PDA

View Full Version : Gold Coast Tin Cup 13/14 Feb



ggardiner
27-01-2010, 11:40 AM
Gold Coast Tin Cup 13/14 Feb

Open to players rated Under 1750 ACF

Venue Gardiner Chess Centre
11 Hardys Road, Mudgeeraba, Qld 4213

Prizes Total $1440 (1st Prize $500)

Rate of Play: 60+10 Fischer - 6 rounds

Play commences 9.30am Sat and 9am Sun

Forfeit time 30 minutes from start of round

Entry Form at
http://www.gardinerchess.com/main%20events/2010/tincup2010.pdf

ggardiner
10-02-2010, 11:01 AM
1. Saavedra, Bernard 1711
2. Jule, Sebastian 1701
3. Stahnke, Alexander 1701
4. Zvonar, Frank 1624
5. Underwood, Sean 1403
6. Lapitan, Daniel 1401
7. Johnson, Nicholas 1380
8. Zhang, Daniel 1194
9. Cooper, Matthew 1164
10. Sands, Gary A 1148
11. Nakauchi, Kenji 1093
12. Mullaly, Jeremy 854
13. Johnson, Mitchell 817
14. Luke-Paredi, Jack 680
15. Johnson, Andrew 662
16. Nakauchi, Ray 476
17. O'Hara, Nicholas

Capablanca-Fan
10-02-2010, 12:36 PM
1. Saavedra, Bernard 1711
2. Jule, Sebastian 1701
3. Stahnke, Alexander 1701
4. Zvonar, Frank 1624
5. Underwood, Sean 1403
6. Lapitan, Daniel 1401
7. Johnson, Nicholas 1380
8. Zhang, Daniel 1194
9. Cooper, Matthew 1164
10. Sands, Gary A 1148
11. Nakauchi, Kenji 1093
12. Mullaly, Jeremy 854
13. Johnson, Mitchell 817
14. Luke-Paredi, Jack 680
15. Johnson, Andrew 662
16. Nakauchi, Ray 476
17. O'Hara, Nicholas
I'd better crack the whip on the Loganites to play.

ggardiner
11-02-2010, 04:51 PM
1. Weller, Tony 1736
2. Saavedra, Bernard 1711
3. Stahnke, Alexander 1701
4. Duffin, Mike 1646
5. Zvonar, Frank 1624
6. O'Flynn, Alexander 1597
7. Stewart, Craig A 1559
8. Peck, Robbie 1433
9. Zhang, Daniel 1422
10. Underwood, Sean 1403
11. Lapitan, Daniel 1401
12. Johnson, Nicholas 1380
13. Cooper, Matthew 1156
14. Sands, Gary A 1123
15. Nakauchi, Kenji 1093
16. Pyper, Matthew 1048
17. Foster, Allan 1014
18. Huband-Lint, Kees 1014
19. Mullaly, Jeremy 910
20. Johnson, Mitchell 817
21. Lee, Isabelle 759
22. Deighton, Tyler 718
23. Luke-Paredi, Jack 680
24. Pyper, Jake 635
25. Johnson, Andrew 482
26. Nakauchi, Ray 476
27. O'Hara, Nicholas
28. Von Pein, Lachlan

Desmond
12-02-2010, 09:18 AM
Looks like this will be quite hard-fought. A number of genuine contenders.

Garrett
12-02-2010, 10:11 AM
Looks like this will be quite hard-fought. A number of genuine contenders.

Yes - I am thinking Alex Stankhe or Tony Weller at this stage.

Desmond
12-02-2010, 10:15 AM
Yes - I am thinking Alex Stankhe or Tony Weller at this stage.
Yes, and Sebastian Jule was there in an earlier post...

ggardiner
12-02-2010, 07:48 PM
1. Weller, Tony 1736
2. Saavedra, Bernard 1711
3. Stahnke, Alexander 1701
4. Duffin, Mike 1646
5. Zvonar, Frank 1624
6. Gilpin, Matthew 1612
7. Ford, Daniel 1612
8. O'Flynn, Alexander 1597
9. Walker, Tyson 1590
10. Stewart, Craig A 1559
11. Stokes, Mark C 1538
12. Peck, Robbie 1433
13. Zhang, Daniel 1422
14. Underwood, Sean 1403
15. Lapitan, Daniel 1401
16. Johnson, Nicholas 1380
17. Jack, Martin 1349
18. Cervenjak, Mark 1314
19. Mills, Ross 1273
20. Miles, Alex 1188
21. Cooper, Matthew 1156
22. Sands, Gary A 1123
23. Nakauchi, Kenji 1093
24. Kospartov, Nick 1066
25. Pyper, Matthew 1048
26. Foster, Allan 1014
27. Huband-Lint, Kees 1014
28. Mullaly, Jeremy 910
29. Cervenjak, Matthew 846
30. Johnson, Mitchell 817
31. Lee, Isabelle 759
32. Morakhovski, Alexander 754
33. Deighton, Tyler 718
34. Luke-Paredi, Jack 680
35. Pyper, Jake 635
36. Mills, Gareth 578
37. Pomerenke, Zachary 569
38. Johnson, Andrew 482
39. Nakauchi, Ray 476
40. Harmon, Martin 451
41. Harmon, Kieran 319
42. O'Hara, Nicholas
43. Buckley, Nikola
44. Von Pein, Lachlan

