Congrats Prasanna, Rohan, Rishi and Sumit. All the Best for the World Championships. Can we have the Points table of the National Finals similar to last year.

Edited by rvarun 2014-07-14 12:05 PM

On what basis was this wildcard given? And why were these parameters, or even the possibility of wild-cards being given not announced up-front before the regional rounds?Rishi is someone who can very comfortably make the team 9 times out of 10. But are the rules same for everyone?

I would assume the basis is that he is last year's champion in the same tournament. I don't know anything more about it, but apart from the "not announced up-front" part, it seems a solid reason.

I came to know that Rishi would be competing only when I reached TOI office yesterday's morning.I don't know if other participants had first hand information about this.Not that knowing about the same prior to the event would have helped or affected my solve in any way.My initial impression after seeing him was that he had arrived to assist Amit in organizing.Most likely the decision to include him must have been a last minute one .After getting to know that he would be competing, I knew that this was going to be rat race once again like last year with only the fourth spot up for grabs.

From what I understand ,Rishi was given a wild card entry for having finished first in the Indian Sudoku Championship 2014 which was what we thought would be the way to select the team for the WSC.No one had any clue on whether the TSC would eventually happen or not.When it did happen and Rishi did not qualify it must have put the organizers in a spot of bother.I got to know from Prasanna that the top 4 from ISC and the four invited for the Indian B Team had already booked tickets and their visas are in the final stage of approval.You can't blame them for booking in advance because like I said no one had a clue about whether TSC would be there or not.

Considering the above and keeping in mind the best interests of the Indian Team,I think the decision to give him a wild card is fair enough.Imagine this coming from someone who missed the team by finishing 5th this year too, just because Rishi found a spot in the top four.I have begun to hate the number 5 nowadays...TSC 2013 :5th,ISC 2014 :5th,TSC 2014 :5th.(Perhaps a bit more consistent than where I would want it ). How unlucky I must be !.. .I can't express how sickening it was yesterday (for finishing 5th again).Coming back to the issue at hand, considering that Rishi has been given a wildcard why not the other 2 from top 3 of ISC be given a wild card too?.Rohan had already qualified through TSC so no probs on that part.The only person who could have staked his claim for getting a wild Card entry is Gaurav for finishing 3rd in ISC but at the same time I understand that he is not here in India .Most probably he would be included in the Indian B Team instead of A Team.

---Kishore---

Your run is pretty similar to Swaroop's run in IPCs. In 2011 he would've been 3rd without mistakes, if I remember right, and both 2012 and 2013 he was 5th. He's on the Puzzle team this year, so hopefully that happens for you too (with the Sudoku team) sometime soon :)

It was as much a surprise for me as any one. Only Amit or Deb can answer the reasoning behind it. But this was a Times of India competition and not an LMI so I am assuming Amit and all needed the buy in from TOI too before a decision was made.

Kishore, you are in terrific form and all I can say is that looking at the way you are going, the team india spot is not far away.

The rules are indeed common for all and that is why Rishi lost in the Bangalore round because of a single incorrect digit.

The eventual aim of the competition is to select the best team to represent India at the World Championships and it is a limitation of the competition format which penalizes a participant for making a simple error.

I will not write much about how good a player Rishi is, but it is amply evident from the fact that many of his competitors in the finals also asked me to explore the option of having him as a wild card entry in the finals. The decision was vindicated by the results which clearly show that Prasanna, Rishi and Rohan are way ahead of the rest.

But there is one aspect with which I will have to agree, which is that it would have been appropriate to announce this at the start of the event. We will take that as a learning for future years.

In the end I will close of with saying that it is good to see that TOI was on the same page with us in rewarding someone who has shown consistently good performance in various competitions throughout the year.

Sorry, this is still very troubling. Most of the serious participants know already that 2 - 3 people are a shoo-in for the Sudoku and Puzzle teams, with the rest fighting for the 1-2 remaining slots. The stake is higher for the Sudoku team (vs the Puzzle team) from the past few years since the Sudoku team participants get most of their World Championship expenses covered.

If we are going to give the top 2-3 folk more than one chance of making it to the main team because of their caliber, why even go through the trouble of making them compete. We could just as well pick all of them in advance, and have everyone else compete for the 1-2 remaining slots.

I don't see why this is any more troubling than the 2013 ruling which dismissed Gaurav, Sumit and Rakesh from competition, which no one raised much issue over. Ideally, the 3 of them should've at least been told about this before WSC 2012, and not just before TSC 2013. That was much more harsh, concerning 2 more people at the core of the issue, and not really making that much sense competitively either.

I get that two wrongs don't make a right, and Amit himself has agreed that it is not ideal to name a wildcard so late in the competition. My only point is, out of the two decisions, at least this one is (at least proven by Rishi's better performance in the more elaborately structured National Finals which would definitely be closer to a WSC setting) better for the Indian team, and at least it has some grounds in logic as opposed to the top 25 rule.

But I see your point and I hope wildcards (if any) are discussed and confirmed pre-tournament for 2015.

Looks like what I wrote could be interpreted the wrong way. Let me put it another way. Allowing the top 2-3 to make mistakes pulls the bar for accuracy lower on them relative to the rest of the people. This is a huge huge deal in live competition, and is great enough advantage for them to be able to qualify ahead of the rest even IF everything else was the same (skills, speed, etc.). Being faster than the rest makes it a cake-walk. So we should either set the same bar for everyone to move from the regional rounds to the national rounds, or give these 2-3 a direct pass to the nationals, since they are going to be taken there anyway. Is my line of thought clearer?

