These are the preliminary results (the final results can have slightly different SOS but not a different order) of the top players with 7+ wins. They were all in the supergroup.


Unedited:


Edited:


SOS analysis:

SOS minus 30 (per round)
SOL (Sum of lost games round numbers)
SR1 (SOS minus 30 in round 1)
SR2 (SOS minus 30 in rounds 1 and 2)
DCEU Direct Comparison among only Europeans


SOL almost explains the player order according to SOS! As usual, losing in later rounds is better. DCEU would have reversed the order of the first two Europeans. SR1 (first round pairing luck) explains the order of the top two non-Europeans.

Unfortunately, winners were decided by tiebreaker choice and pairing luck.


**************************************************************************


Surprising 7d losses:


Main tournament:

Kim, Chaelim 7d - Kachanovskyy, Artem 6d
Van Zeijst, Rob 7d - Corlan, Lucian 5d

Weekend tournament:

Dinershteyn, Alexand 7d - Debarre, Thomas 5d

Rapid tournament:

Kang, Kyoungnang 7d - Törmänen, Antti 6d


**************************************************************************


Underranked Finnish below supergroup players playing most rounds:

fi = Finland
xx = other countries
XX = other players



Conclusion: Finnish 1d to 4d is almost one rank stronger than most other EGF countries.

Ilya lost to someone with 8 wins and someone with 7. Artem lost to two players with 7. I'm not saying this is the right reason to award the tournament victory to Ilya, but it is the justification that SOS often awards, and it is a valid one if someone feels this is appropriate. Saying that losing in later rounds is better is indeed true - if you win your early rounds, your mid to late round matchups will be harder because the drawing system puts high performing players against each other. Therefore, your total number of wins required a higher level of performance because your draw was harder - this isn't pairing luck, it is adjusted pairing based on previous round performance.

Saying that the winner was decided by anything to do with luck is unjustified; it was based on performance, with a specific set of criteria. DCEU is also based on performance, on a difference set of criteria. There's nothing wrong with either beyond subjective preference.

Better for one's SOS on average over arbitrarily many tournaments.



For a player's final SOS, "harder" means "higher current SOS in a round". The current SOS does not know what the final SOS will be.



No. This might or might not be so. Whether the draw WAS harder is known after the tournament. DURING it, the system makes only predictions on how hard opposition will have been.



Since the system does not know in advance final SOS, the basis on only previous rounds performance amounts to also quite some pairing luck: the luck of how well opponents perform in later rounds.



To repeat: It is justified, see above. The performance known after the tournament by far does not give complete information for the making of pairings at the moments when they were being made round by round. The opponents' performance in later rounds is not known at the time of creating a round's pairing. This missing information's impact is the luck.

(In the first two rounds, there is an additional type of luck: The missing information from earlier performance because there was none in that tournament. For other aspects of SOS, see elsewhere.)



To start with, what is wrong with SOS is especially its part of performance in the opponents' later rounds.