castles of burgundy  

Updated Nov. 12, 2014

2014 WBC Report  

 2015 Status: pending 2015 GM commitment

Keith Dent, NY

2014 Champion

Event History
2013    Jay Boring    62
2014    Keith Dent    53

 Laurels

 Rank  Name              From  Last  Total
   1.  Keith Dent         NY    14     30
   2.  Jay Boring         MD    13     30
   3.  Robert St Pierre   PA    14     18
   4.  Ted Simmons        IL    13     18
   5.  Dominic Blais      qc    14     12
   6.  Mikko Raimi        fi    13     12
   7.  Nick Vayn          PA    14      9
   8.  Andrew Norgren     NY    13      9
   9.  Antony Saccenti    MD    14      6
  10.  Randy Buehler      WA    13      6
  11.  Anni Foasberg      NY    14      3
  12.  Emily Bacon        PA    13      3

2014 Laurelists                          Repeating Laurelists: 0

Robert St Pierre, PA
2nd

Dominic Blais, qc
3rd

Nick Vayn, PA
4th

Antony Saccenti, MD
5th

Anni Foasberg, NY
6th

Past Winners

Jay Boring, MD
2013

Keith Dent, KY
2014


GM Barbara Flaxington and her four finalists.

Advancing by the book ...

One of the most common mistakes made by GMs of multi-player games is to worry excessively about having enough slots to accomodate all who wish to advance (usually referred to as "win and you're in". In reality. the far more common problem is what to do when there are not enough qualifiers present to fill the defined optimum number of slots for the next level. Spelling out all such scenarios in advance in the event preview is the only way to solve this problem quickly and fairly and is well worth the extra effort.

Castles of Burgundy returned for its sophomore year at WBC. Attendance was down a bit from last year (nine and eight tables in the two heats, compared with ten each in 2013), but remained popular. The preferred 4-player games were almost exclusively conducted, only one 3-player game proving necessary in the heats. Unfortunately, the numbers did not work out nearly as well for the semifinal as only 11 qualifiers (and three alternates) made an appearance. The initial thought was to reduce the semifinal field to 12 players (to allow all 4-player games) with the best runner-up advancing to the Final. However, one of the alternates objected to this plan, appropriately noting that the field was originally intended to be 16 players for the semifinal. Control was then turned over to the assistant GM's (Chris Moffa and Steve Cameron) who had both already qualified for the semifinal to make a determination as the GM was an alternate who would be directly affected by this decision. The GM would not advance in the field of top 12 players, but would do so if the semifinal were to include all the alternates present. The assistant GM's came up with a very equitable plan to advance all 14 qualifiers and alternates, with the highest ranking individuals allowed first choice of whether they wished to play in a 3- versus 4-player game. 3-player games were selected by a small majority, presumably due to the desire for fewer opponents with consequently more willingness to accept a greater luck element. In the future, the option to reduce the field to 12 players (based upon turnout) will be clearly specified. 4-player games are considered preferable in the opinion of this GM as all the tiles are utilized. In a 3-player game, random ones are eliminated which affects availability and power of the bonus tiles, thus increasing the luck element. The importance of checking the semifinal to see if it is possible to gain entry with a runner-up finish in the heats was again underscored as there was opportunity for additional alternates to play.

The standard boards were used for the initial heats to make the game more accessible to beginner players. Random advanced boards were the default for the semifinal and Final. Board #8 was officially disallowed due to a thread noted on Boardgame Geek last year which showed an advantage (unusually high winning percentage) associated with this board. Players were given the option of choosing either board type (standard or random) provided everyone at the table agreed. The majority of tables ended up playing with the standard boards. Statistics compiled this year were actually surprisingly similar to those obtained last year. Of the advanced boards used, none appeared especially powerful as there was a heathy variety in the winners. High scores to achieve victory in the preliminary rounds ranged from 275 (interestingly by the ultimate tournament champion as also occurred in 2013) to 218 points. In the 12 games played with the standard boards, the same trend was noticed in starting player order differential, with Seat 2 again seeming to be the most advantageous (winning 41.2% of the time, in comparison to 16.7% for Seat 1, 16.7% Seat 3, and 25% Seat 4). The sample size obviously remains too small for any definitive conclusions, but intriguing nonetheless and data can continue to be collected to see if this pattern persists over time.

The Final had a very close finish and top score changed hands amongst all the players during the earlier rounds with no clear victor until the very end. Robert took an early lead by closing three areas in the first round. The eventual winner (Keith) made a big comeback (from 86-151 points) in the fourth round largely by completing an eight building area. This accomplishment was even more impressive given that he did not possess the tile which allowed duplicate buildings in the same area. Unfortunately for Nick, in the last round Keith also took the one tile available he needed to legally complete a six-building area. Player order was important throughout the game, particularly to collect specific tiles and bonuses. Silverlings were readily spent to obtain additional tiles. Domenic scored the most bonus points at the end (37 compared to 24 by Keith and 16 by Nick and Robert), but not enough to close the gap as he had been last on the scoretrack (Keith 187, Robert 186, Nick 180, and Domenic 163). The final scores were Keith 216, Robert 206, Dominic and Nick 204. The tie was broken between Dominic and Nick utilizing the German version of the rules as indicated in the event description. Dominic had the most empty estate spaces (nine versus eight for Nick). Overall, the Final proved to be an extremely tight match between four talented players who nonetheless maintained a high degree of sportsmanship over the course of play.

 GM     Barbara Flaxington  [2nd Year]  NA
   barbf99999@yahoo.com    NA 

2014 Previews | View the Icon Key | Return to main BPA page