Tournament 2004 Round 2

For discussion pertaining to Chess, Net-Chess, or general interests.
Post Reply
angelofthenight
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 12:50 pm

Tournament 2004 Round 2

Post by angelofthenight » Mon Apr 18, 2005 3:13 am

43 players

match 1 ( moy=2421.5 )
  1. 2672 jpost ( 553 453-50-50 )
  2. 2641 rickdragon ( 136 132-1-3 )
  3. 2582 danielmarcolino ( 236 165-37-34 )
  4. 2356 jupiter (1448 809-466-173 )
  5. 2150 makeitso ( 72 43-20-9 )
  6. 2128 claptrapvonspielderbeanz ( 51 25-17-9 )
match 2 ( moy=2798.8 )
  1. 2960 mikeh (449 418-3-28 )
  2. 2957 davidswhite ( 752 566-31-155 )
  3. 2902 herlocksholmes ( 226 195-3-28 )
  4. 2806 ribouj ( 145 91-16-38 )
  5. 2738 dmitryogloblin ( 230 155-40-35 )
  6. 2430 hamot ( 169 122-43-4 )
match 3 ( moy=2417.5 )
  1. 2774 lmac ( 201 150-24-27 )
  2. 2728 gambit ( 269 208-32-29 )
  3. 2443 gambitgalore ( 116 81-17-18 )
  4. 2297 otter ( 383 265-85-33 )
  5. 2190 johnnybgood ( 62 45-13-4 )
  6. 2073 simbathelion ( 63 43-19-1 )
match 4 ( moy=2313.8 )
  1. 2819 munbehend ( 186 145-8-33 )
  2. 2798 eraymond ( 1514 1201-259-80 )
  3. 2332 ladybird ( 254 154-86-14 )
  4. 2273 jpettit ( 155 109-34-12 )
  5. 2061 lumberjack ( 19 17-1-1 )
  6. 1600 tzaman ( 6 6-0-0 )
match 5 ( moy=2563.8 )
  1. 2721 vsahs ( 492 282-177-33 )
  2. 2694 purplekiller ( 300 203-28-69 )
  3. 2656 vectra ( 543 488-27-28 )
  4. 2559 dragondude ( 259 167-41-47 )
  5. 2527 unnics ( 363 193-129-41 )
  6. 2226 sittingbull ( 24 14-8-2 )
match 6 ( moy=2689 )
  1. 2968 angelofthenight ( 297 265-12-20 )
  2. 2893 rodschi ( 231 164-27-40 )
  3. 2745 rensoli ( 229 193-27-9 )
  4. 2611 kwilliams ( 728 437-248-43 )
  5. 2546 tapza (1090 399-656-35 )
  6. 2371 gambito ( 37 37-0-0 )
match 7 ( moy=2622.1 )
  1. 2990 sumdeus ( 54 49-0-5 )
  2. 2823 virusthenun ( 216 165-19-32 )
  3. 2794 drako ( 767 412-301-54 )
  4. 2746 vladislavk ( 488 447-16-25 )
  5. 2506 zeusdeus ( 60 53-4-3 )
  6. 2362 kasimzhanov ( 764 189-533-42 )
  7. 2134 spud ( 505 291-190-24 )
ratings
  1. 2990 sumdeus
  2. 2968 angelofthenight
  3. 2960 mikeh
  4. 2957 davidswhite
  5. 2902 herlocksholmes
  6. 2893 rodschi
  7. 2823 virusthenun
  8. 2819 munbehend
  9. 2806 ribouj
  10. 2798 eraymond
  11. 2794 drako
  12. 2774 lmac
  13. 2746 vladislavk
  14. 2745 rensoli
  15. 2738 dmitryogloblin
  16. 2728 gambit
  17. 2721 vsahs
  18. 2694 purplekiller
  19. 2672 jpost
  20. 2656 vectra
  21. 2641 rickdragon
  22. 2611 kwilliams
  23. 2582 danielmarcolino
  24. 2559 dragondude
  25. 2546 tapza
  26. 2527 unnics
  27. 2506 zeusdeus
  28. 2443 gambitgalore
  29. 2430 hamot
  30. 2371 gambito
  31. 2362 kasimzhanov
  32. 2356 jupiter
  33. 2332 ladybird
  34. 2297 otter
  35. 2273 jpettit
  36. 2226 sittingbull
  37. 2190 johnnybgood
  38. 2150 makeitso
  39. 2134 spud
  40. 2128 claptrapvonspielderbeanz
  41. 2073 simbathelion
  42. 2061 lumberjack
  43. 1600 tzaman
game played
  1. 1514 eraymond
  2. 1448 jupiter
  3. 1090 tapza
  4. 767 drako
  5. 764 kasimzhanov
  6. 752 davidswhite
  7. 728 kwilliams
  8. 553 jpost
  9. 505 spud
  10. 492 vsahs
  11. 488 vladislavk
  12. 449 mikeh
  13. 383 otter
  14. 363 unnics
  15. 343 vectra
  16. 300 purplekiller
  17. 297 angelofthenight
  18. 269 gambit
  19. 259 dragondude
  20. 254 ladybird
  21. 236 danielmarcolino
  22. 231 rodschi
  23. 230 dmitryogloblin
  24. 229 rensoli
  25. 226 herlocksholmes
  26. 216 virusthenun
  27. 201 lmac
  28. 186 munbehend
  29. 169 hamot
  30. 155 jpettit
  31. 145 ribouj
  32. 136 rickdragon
  33. 116 gambitgalore
  34. 72 makeitso
  35. 63 simbathelion
  36. 62 johnnybgood
  37. 60 zeusdeus
  38. 54 sumdeus
  39. 51 claptrapvonspielderbeanz
  40. 31 gambito
  41. 24 sittingbull
  42. 19 lumberjack
  43. 6 tzaman

