PDA

View Full Version : Pairing concerns



Garvinator
16-08-2005, 05:01 PM
Thought I would create a thread for this so it has a thread of its own.

I have just finished playing in a tournament where I was only a player. It was a seven round competition and after round six had finished, the pairings for round seven were released (one round a week type competition). I found the pairings for round seven odd and challenged them, believing there were more 'correct' pairings than the pairings that swissperfect generated.

Here are the pairings for each round and then for round seven:
Round 1:


No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 ROBINSON, Andrew J (1) 1596 [0] 1:0 TAYLOR, Mark (16) [0]
2 PRASHER, Suneel (15) [0] 0:1 KIRKMAN, Phillip (2) 1552 [0]
3 HOWES, T (3) 1527 [0] 1:0 GRAY, Garvin (9) 1188 [0]
4 HILLER, Peter (10) 1159 [0] 1:0 ADAMS, Ray (5) 1468 [0]
5 JENKINS, Deborah (6) 1360 [0] 1:0 MARTIN, Shane (14) [0]
6 CHADWICK, Marty (11) 1048 [0] 1:0 WATERS, Mick (7) 1290 [0]
7 WILLCOCK, Brian (8) 1246 [0] 0:1 WILSON, Stuart (12) 882 [0]
8 QUARESMINI, Harvey A (4) 1525 [0] .5:0 BYE
9 HILLER, James (13) 619 [0] .5:0 BYE

Round 2:


No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 JENKINS, Deborah (6) 1360 [1] .5:.5 ROBINSON, Andrew J (1) 1596 [1]
2 KIRKMAN, Phillip (2) 1552 [1] 1:0 HILLER, Peter (10) 1159 [1]
3 WILSON, Stuart (12) 882 [1] 0:1 HOWES, T (3) 1527 [1]
4 QUARESMINI, Harvey A (4) 1525 [.5] 1:0 CHADWICK, Marty (11) 1048 [1]
5 ADAMS, Ray (5) 1468 [0] 1:0 HILLER, James (13) 619 [.5]
6 WATERS, Mick (7) 1290 [0] 0:1 PRASHER, Suneel (15) [0]
7 GRAY, Garvin (9) 1188 [0] 1:0 WILLCOCK, Brian (8) 1246 [0]
8 TAYLOR, Mark (16) [0] 0:1 MARTIN, Shane (14) [0]


Round 3:


No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 HOWES, T (3) 1527 [2] 0:1 KIRKMAN, Phillip (2) 1552 [2]
2 ROBINSON, Andrew J (1) 1596 [1.5] 1:0 QUARESMINI, Harvey A (4) 1525 [1.5]
3 PRASHER, Suneel (15) [1] 0:1 JENKINS, Deborah (6) 1360 [1.5]
4 MARTIN, Shane (14) [1] 0:1 ADAMS, Ray (5) 1468 [1]
5 CHADWICK, Marty (11) 1048 [1] 0:1 GRAY, Garvin (9) 1188 [1]
6 HILLER, Peter (10) 1159 [1] 0:1 WILSON, Stuart (12) 882 [1]
7 HILLER, James (13) 619 [.5] 0:1 WATERS, Mick (7) 1290 [0]
8 WILLCOCK, Brian (8) 1246 [0] 1:0 TAYLOR, Mark (16) [0]


Round 4:


No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 HOWES, T (3) 1527 [2] .5:.5 ROBINSON, Andrew J (1) 1596 [2.5]
2 KIRKMAN, Phillip (2) 1552 [3] 1:0 JENKINS, Deborah (6) 1360 [2.5]
3 ADAMS, Ray (5) 1468 [2] .5:.5 GRAY, Garvin (9) 1188 [2]
4 QUARESMINI, Harvey A (4) 1525 [1.5] 1:0 HILLER, Peter (10) 1159 [1]
5 WILSON, Stuart (12) 882 [2] 1:0 CHADWICK, Marty (11) 1048 [1]
6 WATERS, Mick (7) 1290 [1] 1:0 WILLCOCK, Brian (8) 1246 [1]
7 MARTIN, Shane (14) [1] 0:1 PRASHER, Suneel (15) [1]
8 TAYLOR, Mark (16) [0] 1:0 HILLER, James (13) 619 [.5]


Round 5:


No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 ROBINSON, Andrew J (1) 1596 [3] 1:0 KIRKMAN, Phillip (2) 1552 [4]
2 ADAMS, Ray (5) 1468 [2.5] 1:0 WILSON, Stuart (12) 882 [3]
3 JENKINS, Deborah (6) 1360 [2.5] 0:1 HOWES, T (3) 1527 [2.5]
4 GRAY, Garvin (9) 1188 [2.5] .5:.5 QUARESMINI, Harvey A (4) 1525 [2.5]
5 HILLER, Peter (10) 1159 [1] 0:1 WATERS, Mick (7) 1290 [2]
6 PRASHER, Suneel (15) [2] -:+ TAYLOR, Mark (16) [1]
7 WILLCOCK, Brian (8) 1246 [1] -:+ MARTIN, Shane (14) [1]
8 HILLER, James (13) 619 [.5] 0:1 CHADWICK, Marty (11) 1048 [1]


