This is true, but in the long term, the best way to expand is to have our own offline National events - we can't always rely on the same partnerships, we need to seek out new ones and expand.

Also, the 8 online rounds roughly help a person know where they stand and give them a lot to enjoy before the finals, which is unlike TSC and more like GP vs WSC. The top 10 of the GP cannot always travel to the offline playoffs & WSC.

There have been many debates in the past over offline vs online. The problems go both ways. Some solvers will tell you how they have printer issues/internet issues/electricity issues/etc. but are fine with traveling once a year within India to participate. With an online ISC the window needs to be minimal (e.g. 2 PM to 4:45 PM in recent years), and that is very demanding of participants. Each year some top Indian solvers compete in 'unofficial time', and at least one or two will have issues within the official timeline eating into their scores. The Mahabharat format has more leeway on timeline of participation because we always know we can prove whether someone is a genuine solver in the finals, which is in itself, hopefully, enough incentive to play fairly.

More than anything, having offline Nationals will give more chances to attract awareness/publicity, and also build LMI's reputation for bigger plans ahead. There are always some players who suffer from the format, be it online or offline, which is very unfortunate, but by keeping it offline, at least we are giving ourselves more of a chance to grow.

Offline finals is a big step forward. It is time for us to stand behind the organizers and support their initiative. It is also time to share the financial burden of the organizer among us, till alternate arrangements are made.

More details here -

http://logicmastersindia.com/SM/2015-16sm.asp

Note that this is an early stage for the details, and things may be changed/updated soon (like a participation fee for offline finals, more clarification on prizes for ISC/Mahabharat respectively, etc.). At this stage the more important point was to get out the schedule and general structure of the online rounds since the first round is next weekend, so this page is being shared mainly for that purpose. We are working on more specifics and the Puzzle Ramayan page should also be up shortly.

The best place for finals should be Kurukshetra since the Mahabharata also happened there :P

But seriously the finals of such events always happens in Bangalore, Hyderabad or Mumbai.

I know the Sudoku population in Delhi/North is very less as compared to South and Mumbai ,but if finals events like this happen in Delhi/North region it would be a very good chance to introduce new people from these regions also. :)

The biggest factor isn't the general Sudoku population, it is the number of capable people who can put in the time and effort required to manage the logistics in that city. Deb, me and Rohan spent a good chunk of 5-6 weekends (at least, quite certain it was more) looking at potential venues, talking about the requirements and costs with the ones in charge of each venue, and had a constant line of communication going among ourselves for everything. There would probably be hundred emails between us discussing just the logistics part of the finals.

Someone needs to step up and show that they can do that in other cities, maybe by organizing meets, volunteering for other LMI events in the area, and so on. One example of this is in Chennai, where Rakesh, Varun and others took the initiative to start having meets, and before that, did a lot of groundwork for Sudoku Champs. By doing these things they gradually increase their general population too, and also give us confidence to say we can hold an event in that city. But without such efforts, there is no indication for us that we can remotely manage things with the logistics being handled locally, which puts the smooth running of the finals in huge doubt.

Note: I am only talking about events where LMI has a say in venue, like Sudoku Mahabharat, Sudoku Champs, etc. TSC doesn't count because the venues are decided by ToI.

wht happens if i miss a round. wont be in the country for round 2 and i think that will make a dent to the chances i may have in the best 6 out of 8. there should be an alternate plan also if someone misses a round and wants to compete

That's precisely one of the reasons for considering the best 6 scores .The discard may include an unattempted test in which case your best 6 of 7 will be considered.Imagine a scenario if the rankings were to consider all 8 tests instead of 6.So,basically what I am trying to say is that the leeway has already been established for anyone who may be forced to miss a test or 2......

Yea, consider also that all authors miss one round by default. I think 6 out of 8 is exactly the right leeway. Anything more would mean the top 50 aren't tested enough.

I have doubt regarding "Special Case Team Selection"
Who is considered qualifying for this after coming in top 3?
1. A person staying outside India for the period of 8 rounds i.e. till March 2016.
2. A person staying in India for 8 rounds i.e. till March 2016. However person needs to travel during the finals in July 2016 outside India.
3. A person who is having genuine reason for not able to travel for finals in July 2016. It may be due to some medical emergency or other reasons.

There is gap of 4 months at the end of last online round and offline round. Person who is not able to attend finals can come in top 3 after 8 rounds i.e. March 2016 and he/she becomes sure to be part of India A team in March 2016 itself. However others even if someone is in top 4 cannot be sure of part of India A team till finals in July 2016 happens.

My suggestion will be that person not attending offline finals and coming in top 3 can be made part of India B team and let the India A team be selected from offline finals.