ggardiner
13-02-2010, 05:56 PM
1 WELLER, Tony 3 14:W 16:W 12:W 4:
2 DUFFIN, Mike 3 32:W 21:W 10:W 3:
3 JACK, Martin 3 47:W 15:W 9:W 2:
4 WALKER, Tyson 3 44:W 26:W 13:W 1:
5 SAAVEDRA, Bernard 2.5 34:W 25:W 6:D 8:
6 STEWART, Craig A 2.5 48:W 33:W 5:D 7:
7 AL-ZAHAR, Louay 2.5 27:D 28:W 24:W 6:
8 GILPIN, Matthew 2.5 35:W 24:D 31:W 5:
9 FORD, Daniel 2 19:W 11:W 3:L 13:
10 PECK, Robbie 2 41:W 17:W 2:L 14:
11 GRAY, Garvin 2 20:W 9:L 36:W 12:
12 STOKES, Mark C 2 36:W 30:W 1:L 11:
13 CERVENJAK, Mark 2 42:W 31:W 4:L 9:
14 NAKAUCHI, Kenji 2 1:L 38:W 30:W 10:
15 O'FLYNN, Alexander 2 46:W 3:L 28:W 23:
16 ZHANG, Daniel 2 45:W 1:L 32:W 19:
17 MILES, Alex 2 37:W 10:L 40:W 22:
18 FOSTER, Allan 2 31:L 39:W 0:W 21:
19 CERVENJAK, Matthew 2 9:L 42:W 33:W 16:
20 HARMON, Kieran 2 11:L 44:W 26:W 25:
21 JOHNSON, Nicholas 2 39:W 2:L 35:W 18:
22 STAHNKE, Alexander 2 28:L 27:W 34:W 17:
23 SANDS, Gary A 2 30:L 45:W 37:W 15:
24 LAPITAN, Daniel 1.5 38:W 8:D 7:L 27:
25 UNDERWOOD, Sean 1.5 43:W 5:L 0:D 20:
26 COOPER, Matthew 1.5 49:W 4:L 20:L 0:D
27 HUBAND-LINT, Kees 1.5 7:D 22:L 46:W 24:
28 PYPER, Matthew 1 22:W 7:L 15:L 37:
29 CHO, Adrian 1 0: 0: 0: 42:
30 VON PEIN, Lachlan 1 23:W 12:L 14:L 36:
31 ZVONAR, Frank 1 18:W 13:L 8:L 41:
32 WEDD, Tony 1 2:L 43:W 16:L 39:
33 MILLS, Ross 1 40:W 6:L 19:L 43:
34 KOSPARTOV, Nick 1 5:L 41:W 22:L 38:
35 MULLALY, Jeremy 1 8:L 47:W 21:L 40:
36 MORAKHOVSKI, Alexander 1 12:L 49:W 11:L 30:
37 DEBOER, Isaac 1 17:L 48:W 23:L 28:
38 MILLS, Gareth 1 24:L 14:L 48:W 34:
39 POMERENKE, Zachary 1 21:L 18:L 44:W 32:
40 HARMON, Martin 1 33:L 46:W 17:L 35:
41 DEIGHTON, Tyler 1 10:L 34:L 47:W 31:
42 NAKAUCHI, Ray 1 13:L 19:L 45:W 29:
43 PYPER, Jake 1 25:L 32:L 49:W 33:
44 SOUL, David 0 4:L 20:L 39:L 47:
45 LUKE-PAREDI, Jack 0 16:L 23:L 42:L 46:
46 JOHNSON, Mitchell 0 15:L 40:L 27:L 45:
47 JOHNSON, Andrew 0 3:L 35:L 41:L 44:
48 LEE, Isabelle 0 6:L 37:L 38:L 49:
49 BUCKLEY, Nikola 0 26:L 36:L 43:L 48:

ggardiner
14-02-2010, 05:43 PM
Louay Al-Zahar has won the 2010 Tin Cup. Full results:


1 AL-ZAHAR, Louay 5.5 31:D 20:W 17:W 15:W 8:W 4:W
2 O'FLYNN, Alexander 5 40:W 5:L 20:W 19:W 22:W 10:W
3 DUFFIN, Mike 4.5 26:W 10:W 16:W 5:W 4:L 7:D
4 WELLER, Tony 4.5 24:W 22:W 11:W 6:D 3:W 1:L
5 JACK, Martin 4.5 47:W 2:W 14:W 3:L 16:W 9:D
6 WALKER, Tyson 4.5 41:W 48:W 7:W 4:D 9:L 18:W
7 CERVENJAK, Mark 4.5 43:W 21:W 6:L 14:W 15:W 3:D
8 SAAVEDRA, Bernard 4.5 32:W 18:W 15:D 12:W 1:L 21:W
9 STAHNKE, Alexander 4.5 20:L 31:W 32:W 25:W 6:W 5:D
10 JOHNSON, Nicholas 4 29:W 3:L 28:W 23:W 11:W 2:L
11 STOKES, Mark C 4 39:W 33:W 4:L 13:W 10:L 25:W
12 GILPIN, Matthew 4 28:W 17:D 21:W 8:L 14:D 27:W
13 GRAY, Garvin 4 36:W 14:L 39:W 11:L 23:W 22:W
14 FORD, Daniel 3.5 35:W 13:W 5:L 7:L 12:D 33:W
15 STEWART, Craig A 3.5 46:W 27:W 8:D 1:L 7:L 32:W
16 PECK, Robbie 3.5 45:W 25:W 3:L 24:W 5:L 19:D
17 LAPITAN, Daniel 3.5 30:W 12:D 1:L 31:W 18:L 24:W
18 UNDERWOOD, Sean 3.5 42:W 8:L 0:D 36:W 17:W 6:L
19 SANDS, Gary A 3.5 33:L 44:W 34:W 2:L 35:W 16:D
20 PYPER, Matthew 3 9:W 1:L 2:L 34:W 21:L 31:W
21 ZVONAR, Frank 3 23:W 7:L 12:L 45:W 20:W 8:L
22 ZHANG, Daniel 3 44:W 4:L 26:W 35:W 2:L 13:L
23 FOSTER, Allan 3 21:L 29:W 0:W 10:L 13:L 41:W
24 NAKAUCHI, Kenji 3 4:L 30:W 33:W 16:L 36:W 17:L
25 MILES, Alex 3 34:W 16:L 38:W 9:L 37:W 11:L
26 WEDD, Tony 3 3:L 42:W 22:L 29:W 27:L 40:W
27 MILLS, Ross 3 38:W 15:L 35:L 42:W 26:W 12:L
28 MULLALY, Jeremy 3 12:L 47:W 10:L 38:W 31:L 36:W
29 POMERENKE, Zachary 3 10:L 23:L 41:W 26:L 45:W 35:W
30 MILLS, Gareth 3 17:L 24:L 46:W 32:L 39:W 37:W
31 HUBAND-LINT, Kees 2.5 1:D 9:L 40:W 17:L 28:W 20:L
32 KOSPARTOV, Nick 2.5 8:L 45:W 9:L 30:W 33:D 15:L
33 VON PEIN, Lachlan 2.5 19:W 11:L 24:L 39:W 32:D 14:L
34 DEBOER, Isaac 2.5 25:L 46:W 19:L 20:L 44:D 38:W
35 CERVENJAK, Matthew 2 14:L 43:W 27:W 22:L 19:L 29:L
36 HARMON, Kieran 2 13:L 41:W 48:W 18:L 24:L 28:L
37 CHO, Adrian 2 0: 0: 0: 43:W 25:L 30:L
38 HARMON, Martin 2 27:L 40:W 25:L 28:L 46:W 34:L
39 MORAKHOVSKI, Alexander 2 11:L 49:W 13:L 33:L 30:L 47:W
40 JOHNSON, Mitchell 2 2:L 38:L 31:L 44:W 42:W 26:L
41 SOUL, David 2 6:L 36:L 29:L 47:W 43:W 23:L
42 PYPER, Jake 2 18:L 26:L 49:W 27:L 40:L 46:W
43 NAKAUCHI, Ray 2 7:L 35:L 44:W 37:L 41:L 45:W
44 LUKE-PAREDI, Jack 1.5 22:L 19:L 43:L 40:L 34:D 49:W
45 DEIGHTON, Tyler 1 16:L 32:L 47:W 21:L 29:L 43:L
46 LEE, Isabelle 1 15:L 34:L 30:L 49:W 38:L 42:L
47 JOHNSON, Andrew 1 5:L 28:L 45:L 41:L 49:W 39:L
48 COOPER, Matthew 1 49:W 6:L 36:L 0: 0: 0:
49 BUCKLEY, Nikola 0 48:L 39:L 42:L 46:L 47:L 44:L

Garrett
14-02-2010, 05:46 PM
Well I'll be...