Round 6:


No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 KIRKMAN, Phillip (2) 1552 [4] 1:0 ADAMS, Ray (5) 1468 [3.5]
2 WATERS, Mick (7) 1290 [3] 0:1 ROBINSON, Andrew J (1) 1596 [4]
3 QUARESMINI, Harvey A (4) 1525 [3] -:+ HOWES, T (3) 1527 [3.5]
4 WILSON, Stuart (12) 882 [3] 0:1 JENKINS, Deborah (6) 1360 [2.5]
5 TAYLOR, Mark (16) [2] 0:1 GRAY, Garvin (9) 1188 [3]
6 HILLER, James (13) 619 [.5] +:- PRASHER, Suneel (15) [2]
7 CHADWICK, Marty (11) 1048 [2] 1:0 MARTIN, Shane (14) [2]
8 HILLER, Peter (10) 1159 [1] 1:0 BYE

Now on to round 7.

The pairings sp generated using the fide option.


No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 GRAY, Garvin (9) 1188 [4] : KIRKMAN, Phillip (2) 1552 [5]
2 ROBINSON, Andrew J (1) 1596 [5] : WILSON, Stuart (12) 882 [3]
3 ADAMS, Ray (5) 1468 [3.5] : HOWES, T (3) 1527 [4.5]
4 JENKINS, Deborah (6) 1360 [3.5] : CHADWICK, Marty (11) 1048 [3]
5 QUARESMINI, Harvey A (4) 1525 [3] : WATERS, Mick (7) 1290 [3]
6 HILLER, Peter (10) 1159 [2] : TAYLOR, Mark (16) [2]
7 MARTIN, Shane (14) [2] : HILLER, James (13) 619 [1.5]

I believe the pairings below are the correct ones:


No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 GRAY, Garvin (9) 1188 [4] : ROBINSON, Andrew J (1) 1596 [5]
2 QUARESMINI, Harvey A (4) 1525 [3] : KIRKMAN, Phillip (2) 1552 [5]
3 ADAMS, Ray (5) 1468 [3.5] : HOWES, T (3) 1527 [4.5]
4 JENKINS, Deborah (6) 1360 [3.5] : CHADWICK, Marty (11) 1048 [3]
5 WILSON, Stuart (12) 882 [3] : WATERS, Mick (7) 1290 [3]
6 HILLER, Peter (10) 1159 [2] : TAYLOR, Mark (16) [2]
7 MARTIN, Shane (14) [2] : HILLER, James (13) 619 [1.5]


I also sent my concerns to another arbiter up here to see what he thought and after some testing and using swiss sys, we came to similiar thoughts on the pairings.

But when he downloaded another pairing program and put in all the pairings, it generated a third set of pairings for round seven.

My question is: Can someone please tell me what should the round seven pairings look like and also why they should be that way?

Kevin Bonham
16-08-2005, 08:33 PM
I haven't attempted to do a full final round draw (takes ages doing one manually from scratch) but I think I can explain the difference between your round 7 pairing and the one given.

From the 3 scoregroup, you upfloat Quaresmini to play a player on 5. But Quaresmini upfloated in round 6 to play a player on 3.5. SP's pairings upfloat Wilson on 3 which is preferable because Wilson was downfloated in rounds 5 and 6 and can therefore be upfloated without problems.

It is true that Quaresmini forfeited the game for which he was upfloated, but curiously while a game paired and not played is not taken into account for colour (F2), it is still taken into account from a standpoint of float history, simply because there is nothing to say otherwise. This is inconsistent and should be changed.

It is also true that the float rules B2, B5 and B6 do not apply when pairing players with a score over 50% in the last round. However Quaresmini is not a player with a score over 50% but a player with a score of exactly 50%. The "note" to B6 is rather ambiguous ("pairing players with a score of over 50%" - does this mean one player is over 50% or both are?), but I have always interpreted it to apply only to pairings where both players have over 50%. It seems that SP does likewise.

Denis_Jessop
16-08-2005, 08:33 PM
Hi Garvin

Before you get to round 7, round 1 seems to need attention. The draw seems to be (out of 14, allowing for the 2 half-point byes) 1v14, 13v2, 3v12 after which it all goes even more pear-shaped. Certainly not as per the FIDE Swiss Rules or SP. I haven't gone beyond rd1.

