and a less obtrusive message displayed. Just a minor suggestion.
Since the European Go Federation has a new logo, I would like to request that the EGD updates their page to use that new logo.
Have you ever tought about giving rating for some online tournaments? The Fujitsu Preliminarys will be held on KGS this year... Maybe there would be more online tournaments for European players if they would be eligible for rating.
isd:The EGF doesn't accept ratings taken from online games. I don't see them changing their mind.
I know they didnt until now. But I think that would popularise playing of go. It would be good if they would maybe organise a tournament on some server once per month(or per two months, or every two weeks or whatever). Some players that are active but cannot attend tournaments would be quite satisfied.
isd: Wow, I just saw that the
Fujitsu preliminarys were actually submitted. Maybe this is just a special case though?
I really hope they will start to accept online tournaments. As soon as they say they are accepting them, I will organise one.
Flatline: the Fujitsu preliminary has been a very special case. We are discussing within the ratings committee in order to settle rules for accepting on-line games in general. I guess that at the end they will be rather strict.
Well, we are waiting your decision than :)
Anything?
tapir: It seems kind of clear (to me) that in the end only special online events will count for this purpose. But how about e.g. the German Bundesliga. Played online regularly, but by people with identifiable EGF rating, appropriate time limits etc.
Lovro Furjanic - They will talk about it on AGM.
isd: From my understanding now, a very few limited events will be accepted.
It would be nice if the tournament table was presented as an HTML table, rather than as a simple text file in a box (the admin back end already has a function something like it). This table could then use some advanced styling and function. The German Association already has something like that on their own site. For example:
http://www.dgob.de/tourn/tourn.cgi?f=07debbcp.txt&mode=cml
Some nice things that could be done:
Flatline: Yes, it would be nice. When the tournament card was originally designed, it was intended in a very player-centric perspective. It occurs often to me to think that I should change it soon or later...