Looks like Louay and Tony were half point ahead of the pack and slugged it out in the last round.

Well done Louay !!

A nice win after the half point you squandered against Tony in the Aust Day Weekender.

Basil
14-02-2010, 05:55 PM
acceleration anyone?

Garvinator
14-02-2010, 07:13 PM
acceleration anyone?
As opposed to my comments on the Launceston thread, with 50 odd players, 6 rounds a largish tail, acceleration could be considered, even though this event is for under 1750 rated players only.

If it was an open event and had the same number of players and rating differential, then acceleration should definitely be considered.

Kevin Bonham
14-02-2010, 08:58 PM
The only even semi-plausible argument I could see for acceleration in this field would be to kill off the mismatches in round 1. Yet it was in that round that the tournament winner dropped the only half-point they dropped all event.

Garvinator
14-02-2010, 09:30 PM
The only even semi-plausible argument I could see for acceleration in this field would be to kill off the mismatches in round 1. Yet it was in that round that the tournament winner dropped the only half-point they dropped all event.I was more thinking about it for an open event with the same numbers and rounds. In an open event there would be 'hopefully' quite a few more players rated above 1750, so the mismatches in the first round would be larger.

Basil
14-02-2010, 09:48 PM
The only even semi-plausible argument I could see for acceleration in this field would be to kill off the mismatches in round 1.
I would assess that as most plausible on account of the traffic jam for third place being only usurped by the farcical prospect of a three-way tie for first had the last result top board been a draw, not mention a six-way tie second.

Yet it was in that round that the tournament winner dropped the only half-point they dropped all event.
... and thereby avoiding a significant portion of the top field for the tournament.

Garvinator
14-02-2010, 09:59 PM
I would assess that as most plausible on account of the traffic jam for third place being only usurped by the farcical prospect of a three-way tie for first had the last result top board been a draw, not mention a six-way tie second.

... and thereby avoiding a significant portion of the top field for the tournament.
:hmm: are you still arguing for or against acceleration with this field :uhoh:

Basil
14-02-2010, 10:02 PM
:hmm: are you still arguing for or against acceleration with this field :uhoh:
I am not arguing for acceleration in this field.
I was not arguing for acceleration in this field.
I have never argued for acceleration in any field.

I did say 'anyone for acceleration' because I like to push the message that non-accelerated tournaments (of which I am a fan) aren't the bee's knees and come with the inherent problems as pointed out above.

Kevin Bonham
14-02-2010, 10:23 PM
I did say 'anyone for acceleration' because I like to push the message that non-accelerated tournaments (of which I am a fan) aren't the bee's knees and come with the inherent problems as pointed out above.

I'm sceptical that acceleration would greatly increase the chances of averting such ties. (Incidentally it would have been a six-way tie for fourth, not second, had the eventual outright winner drawn the final round.)

Basically in a field of substantial size there is a risk that you will get a few top performers playing at about the same level and if the draw system used ends up with those players tied then that's the way it goes. I don't think there's anything farcical about a three-way tie for first in such a tournament. But it can be a problem if it is the kind of tournament in which you need a winner, and in that case you need either playoffs or countback.

The last two Tas tournaments where acceleration (of some species or other) was used in the early rounds that I remember were the 2003 Tas Champs and the 2005 Tas Open. 30-ish players each times 6 or 7 rounds. Neither of these tournaments had outright winners.

Basil
14-02-2010, 11:39 PM
Incidentally it would have been a six-way tie for fourth, not second, had the eventual outright winner drawn the final round.
True - the first three players would be on five points, the next six on four and half points. Nine players separated by half a point, because they spent all day Saturday playing the under 8's third team.

Kevin Bonham
15-02-2010, 11:01 AM
True - the first three players would be on five points, the next six on four and half points. Nine players separated by half a point, because they spent all day Saturday playing the under 8's third team.

I don't think that is true in even a hyperbolic sense. Three of them (Al-Zahar, O'Flynn and Stahnke) were Swiss-Gambiteers as a result of early draws or losses and that sort of thing happens in such cases in either system (indeed in an Accelerated Swiss there are likely to be more top-quarter players playing bottom-halfers in round 2).

Of the six out of the nine who started win-win, their round 2 and 3 opponents had ratings in the 1300s in two cases, 1400s three times, 1500s four times, 1600s twice and 1700s once. One of the two 1300s opponents was Mark Cervenjak who ended up being one of the nine players mentioned and had already flagged an above-rating performance in round two by defeating a 1600s player. Bearing in mind that this is a U1750 tournament and that there were multiple upsets in round 1 I can't see anything uncompetitive about all this.