DJ

Bill Gletsos
16-08-2005, 08:39 PM
Hi Garvin

Before you get to round 7, round 1 seems to need attention. The draw seems to be (out of 14, allowing for the 2 half-point byes) 1v14, 13v2, 3v12 after which it all goes even more pear-shaped. Certainly not as per the FIDE Swiss Rules or SP. I haven't gone beyond rd1.

DJYou are correct. A number of earlier rounds dont look correctly paired if the player numbers indicate their ranking numbers (normally the case but not a given).

If the player numbers are correct and the first round manually paired then Sp will not generate the round 2 pairings shown. If round 2 is manually overridden then SP will not genertae the round 3 pairings shown.

Garvinator
16-08-2005, 08:40 PM
Hi Garvin

Before you get to round 7, round 1 seems to need attention. The draw seems to be (out of 14, allowing for the 2 half-point byes) 1v14, 13v2, 3v12 after which it all goes even more pear-shaped. Certainly not as per the FIDE Swiss Rules or SP. I haven't gone beyond rd1.

DJ
Dont bother looking at the previous rounds for matching with normal pairing rules . Pairings in round one were altered as the previous tournament had almost the same pairings as would have been normally generated. The unrated players would given 'provisional' ratings, but I am not sure what they were or if that was just the explaination given by the dop to most of the players which would be easy for some of the players to understand.

Then for the rest of the first six rounds there were adjournments, forfeits etc which skewed the pairings. I manually inputted the pairings after round 6 cause I thought the pairings for round seven odd.

Garvinator
16-08-2005, 08:50 PM
I haven't attempted to do a full final round draw (takes ages doing one manually from scratch) but I think I can explain the difference between your round 7 pairing and the one given.

From the 3 scoregroup, you upfloat Quaresmini to play a player on 5. But Quaresmini upfloated in round 6 to play a player on 3.5. SP's pairings upfloat Wilson on 3 which is preferable because Wilson was downfloated in rounds 5 and 6 and can therefore be upfloated without problems.

It is true that Quaresmini forfeited the game for which he was upfloated, but curiously while a game paired and not played is not taken into account for colour (F2), it is still taken into account from a standpoint of float history, simply because there is nothing to say otherwise. This is inconsistent and should be changed.

It is also true that the float rules B2, B5 and B6 do not apply when pairing players with a score over 50% in the last round. However Quaresmini is not a player with a score over 50% but a player with a score of exactly 50%. The "note" to B6 is rather ambiguous ("pairing players with a score of over 50%" - does this mean one player is over 50% or both are?), but I have always interpreted it to apply only to pairings where both players have over 50%. It seems that SP does likewise.


My issue had started before even looking at floats. AR and PK are on 5 and should be paired first. AR is higher rated, so I thought you would deal with him first. You look for his first legal pairing and that is GG. This is where my first concern came up so I will await further comments before continuing.

Interesting that using fide defaults, swiss sys gives for round 7.

GG v AR
MC v PK
RA v TH.

Bill Gletsos
16-08-2005, 09:11 PM
If we ignore the issues concerning how SP generated the first 6 rounds and just look at round 7 then after round 6 the player ranking order for pairings and previous colours is as follows:

Robinson 5 - W B W B W B
Kirkman 5 - B W B W B W
Howes 4.5 - W B W W B X
Gray 4 - B W B B W B
Adams 3.5 - B W B W W B
Jenkins 3.5 - W W B B W B
etc

Now in the top score group Robinson and Kirkham have played. They therefore go down to the next score group and join Howes.
However Howes has played both Robinson and Kirkman so all three drop to the next score group and join Gray.
Now Robinson has a colour pref of W and Gray has a colour pref of W.
However Kirkman has a colour pref of B.
Now since pairing rule B4 should be followed
B.4 As many players as possible receive their colour preference. (Whenever x of a score bracket is unequal to zero this rule will have to be ignored. x is deducted by one each time a colour preference cannot be granted.)
then the pairing from this hetrogeneous group is Gray - Kirkman.

Robinson and Howes drop to the next score group and are joined by Adams and Jenkins and the pairings continue.

P.S. My understanding is that Swiss-Sys does not follow the FIDE Dutch Swiss Pairing rules 04.1 but just the basic FIDE Swiss rules 0.4.2.

Kevin Bonham
17-08-2005, 12:05 AM
My issue had started before even looking at floats. AR and PK are on 5 and should be paired first. AR is higher rated, so I thought you would deal with him first. You look for his first legal pairing and that is GG. This is where my first concern came up so I will await further comments before continuing.

Yes but you can make transpositions from what would be expected by seeding within an amalgamated score group if it improves the colour situation, as Bill has pointed out. You don't just leave the first legal pairing you can find intact come hell or high water further down.