Writing this so that other can put views on this procedure.

If I read the rules correctly, only 1 person will be given that leeway. So coming in the top 3 alone is not sufficient to make it to the A team; they need to be 1st.

But yes, there is a perverse incentive there for the person who comes 1st to not attend the offline finals. This is just theory, though.

As far as I could understand rules if a person comes 3rd and he/she is the only one who in top 3 which could not attend finals due to genuine reasons will be given wild card in Team-A and there will be another wild card for the best performing players at WSC/WPC. So in this case only two slots will be left to fight for during offline finals.
There is gap of around 4 months between the end of last online round and offline finals. This gap is good enough for a 4th rank player to improve and come in top 3. However with this rule 4th ranked players has to fight for top 2 slots.

Edited by rajeshk 2015-08-26 3:55 PM

Doesn't matter if they stay inside India or outside India during the course of the 8 online rounds.All that matters is DURING the offline finals ,if a person who is in the top 3(after 8 online rounds)is outside India then he/she is eligible for a wild-card.



Here, I am quoting the Special case Team Selection for clarity ." If an Indian citizen is living outside India and cannot attend the offline finals due to THIS REASON , AND that Indian is in the National top 3 after the 8 online rounds,that Indian will get a wild card into the National A-team ".There is no mention of such thing like medical emergency or any genuine reasons as such.The only scenario where the wild card can be availed IS when the person is out of India during offline finals.



Seems fair enough.However,the organizers must have their own line of reasoning for making this the way it is and which may be something on the following lines.A person who is good enough to be in top-3 in a contest over a duration of 8 months is certainly good enough to fit in the Top-4 irrelevant of the performance he may put in the offline finals.

There is no mention that he/she needs to be 1st .It only states that a top-3 spot is good enough for the wild card for a person outside India.ONLY,in the case where there are 2 Indians outside India and who are in top-3,then the better ranked Indian after 8 rounds will avail the Wild Card.

The position in the top-3 is irrelevant.

This reasoning looks good. However one point we should also keep in mind that there is one more wild card for best performing player at WSC/WPC. Now suppose after WSC/WPC the top player who has already got wild card for Team A decides not to contest further in SM online rounds. In this case top-3 player will not be including best player at WSC/WPC and in actual 3rd ranked player may be 4th best player. In this case this rule will be more disappointing for the 4th player if the score gap between rank 3 and rank 4 is very less.

Coming 1st is a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition.

Edited by lenson 2015-08-26 4:50 PM

We'll think about the views put forward here but I'll just highlight few points from our thought process behind the special case team selection.
1. Understand that the offline finals are both to crown a Mahabharat winner and be a part of the team selection. Keywords being 'a part of'. There is precedence here where other countries also have multiple different tournaments offering 1/2 spots on the team. So it is not unheard of to compete for 2 spots at a National final if the reasoning is good for the 2 spots which are taken.

2. I think we should encourage as many people as possible to participate in the offline finals. The main reason the wildcard rule is in place isn't so much that X person gets a free spot on the team as it is that X person should chip in with organization. So considering that as a necessity, we just wanted to make sure that some provision is made for someone who cannot attend the finals but is good enough to be on the team. If you prove a level over 8 rounds, and you genuinely cannot make it to the finals, the team is, at least on paper, weakened if you miss out. Combining this with the desire to encourage as many participants as possible in the offline finals, which are admittedly two conflicting thought processes, we thought of this rule.

3. We want to build a scenario where attending the offline finals is in itself a great experience, since it is a major event in itself, and we encourage all the participants to view it that way too, considering that the first Sudoku Mahabharat went smoothly and got some good feedback. So considering that, if we start thinking of people exploiting reasons to avoid attending the National finals, or having the thought process of 'I didn't make it so I am too disappointed to attend the finals', then we are looking at people who won't have the enthusiasm to get into the top rankings anyway. This is a chance to build our own annual offline event which is in itself very meaningful to attend.

4. I think medical emergency is a valid reason to miss the finals, but may bring up too many complications (off the top of my head, how long the emergency lasts, will it affect the participant towards the WSC/WPC too, how far do we go to define 'medical emergency', etc.). Not being in the country around the time of the offline finals is a definable reason which is easy to prove and won't affect a person's participation in the WSC/WPC (and if it does, they can communicate as much before the finals, and the spot can be up for grabs).

Also,
"This reasoning looks good. However one point we should also keep in mind that there is one more wild card for best performing player at WSC/WPC. Now suppose after WSC/WPC the top player who has already got wild card for Team A decides not to contest further in SM online rounds. In this case top-3 player will not be including best player at WSC/WPC and in actual 3rd ranked player may be 4th best player. In this case this rule will be more disappointing for the 4th player if the score gap between rank 3 and rank 4 is very less."