By the way even by the standards of junior-junior upsets (which are common) Matthew Pyper winning against Alex Stahnke is remarkable. These two were both in Hobart where Matthew scored a respectable 6/11 in the Under 12s but Alex won the national U14 title as well as getting medals in every side event.

Garvinator
15-02-2010, 12:16 PM
No Name Loc Total 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 AL-ZAHAR, Louay 1644 5.5 32:D 25:W 18:W 15:W 4:W 3:W
2 O'FLYNN, Alexander 1597 5 37:W 8:L 25:W 19:W 21:W 12:W
3 WELLER, Tony 1736 4.5 24:W 21:W 11:W 7:D 6:W 1:L
4 SAAVEDRA, Bernard 1711 4.5 31:W 17:W 15:D 10:W 1:L 20:W
5 STAHNKE, Alexander 1701 4.5 25:L 32:W 31:W 23:W 7:W 8:D
6 DUFFIN, Mike 1646 4.5 26:W 12:W 16:W 8:W 3:L 9:D
7 WALKER, Tyson 1590 4.5 38:W 45:W 9:W 3:D 5:L 17:W
8 JACK, Martin 1349 4.5 48:W 2:W 14:W 6:L 16:W 5:D
9 CERVENJAK, Mark 1314 4.5 41:W 20:W 7:L 14:W 15:W 6:D
10 GILPIN, Matthew 1612 4 28:W 18:D 20:W 4:L 14:D 22:W
11 STOKES, Mark C 1538 4 39:W 34:W 3:L 13:W 12:L 23:W
12 JOHNSON, Nicholas 1380 4 30:W 6:L 28:W 27:W 11:W 2:L
13 GRAY, Garvin 1230 4 43:W 14:L 39:W 11:L 27:W 21:W
14 FORD, Daniel 1612 3.5 36:W 13:W 8:L 9:L 10:D 34:W
15 STEWART, Craig A 1559 3.5 46:W 22:W 4:D 1:L 9:L 31:W
16 PECK, Robbie 1433 3.5 47:W 23:W 6:L 24:W 8:L 19:D
17 UNDERWOOD, Sean 1403 3.5 40:W 4:L 0:D 43:W 18:W 7:L
18 LAPITAN, Daniel 1401 3.5 29:W 10:D 1:L 32:W 17:L 24:W
19 SANDS, Gary A 1123 3.5 34:L 44:W 33:W 2:L 36:W 16:D
20 ZVONAR, Frank 1624 3 27:W 9:L 10:L 47:W 25:W 4:L
21 ZHANG, Daniel 1422 3 44:W 3:L 26:W 36:W 2:L 13:L
22 MILLS, Ross 1273 3 42:W 15:L 36:L 40:W 26:W 10:L
23 MILES, Alex 1188 3 33:W 16:L 42:W 5:L 35:W 11:L
24 NAKAUCHI, Kenji 1093 3 3:L 29:W 34:W 16:L 43:W 18:L
25 PYPER, Matthew 1048 3 5:W 1:L 2:L 33:W 20:L 32:W
26 WEDD, Tony 1041 3 6:L 40:W 21:L 30:W 22:L 37:W
27 FOSTER, Allan 1014 3 20:L 30:W 0:W 12:L 13:L 38:W
28 MULLALY, Jeremy 910 3 10:L 48:W 12:L 42:W 32:L 43:W
29 MILLS, Gareth 578 3 18:L 24:L 46:W 31:L 39:W 35:W
30 POMERENKE, Zachary 569 3 12:L 27:L 38:W 26:L 47:W 36:W
31 KOSPARTOV, Nick 1066 2.5 4:L 47:W 5:L 29:W 34:D 15:L
32 HUBAND-LINT, Kees 1014 2.5 1:D 5:L 37:W 18:L 28:W 25:L
33 DEBOER, Isaac 526 2.5 23:L 46:W 19:L 25:L 44:D 42:W
34 VON PEIN, Lachlan 2.5 19:W 11:L 24:L 39:W 31:D 14:L
35 CHO, Adrian 984 2 0: 0: 0: 41:W 23:L 29:L
36 CERVENJAK, Matthew 846 2 14:L 41:W 22:W 21:L 19:L 30:L
37 JOHNSON, Mitchell 817 2 2:L 42:L 32:L 44:W 40:W 26:L
38 SOUL, David 814 2 7:L 43:L 30:L 48:W 41:W 27:L
39 MORAKHOVSKI, Alexander 754 2 11:L 49:W 13:L 34:L 29:L 48:W
40 PYPER, Jake 635 2 17:L 26:L 49:W 22:L 37:L 46:W
41 NAKAUCHI, Ray 476 2 9:L 36:L 44:W 35:L 38:L 47:W
42 HARMON, Martin 451 2 22:L 37:W 23:L 28:L 46:W 33:L
43 HARMON, Kieran 319 2 13:L 38:W 45:W 17:L 24:L 28:L
44 LUKE-PAREDI, Jack 680 1.5 21:L 19:L 41:L 37:L 33:D 49:W
45 COOPER, Matthew 1156 1 49:W 7:L 43:L 0: 0: 0:
46 LEE, Isabelle 759 1 15:L 33:L 29:L 49:W 42:L 40:L
47 DEIGHTON, Tyler 718 1 16:L 31:L 48:W 20:L 30:L 41:L
48 JOHNSON, Andrew 482 1 8:L 28:L 47:L 38:L 49:W 39:L
49 BUCKLEY, Nikola 0 45:L 39:L 40:L 46:L 48:L 44:L

