For all of you who love an attack of stats from time to time, especially the more spurious/controversial type (I know you are out there - some of you are even brave enough to admit it!), I compiled this note after the draw took place and I will publish it on 31 August to celebrate the day the 5th WTC officially starts.

The first part of this note compares sections of the draw and the second looks at who it is best to beat if you want to win the WTC. I hope you enjoy it!


Which section of the draw is the toughest?

Based on average seeding points, the toughest section is section 5 (steven2 -> cuthbert) with an average of 1554, closely followed by section 3 (pepe -> Helly) with 1547 and section 7 (space -> Bdot) with 1543. The 'easiest' sections on this basis are section 8 (benopi -> Bell) with an average of 1509, closely followed by section 2 (taita -> MikeM) with 1514 and section 4 (jade -> scoop) with 1522.

However, it could well be argued that when we get to the sharp end of the tournament, it is the average seeding points of the seeds in each section that is more important. Virtually all seeds have an established Elo rating, so seeding points = Elo ratings for those players.

Those who believe this to be a better measure will think that section 1 (Pekko -> brad) is the toughest with an average Elo of 1899 - this is mainly due to the inclusion of the Elo rating of the no. 1 seed - the gap between him and the no. 2 seed is as big as the range of Elo ratings that covers the next 10 seeds! The other tough sections are section 8 with an average Elo of 1896 and section 5 with 1895. The 'easiest' sections on this basis are section 7 with an average of 1882, section 2 with 1886 and section 4 with 1889.

Look at the averages more closely though and you will find that the draw worked out very equitably this year. The differences between the 'hardest' and 'easiest' sections using either method are very small indeed. In reality, the toughest section will probably be the one with a hitherto relatively unknown player who gets into serious training and becomes a top player during the Championship.

For example, last year someone started the WTC with a lobby ranking of below 800, yet after a chance conversation with the Inventor introduced her to the joys of counting the tiles, she beat a former World Champion and the Inventor himself among others to end up finishing 3rd overall. That player has since proved that those results were no fluke and is no. 2 seed herself this year, probably fearing that this year someone will give her the same treatment as she handed out to everyone else last year! :-)

Another measure of toughness from a player's own point of view is how close they are to their 'jinx' players in the draw - you can all decide that one for yourselves!


Who do I need to beat to win the WTC?

There are many answers to this question, including the obvious one - "everyone you meet in the draw".

Obviously beating reigning champion and no. 1 seed Matt Peek TGM (NZL) or beating whoever beats him would be a good idea. In this context, Zoran Tomovski (MKD), the first-ever entrant from the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia drew the short straw in R1 - expect headline news and dancing in the streets of Skopje if he beats Matt, even though (whisper it) Zoran now lives in Auckland too!

We can look a bit deeper though to see if we can find any predictors based on results in previous years.

Looking at 1999 and 2000, in both of those years the players who knocked out Tantrix pros Laurent Berguin (FRA) and Steven Trezise ITM (GBR) ended up reaching the Final. By the way, "Tantrix pros" are people who make part or all of their living from selling or distributing Tantrix.

Maybe that was not too surprising given that Laurent and Steven were the only players to reach the QFs in both years. However, when they were both knocked out in their first match in 2001, few would have expected either of their conquerors to end up in the top 3. Heli Niemi (FIN) was known to be a good player, but not thought to be one of those at the very top and Leah Sanders (AUS) was a virtual unknown. They ended up 2nd and 3rd respectively so maybe there is something in this idea after all ...

You might think that beating Tantrix inventor Mike McManaway (NZL) or his partner Britta Steude (NZL) would also be a good predictor of ultimate success too, but in all three years the players who beat Mike & Britta have lost in the next Round. Maybe Mike and Britta are just rubbish (go on, let me have my fun! *grin*) or maybe the effort taken to beat them takes so much out of the victors that they then find it impossible to raise themselves for the next round. Britta's conqueror last year got slaughtered by Matt by 6 games to 0 (with 1 draw) in the following round but on the other hand, two of Mike's conquerors ended up in the top three even though they lost their next match. OK then, even I think the "burnt out after all that effort" explanation is a more likely one than M&B being rubbish! :-)

So, it seems like beating Tantrix pros is a good move if you want to end up in the top three, unless they come from NZ when you want to avoid them like the plague because even if you do win, you might well go out in the next round!

It even seems that beating Matt is not a guarantee of success - those who knocked him out in 1999 and 2000 went on to lose their next matches too (of course, no one beat him in 2001) - indeed after beating Matt in 2000, Jean-Louis Potier (FRA), the European Champion at the time, was thrashed 5 games to 0 by Steven in his next match and left before the last two games, sadly never to set foot in a Tantrix tournament again.

The full list of players who have lost to those who eventually finished in the top three in two or more of the three years in which the WTC has been played as a knockout competition is shown in the table below, ordered based on a scoring system of 3 points if the player beating them finished 1st, 2 for 2nd and 1 for 3rd.

The "Finished" columns show where the player who knocked out the main player eventually ended up. The "Pro WTC?" column shows the years in which the player was a pro (as defined earlier in this note) at the start of the WTC, though becoming a Tantrix pro often means having a lot less time to play Tantrix games, not more, so may result in more of a deterioration than an improvement!

Name	Nat.	Nickname	Pro WTC?	1999		2000		2001
				Lost to	Finished	Lost to	Finished	Lost to	Finished
Laurent Berguin	FRA	lolo	Always	Zazza	1st	jade	1st	Helly	2nd
Steven Trezise	GBR	steven2	2000-	Ridcully	2nd	jade	1st	Bell	3rd
Ben Trumbore	USA	Crispy	No	Zazza	1st	Fluffy	2nd	did not enter
Péter Petrecz	HUN	Pepe	2002-	Crispy	QFs	steven2	3rd	Pekko	1st
Yoseph Phillips	ISR	Yoseph	No	Ridcully	2nd	did not enter		Helly	2nd
Phil Sneddon	NZL	Runes	No	Pekko	3rd	Fluffy	2nd	Pepe	4th
Mike McManaway	NZL	MikeM	Always	Mighty	QFs	Fluffy	2nd	Bell	3rd

If there are any mistakes or omissions in the table above or in the rest of this note, please let tournaments@tantrix.co.uk know.

Return to the main World Championship page

[an error occurred while processing this directive]