Lenson I agree with what you are saying and we will explore the option of giving a few pre-decided participants a bye into the national finals next year.
It will also give an opportunity for more people to compete in the national finals.

yes, I do agree with Amit and Lenson that from the next year we need to improve on process. Moreover giving Rishi wild card entry is in best interests of Team India and lets not debate on this.
Instead we can debate on improving the process. We have seen in last few years that some of best players not qualifying for national finals due to some minor mistakes in regional rounds. I suggest the following for the next year onward.
1. Option of pre decided participants a bye in national rounds (This may be done on basis of rank in ISC with ISC being conducted before TSC).
2. In case Times does not agree with wild card entry then making the regional round in such a way that making minor mistakes by best player does not completely rule out player from finals e.g. making little tough puzzles for regional final round, so that only few best players are just able to complete these puzzles in given time.

Please do suggest something more for improving this process.

@ Rajesh

The second point that you mentioned seems easier than what it actually is.
Since we extend the event to 1000s of people we need to make it accessible to everyone.
So we need to balance the fact that while we are trying to select the best team we also aim to popularize sudoku by letting more people explore solving the puzzles.

Can we have the final points round wise of the National Finals similar to last year.. Just a curiosity..

Edited by rvarun 2014-07-14 6:30 PM

This is as surprising to me as for others, but India Sudoku team need guy of Rishi caliber. Debating on this point further according to me is unfair to Rishi and to India Sudoku team.

From next year onwards why not give wild card entries to all the 4 national champions of only last year if they fit into TOI Sudoku championship criterion.
Rest All should go through normal process without any exception.
@Amit
Agree with you, if there are tough puzzles the purpose to take Sudoku to masses and popularize may get hit.
May be why not introduced one more round of top 10-15 participants after 2nd round with some tricky puzzles.

Edited by gaurav.kjain 2014-07-14 7:45 PM

@ Gaurav
We also work under some time constraints with regards to the venue to finish the event on time, which prevents us from having additional rounds.

Do keep posting your ideas coming in, so that we can improve the event even further in subsequent years.

One suggestion I have which can be explored and seems to be the best of both worlds (assuming the organizers are fine with providing a bit more solving content) is to simply fill the 60 minute round with more easy Sudokus. The proportion of points with the top rankers/newcomers will probably still remain the same but
1. It'll be more difficult for everyone to finish (stressing on the word finish, as it still won't be difficult to solve). This means its not as dependent on bonus, and also means that one mistake might not cause as much of a hit.
2. There'll be even more for people to solve and enjoy. I would assume an enthusiast would like to fill their hour with solving when the competition is basically just a one-time-a-year opportunity.

I second Prasanna's thoughts of providing more puzzles, so that best solver just solves in time. It will be win-win situation for both audience as well as organizers as both the objectives will be met.

I totally agree with Gaurav............
Firstly there is no point discussing on the wildcard of Rishi.... he has proved it by coming second in the tournament and we cant have a better Indian team atleast without Prassanna, Rohan and Rishi as none of us come near to these guys in any of these tournaments....take it regular LMI contests or World sudoku GP or any other contest.

Giving wild card for finals to the last years team is a very good idea and should be implemented if TOI agrees. This will give help to Amit and Deb also in organising the TOI championships as they will have 4 more people to help them in conduct the show.


All the best Team India...........I am sure of TOP 3 spot this year.

@Prasanna/ Rajesh

Do remember the problem of the scale.
More puzzles means more prints with the expectation that a large percentage of those will remain unsolved.

The main issue is the large rift between the top few solvers and the wider audience.
We can easily balance time so that no one completes or only the topper completes, but that would mean either too many puzzles or too less time.


I was wondering if we can design a mechanism in which we can check the paper instantly (say within 2 mins) and return it back if there is an error. One immediate drawback is the heavy requirement and dependence on volunteers.

If I may add my two cents here, The present format was designed with the purpose to give more and more people the chance to solve sudokus without having to give up on some due to time constraints. The reason for this was to pull people towards solving all the puzzles and enjoy them. Reducing time or increasing difficulty would simply diminish the common peoples enthusiasm greatly which will affect the participation in the long run.

Yesterday in Mumbai Prasanna, Rohan and I were discussing on this and we all felt that the top 4 of previous year should be given a bye to the finals. TOI need not take care of their travel expenses. This in turn ensures that places open up for others in the regional round and more and more newer people will be seen qualifying for the finals, which is one of TOI intents as well.

But this is obviously dependant on TOI's agreement too.

Rishi

Upsets are more common in sports. We have seen many greats exists in the first round of a tennis grand slams. Once a set of rules are framed, altering the same in the middle of an event is not in the true spirit.
I agree with the Rishis comment that top four can be given a bye from the regional rounds and more can be accommodated to the finals. Try the same to select the puzzle team also. l

I think that there are two targets to be achieved by organising these events.
1. To select the best team to represent India at WSC.
2. To popularise sudoku in public domain, so that there will be a continuous generation of new talents in sudoku solving by increasing the penetration of sudoku to aam junta.

For this, it would be better, if Top 4/5 solvers will be allowed directly to the finals (on the basis of their last year performances in ISC/TSC/WSC). And then organise TSC at regional level, selecting top4/5 finalists from each city. There are many solvers among aam junta who are consistently in top10 in their respective regional rounds for last 2-3years. It is disheartening for them to not get selected despite of their sincere efforts.

It is in the interest of game that more and more people participate with a thing in their mind that they can win.
Participating with the veterans at regional rounds is not good for the enthusiasm of aam junta, as they know that there is no chance for them to get selected.

Edited by Dileep Singh 2014-07-15 8:35 AM

Link : http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31804&articlexm...

I feel it is a pretty not so good article. They could have covered the event in detail rather than just a snippet given. :-(