Basil
15-02-2010, 12:42 PM
Well done Louay !!
JP0GaPo48h0

Basil
15-02-2010, 10:58 PM
I don't think that is true in even a hyperbolic sense.
Well we can agree to differ. There is a sufficient quantity of early match-ups in that tournament for me to insist that the top players spent considerable time fannying around (read: could have better spent their time) with the lesser lights, and thereby avoiding direct confrontation with other contenders.

I think the prospect (and occurrence) of upsets confuses the issue somewhat. Upsets will occur in round robin, swiss or accelerations; but they never provide the basis for discounting the existence of a systemic swiss weakness such as the one raised below.


Three of them ...All good points (I think - I haven't scrutinised them but am happy to take them on face value given your track record), but none of this changes my position; which is, that there are weaknesses in a straight swiss which don't occur in accelerated draws. Notwithstanding your points above, the outright second placing, yes outright second placing didn't play a single person above his rating. This has to be classified as a failing of the swiss system (of which I am a fan).


(indeed in an Accelerated Swiss there are likely to be more top-quarter players playing bottom-halfers in round 2).
I didn't know this and again accept the statement at face value.

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2010, 12:29 AM
I actually had one clerical error in my previous post; the player I had down as a 1700s opponent was actually an 1100s. :eek: So one of the six 4.5+ finishers who went W-W got a very cushy (on paper) second round after all.


Notwithstanding your points above, the outright second placing, yes outright second placing didn't play a single person above his rating. This has to be classified as a failing of the swiss system (of which I am a fan).

That sort of thing is a failing of any kind of swiss system and occurs just as easily, if not more so, in accelerated swisses, and probably more easily in abominated swisses (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=11458) (which tend to generate massive 1/2 scoregroups allowing a contender who has fallen into them to then go two or three rounds without a serious contest.)

Basically a swiss is designed to try to find the winner(s), and unless the event is very long then there will often be questionable minor placings.

In particular, frequent upsets in the early rounds can reduce the strength of the leading scoregroups, which acts as a kind of deceleration - and that happens in either an accelerated or a non-accelerated swiss.

That seems to be what has happened in this case. In a normal Swiss you would expect to have most of the 1500+ rated players, the top quarter, on 2/2 having disposed of opponents rated 600-ish points below them in the first round (this would quite often go 12-0) and 250-ish below them in the second. Instead, 5 of the top 12 seeds dropped something in the first two rounds (a high number by rating expectation) and another one was beaten by a lower rated player in round 3.

The system struggled to pick up the contenders because in the early rounds many of them were not playing up to their ratings while lower rated players were playing above theirs. Some of the contenders who started poorly continued poorly while others woke up. Some of the lower rated players kept performing well while others didn't.

The second place result is indeed quite unusual. O'Flynn performed at 1545, slightly below his own rating.

By comparison:

Al Zahar (5.5) PR 1979
Weller (4.5) PR 1728
Saavedra (4.5) PR 1729
Stahnke (4.5) PR 1449
Duffin (4.5) PR 1614
Walker (4.5) PR 1667
Jack (4.5) PR 1754
Cervenjak (4.5) PR 1754
Gilpin (4) PR 1617
Stokes (4) PR 1371
Johnson (4) PR 1497
Gray (4) PR 1426

So the player who finished second actually returned only about the ninth-best performance in ratings terms. Would be interesting to see countbacks as well.

But I don't think accelerated-or-not has much to do with it. I think the real culprit is a relatively small number of rounds to sort a field with many players performing well above or below their ratings in the early stages.

Garvinator
16-02-2010, 01:41 AM
KB: Is this what you are after?


Place Name Loc Score Progr. Buch. M-Buch.