davidswhite
Uranium
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 1999 1:31 pm

Post by davidswhite » Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:16 pm

Thanks,Angel

At first blush it seemed to me that my group(match 2) was disproportionately strong.
Now that you lay it all out,I find that my impression was correct.
With 5 players rated 2900/up and 7 groups to fit them in it is not
reasonable that 3 of the 5 should be in one group(and even more
unreasonable that that group should be my own,Lol!).

Bestest,David

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1388
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:26 pm

I completley ignored the ratings in the pairings as I consider them mostly useless. If I did use them then that would encourage people to intentionally inflate their rating.

If you look at the points the winner's scored in their matches, you'll see half of them scored perfect, and only four of them are more than one point from perfect. So for the most part, at least the top 39 players are pretty close to equal in that respect.

This does point out the problem with elimination style tournaments though, in that there really is no second place. I've considered making the tourny a modified version of the swiss system, in which everyone would play all of the rounds and you would play those who have the same cumulitave score as you. But that would take more than three rounds to determine a winner.

davidswhite
Uranium
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 1999 1:31 pm

Post by davidswhite » Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:40 pm

Greg, I must respectfully disagree with much of your premise.

Any player who would artificially seek to inflate their rating would
have already done so and would require no further encouragement.

The points that the winners scored in their 1st round matches were
in most instances merely a reflection of the level of competition that
they faced. Hence, a perfect result by a strong player against 6
considerably weaker ones would be much less impressive than a
result 1 or 2 pts. less than perfect when the other 6 included 2 or 3
relatively strong players.

Now,it seemed to me that some effort was made in the 1st round to
not overload any one group with the highest rated players.I may be
wrong about this but it did not appear completely random.
Still,even if the draw in the 1st round was totally random,it would not
have precluded you from taking something more than zero trouble
about seeking to provide some balance in the 2nd round.

This is just my opinion and I hate like hell to seem to be critical of
anything you do on this site when,in fact,I'm full of admiration for
all the great work you've done and continue to do.

David

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1388
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:29 pm

I have no problem with criticism, I value input from everyone.

I have thought through processes where I took player's ratings into account, but they're all open to manipulation by a player either inflating their rating, or sandbagging.

Swiss type systems encourage sandbagging because the lower your rating is, the weaker the competition you'll face. A case in point is this tourny where I was paired with a player rated lower than me in the final round which allowed me to tie for first place.

If I were to attempt to enforce an approximatley equal average rating accross individual matches, then players would be encouraged to inflate their ratings. Since the higher their rating is, the higher their match's average will be, and stronger players will be pushed into other matches.

So, in order to keep things fair, I'd have to police the ratings, which is next to impossible for me because I can't tell a 2000 player from a 3000 player. And even if I could, it would take so much time to do it, it wouldn't be possible to do it farly.

True, some people inflate their ratings just because they can. But they really don't get anything out of it other than a higher spot on the ratings list (which almost no one looks at).

I'm not saying you didn't get a raw deal on the luck of the draw, and may be denied the prestige of moving on to the final round. But I contend this is totally fair because there is no second place. If you're going to win the tourny, then you'll win your match. You'll have to work a little harder, but it was probably even less fair to the players of the match which has seven players.

davidswhite
Uranium
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 1999 1:31 pm

Objection Withdrawn

Post by davidswhite » Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:39 am

Greg,

I must admit that your position makes perfectly good sense and I'm
sorry now that I brought this matter up in the 1st place.

Best regards,
David

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1388
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:56 pm

See, you won anyway.... :wink:

davidswhite
Uranium
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 1999 1:31 pm

Post by davidswhite » Fri Jul 01, 2005 5:29 pm

Lol! but,if I hadn't,I wouldn't have felt I'd been unfairly treated in my
group's composition.

Greg,as I indicated in my last post here, I found the logic of your
explanation too solid to be flawed...especially the part about the
eventual winner needing to be able to overcome all of the competition
anyway so it shouldn't really matter whom he(or she) has to play or
in which round.

Best regards,
David

Post Reply