Do you think it would be interesting to look at tournament stats?
Since I created a few tournaments, maybe it would be interesting to have game nominations like longest game/shortest game. Close games etc. After the tournament ended, of course.
Fastest player, slowest player.
Hm?
That does kinda sound cool. Idk how that nomination thing would work though. That part sounds confusing.
Do we need more stats? Is that a question?
Of course we need more stats.
Definitely! 
Yay, more stats!
And nominations would be cool. Extra points if youâll give out medals or certificates or so.
I can already picture myself with a medal saying âstupidest game-changing overlooked atari 2020â.
@KAOSkonfused, @Vsotvep, @Lys, @Haze_with_a_Z & @S_Alexander are in favour of it, but donât give any reason for it.
So, why do we need more statistics? Is there something we can use it for, an ultimate goal?
Just collecting data with no purpose at all does seem a bit useless to me.
BTW I like stats, but stats with a reason.
You are dangerously close to calling us people who like stats for no reasons âstats addictsâ. But we arenât! According to a recent study 97.2% of us could stop looking at pointless stats any day, but 100% of us just see no point in doing that.
Who is âweâ?
On what grounds do you come to the conclusion that
What is the source of
Statistics are okay, but also to be viewed with suspicion.
And compulsory reading for all lovers & addicts of statistics.
Here I see anticipations for a huge fight between statistics addicts and no-stats. 
Knowledge? Awareness? Curiosity? Fun facts?
Did you know we had 6 players from Antarctica in the TTY tournament? For me itâs a lot of fun.
That could be sufficient for me.
Sorry, I was entirely joking and that was maybe not as obvious as I thought.
In fact what I was trying to do was calling myself (and a few others maybe) a stats addict.
No problem.
Maybe a smiley would have helped.
That was clear enough for me and I was joking too, speaking of fights. 
I actually thought @Atorrante was joking too, with his nice quotes and jokes about statistics, but now Iâm not so sure.
Well, I donât think anybody could be harmed if we investigate things like
and so onâŚ
I am not against statistics (done a lot of statistical research), so donât put me in the no stats corner.
Fun facts are a perfectly good reason for collecting data.
I was just wondering if @S_Alexander (who started the topic) was only aiming at presenting statistics, or had some theory (hypothesis) s/he wanted to test with that data (by means of cross tabulation, factor analysis, etc.)
I was not joking.
It was a joke (and there was a smiley).
Roger.
The goal is to have fun, of course. In other words, make it a little more interesting to participate in tournaments.
The question is which stats would be interesting.
Biggest snapback (personal record 32 stones)
Biggest self atari.
Latest tengen in a game.
Most groups on the board and still winning.
Longest game (in time and or number of moves).
Most prisoners (captured stones, also not removed from board).
Winner/loser with longest/shortest name.
Great suggestions, @Atorrante
Iâll add a few:
Biggest rank difference of a weaker player winning against a stronger player.
Most dead groups.
Most lost games that got to scoring.
And, not as stats, but as nomination from the crowd:
Kind of like the oscars of Go. 
not clear what you mean by
Introducing a (public) jury in this is a good thing, because it gets (more) people involved in the tournaments.
I mean something like âthe best combination of opponentsâ - which is entirely subjective, of course, but could be funny.