1 AL-ZAHAR, Louay 1644 5.5 18.0 21.5 14.5
2 O'FLYNN, Alexander 1597 5 16.0 20.0 13.5
3-9 WELLER, Tony 1736 4.5 18.5 24.5 16.0
DUFFIN, Mike 1646 4.5 18.5 24.0 16.5
JACK, Martin 1349 4.5 17.5 22.0 16.0
WALKER, Tyson 1590 4.5 17.5 21.5 15.0
SAAVEDRA, Bernard 1711 4.5 17.0 22.0 14.0
CERVENJAK, Mark 1314 4.5 16.5 21.0 14.5
STAHNKE, Alexander 1701 4.5 14.5 20.0 13.0
10-13 JOHNSON, Nicholas 1380 4 15.0 22.0 14.5
STOKES, Mark C 1538 4 15.0 20.0 13.5
GILPIN, Matthew 1612 4 14.5 20.5 13.0
GRAY, Garvin 1230 4 13.0 17.0 11.0
14-19 PECK, Robbie 1433 3.5 14.5 19.5 14.0
STEWART, Craig A 1559 3.5 14.0 21.0 14.5
FORD, Daniel 1612 3.5 13.0 21.5 15.0
UNDERWOOD, Sean 1403 3.5 13.0 19.5 13.0
LAPITAN, Daniel 1401 3.5 12.5 21.5 13.5
SANDS, Gary A 1123 3.5 11.5 17.0 10.5

20-30 ZHANG, Daniel 1422 3 13.0 20.0 13.5
MILES, Alex 1188 3 12.0 17.5 12.0
ZVONAR, Frank 1624 3 11.0 19.5 14.0
NAKAUCHI, Kenji 1093 3 11.0 19.0 12.5
MILLS, Ross 1273 3 11.0 16.5 10.5
PYPER, Matthew 1048 3 10.0 23.0 15.0
FOSTER, Allan 1014 3 10.0 19.0 13.0
WEDD, Tony 1041 3 9.0 17.5 11.0
MULLALY, Jeremy 910 3 9.0 15.5 10.5
POMERENKE, Zachary 569 3 7.0 14.5 9.5
MILLS, Gareth 578 3 7.0 13.0 8.5
31-34 VON PEIN, Lachlan 2.5 10.0 18.5 12.5
HUBAND-LINT, Kees 1014 2.5 9.0 21.5 14.0
KOSPARTOV, Nick 1066 2.5 9.0 19.0 13.5
DEBOER, Isaac 526 2.5 7.0 14.0 9.5
35-43 CERVENJAK, Matthew 846 2 9.0 18.0 12.5
HARMON, Kieran 319 2 9.0 18.0 12.0
CHO, Adrian 984 2 9.0 17.0 12.0
HARMON, Martin 451 2 7.0 14.5 10.5
MORAKHOVSKI, Alexander 754 2 6.0 14.5 10.5
JOHNSON, Mitchell 817 2 5.0 16.0 9.5
SOUL, David 814 2 5.0 15.0 9.5
PYPER, Jake 635 2 5.0 12.5 9.0
NAKAUCHI, Ray 476 2 5.0 12.0 6.5
44 LUKE-PAREDI, Jack 680 1.5 2.0 13.0 9.5
45-48 DEIGHTON, Tyler 718 1 4.0 15.0 10.5
LEE, Isabelle 759 1 3.0 13.0 9.5
COOPER, Matthew 1156 1 3.0 6.5 2.0
JOHNSON, Andrew 482 1 2.0 12.5 8.0
49 BUCKLEY, Nikola 0 0.0 10.0 6.5

Adamski
16-02-2010, 05:49 AM
I am surprised that in this field Mark Stokes did not do better, considering his strong performance in January in the Aus Champs Minor. Still, we are all entitled to one off tournament, or more...

Garvin, congratulations on your performance. Most creditable given your rating.

Garrett
16-02-2010, 06:12 AM
I am surprised that in this field Mark Stokes did not do better, considering his strong performance in January in the Aus Champs Minor. Still, we are all entitled to one off tournament, or more...

Apart from losing to the tricky and higher rated Tony Weller, Mark only lost one other game. Still, you have a good point, as I think Mark has won this tournament before.



Garvin, congratulations on your performance. Most creditable given your rating.

Good last round win, garvinatored his opponent well.

Basil
16-02-2010, 07:15 AM
Kevin, we can keep examining what happened, what spikes, what anomalies, what natural built-in upsets happened in this and any other swiss tournament all day long. The fact remains, and no amount of scrutinising will change:
1. #2 played no one of any consequence
2. All the top seeds were fiddling around (on balance) when they should have been playing betters (notwithstanding the 'ooh-aah look Beryl, there's an upset or two', factor).

An accelerated swiss would have fixed both of these issues (despite having its own shortcomings).

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2010, 11:43 AM
KB: Is this what you are after?

Yes, thanks very much. It shows that on all indicators the second outright result was an odd one. The player who placed outright second (and good luck to him, after all you can only play the field you're given) was (roughly) ninth on performance rating, 7th on progressive score, 13th on Buchholz, 14th on Median-Buchholz.