I don't understand this. The team is of 4 players. So even if X is the 4th best player in India, he deserves to be on the team right? Gap being less between rankings will always be disappointing, even if these two competitors went to the offline finals and competed.

Your first post suggested quite the contrary of what you stated now.That's why I clarified.Obviously, it is apparent from my posts that being 1st is not a pre-requisite.A top 3 slot alone is sufficient for a wild card for someone out of India during offline finals.

Lets assume A, B, C, D and E are top 5 players. "A" being the best player at WSC/WPC 2015 decides not to compete in SM as he/she has got wild card entry for WSC/WPC 2016. Now assume that at the end of 8 rounds in March 2106 ranks of B, C, D and E are 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respectively. Gap between the 3rd ranked D and 4th ranked E is very less.
There is great possibility that after 4 months during offline final in July 2016 E can score better than D. However if D is given wild card entry because of this rule, then B, C and E will be fighting for top 2 slots to be in team. So at this point of time E is better than D but still can't make it to team if he/she can't beat B or C.
In the same case in case E is able to beat B or C. then B or C is not part of team even though B or C is able to beat D in online competition.
Hope it make it clear or should I give you call to explain this :)

Its not that I didn't understand the scenario, its that I didn't (and don't) understand how that can be defined into the rules or why it is a problem only in this set of rules. This same scenario applies to ISC/TSC every year, be it 4 months or 2 months or 2 weeks between rounds. What is a defined amount of time for a player to improve? Have the best 4 of ISC/IPC always been the best 4 at the WSC/WPC? The moment you say, in a given amount of time, D could become better than C, that statement could be true no matter what the amount of time is, and how C and D are chosen. It relies more on individuals varying, than establishing/defining a system. It is the exact same as me saying that C could improve even beyond A and B and be good enough to be World Champion. It could happen, but it doesn't help defining a rule. In the end, for the rules what we can establish is, at a given point of time, A is better than B, and so gets on the team. That is the case every year, no matter the format, unless we have an offline ISC a few days before the WSC.

One more point for organising the event in this format is that we want participants hopeful of making it to the national team to participate around the year. So even the wild cards (toppers from previous WSC/WPC) need to participate in as many of the tournaments as possible to justify their wild card position.
And so you will see Rohan participating in the Sudoku Mahabharat and Prasanna in the Puzzle Ramayan's


Also we definitely want all the top participants to definitely participate in the offline finals and are planning to sponsor travel for top X (number yet to be finalized) participants for the finals. This however will not be possible for Indian participants abroad. Hence the special rule is in place.

Sorry to re-start this discussion again. There is no such rule which specifies that best players at WSC/WPC 2015 will have to participate in SM/PR.
Currently we are giving two wild card entries. One for best players at WSC/WPC 2015 and another for top 3 NRI player. My suggestion is both these wild card can be given based upon performance in SM/PR. One for best player at SM/PR and another for top 3 NRI player after 8 rounds . This format will force best players at WSC/WPC 2015 to participate in SM/PR and hence continuous improve his/her performance as well making PR/SM more competitive.

That's right. There is a reason. We're hoping the best Indian at WSC/WPC will most probably be part of the organizing team for SM/PR. It is very difficult and demanding for Deb to organize everything alone. In fact, it is almost certain that he does not have time/bandwidth to organize it himself, especially the finals.
Hence, that player will not be able to participate in the finals, and rightly receives a wild card for next year.


I think you have misunderstood this. 'Two' wild card entries are not guaranteed.
If none of the top-3 Indians in SM/PR are living abroad, there will not be wild card for these players.

Also, I'm sure all the WC participants from India are going to participate in all the SM/PR rounds (except maybe Rishi).

Adding to this, we also shouldn't have a system that is fully dependent on one person, whoever that person is. If that person is unable, then what? We cancel it? I am sure that is not good for competitiveness of SM/PR. So it is best to have a team, even if it is only a team of 2.

Also, the wildcard is given for best WSC/WPC performer because that is the final hurdle and it is, in a way, a reward for someone who has done well while representing their country in that final hurdle. The NRI wildcard is given to preserve the team strength in a special case scenario. The two goals are completely different, where one is a reward of sorts (I say of sorts, because as Rohan said, it is a hope that this person also helps in organization) and the other is a necessity to an extent. So there need not be a uniformity in the reasons for these wildcards.

Thanks Rohan and Prasanna for explaining it in detail.