An accelerated swiss would have fixed both of these issues (despite having its own shortcomings).

No, it would have fixed the second only with regards those top seeds who continued to win, and the first not at all. As I have already pointed out the midfield logjamming that occurs in accelerated swisses if anything increases the chances of a strongish player who loses early sneaking through the field without playing any of the leaders.

Acceleration does only two things well. The first is to dispose of the unequal pairings in the very first round (to some degree these return later, but if it is done properly and there are few upsets they do so in the midfield only) and the second is to make the finding of the deserving winner easier in fields that are extremely large relative to the number of rounds.

For pretty much all other purposes it is either no better than a normal swiss or else worse.

It is also important to note that acceleration only works when player ratings are accurate. The evidence of this tournament is that there were several low rated players performing well above their ratings.

Garvinator
16-02-2010, 12:20 PM
Garvin, congratulations on your performance. Most creditable given your rating.My performance was not that great. I played:

300
700
1000
1400
1600
1600

So I did the usual swiss yo-yo, which is one of the biggest criticisms I have against the regular swiss format. This yo-yoing is a 'feature' in most swisses up here and I usually do not play in the events where it occurs.

Basil
16-02-2010, 12:47 PM
No, it would have fixed the second only with regards those top seeds who continued to win, and the first not at all. As I have already pointed out the midfield logjamming that occurs in accelerated swisses if anything increases the chances of a strongish player who loses early sneaking through the field without playing any of the leaders.
I disagree. And it's clear we will continue to do so; so this (I think) will be my last post on the matter. We have previously agreed that midfield log-jamming is pushed further south with acceleration than with normal swiss (your analysis). This is preferable because the minor placings are 'taken care of'.


Acceleration does only two things well. The first is to dispose of the unequal pairings in the very first round (to some degree these return later, but if it is done properly and there are few upsets they do so in the midfield only) and the second is to make the finding of the deserving winner easier in fields that are extremely large relative to the number of rounds.
So you concede a benefit for acceleration. Great. Don't forget, I'm not promoting acceleration (and never have). I'm promoting the understanding of benefits of acceleration.

Garvin, do you recall which BCC tournaments were accelerated in the last 10 years?

Garvinator
16-02-2010, 01:22 PM
Garvin, do you recall which BCC tournaments that were accelerated in the last 10 years?We tried acceleration in an about three tournaments. I would not use them as any evidence for or against acceleration. The tournaments were only four rounds and had so many defects that the data is worthless. Hence why we/BCC have decided to go with either a normal swiss or using divisions.

Basil
16-02-2010, 01:23 PM
We tried acceleration in an about three tournaments. I would not use them as any evidence for or against acceleration. The tournaments were only four rounds and had so many defects that the data is worthless. Hence why we/BCC have decided to go with either a normal swiss or using divisions.
Roger that on all counts, thanks.

Garvinator
16-02-2010, 01:28 PM
Roger that on all counts, thanks.
We also tried the Box Hill System (2 point permanent acceleration) which certainly works in removing the mis-matches, but it means that players from the bottom half can not win the overall prizes.

The main defect being is that for acceleration to produce any real data, 6 or 7 round tournaments are needed and about 50 or more players as well.

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2010, 04:10 PM
We have previously agreed that midfield log-jamming is pushed further south with acceleration than with normal swiss (your analysis). This is preferable because the minor placings are 'taken care of'.

You are, I believe, referring to my analysis here (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=244071&postcount=720), which is based on the kinds of crude simulations in which all games are wins to the higher rated player.

Even then the benefit to the 5/6 scoregroup after 6 rounds was a 17% improvement in culling while the 4/6 scoregroup got slightly larger.

I would certainly not be assuming on that basis that in the real world with draws and upsets and so on, that acceleration is any better at reducing the size of the 4.5/6 scoregroup, which is where the logjam occurred in this instance.

Indeed in this case the Swiss system delivered a vacant 6/6 scoregroup, one player on 5.5, one player on 5, and only then a 7-player logjam 1.5 points away from the median. That's quite reasonable in terms of thinning out such a big field at the top end except that it picked the wrong player as second, when in fact there were 4-5 players who finished =3rd whose performances were worthy of =2nd. If anything, the ordinary Swiss system overdid the thinning of the pointy end, except in one case.


So you concede a benefit for acceleration. Great.

The use of the word "concede" makes it sound like I am coming from a blanket anti-acceleration position, which is certainly not the case, never was, and never has been.

I do, however, oppose the use of acceleration in situations where it does not acheive anything useful, especially if it is likely to be incorrectly implemented by those who don't understand the proper system and prefer the awful SP one.