Garvinator
17-08-2005, 01:17 AM
Yes but you can make transpositions from what would be expected by seeding within an amalgamated score group if it improves the colour situation, as Bill has pointed out. You don't just leave the first legal pairing you can find intact come hell or high water further down.
So for this situation the following has occurred to produce Gray- Kirkman.

1) Players on 5 have played each other
2) All players on 5 and the one player on 4.5 have played each other
3) Going down to the next score,4, is where the first legal pairing occurs.
4) The four players are then combined into one heterogenous group.
5) Even though the first legal pairing to be found for AR is GG, PK who is also on 5 is a better colour match for GG than AR for the following reason:

AR and PK have a 0 white/black colour ratio. AR is 'due' white, whereas PK is 'due' black. GG has a -2 colour ratio.
6) Therefore matching colours and legal pairings- GG v PK is the 'best' pairing.

I am sorry that this might be a pain in the butt, but this is kinda the only way I can learn from mistakes I sometimes make. In checking this situation with the dop from the tournament and also another dop up here, hardly none of this was picked up, which is a bit of a concern.

Now that GG v PK is the 'best' first board pairing,
I am now trying to work out why board 2 isnt AR v RA.

AR has played TH and DJ. Both AR and RA are over 50%, so floats arent an issue. AR and RA havent played each other.

Kevin Bonham
17-08-2005, 02:00 AM
I am now trying to work out why board 2 isnt AR v RA.

I am puzzled by that too. It may be an SP error or you may find after looking at the logic of who would play who that there was no other way to pair the other players without some disallowed float or other issue somewhere. I've sometimes had cases where I look at the last-round draw and think "that just can't be right" then after half an hour or more I find the reason for it. Other times I work out that it's wrong.

SP will often create one large score gap and one small one in preference to two middle-sized ones, or downfloat one player multiple scoregroups rather than two one scoregroup each.

Garvinator
17-08-2005, 02:12 AM
I am puzzled by that too. It may be an SP error or you may find after looking at the logic of who would play who that there was no other way to pair the other players without some disallowed float or other issue somewhere. I've sometimes had cases where I look at the last-round draw and think "that just can't be right" then after half an hour or more I find the reason for it. Other times I work out that it's wrong.

SP will often create one large score gap and one small one in preference to two middle-sized ones, or downfloat one player multiple scoregroups rather than two one scoregroup each.

I think I might have an answer, but not to why sp 'overlooked' AR v RA.

When I gave this whole round 7 situation to the other dop at my normal club, BCC, he went and downloaded Swiss46 (also known as Petunia). Apparently it is a fide endorsed pairing program and is a free download.

It came up with the pairings of:

1 gg ( 4 ) - pk ( 5 ) 9- 2
2 ar ( 5 ) - ra ( 3) 1- 5
3 hq ( 3 ) - th ( 4) 4- 3
4 dj ( 3) - mc ( 3 ) 6- 11
5 sw ( 3 ) - mw ( 3 ) 12- 7
6 ph ( 2 ) - mt ( 2 ) 10- 16
7 sm ( 2 ) - jh ( 1) 14- 13

The above pairings would seem to be the most correct starting with GG v PK.

Kevin Bonham
17-08-2005, 11:49 PM
I think I might have an answer, but not to why sp 'overlooked' AR v RA.

When I gave this whole round 7 situation to the other dop at my normal club, BCC, he went and downloaded Swiss46 (also known as Petunia). Apparently it is a fide endorsed pairing program and is a free download.

It came up with the pairings of:

1 gg ( 4 ) - pk ( 5 ) 9- 2
2 ar ( 5 ) - ra ( 3) 1- 5
3 hq ( 3 ) - th ( 4) 4- 3
4 dj ( 3) - mc ( 3 ) 6- 11
5 sw ( 3 ) - mw ( 3 ) 12- 7
6 ph ( 2 ) - mt ( 2 ) 10- 16
7 sm ( 2 ) - jh ( 1) 14- 13

The above pairings would seem to be the most correct starting with GG v PK.

I think SP's draw is wrong and the one above is better. SP will often overfloat from one scoregroup and create a smaller float or no float somewhere else. I call this the "double downfloat" bug (sometimes it downfloats a player two scoregroups to avoid two single downfloats) and I think it violates B3. It seems totally obvious to me that pairing a 5 with a 3.5 and a 4.5 with a 3 is closer to the spirit of the system than pairing a 5 with a 3 and a 4.5 with a 3.5.

Ian Rout
18-08-2005, 09:23 AM
I think SP's draw is wrong and the one above is better. SP will often overfloat from one scoregroup and create a smaller float or no float somewhere else. I call this the "double downfloat" bug (sometimes it downfloats a player two scoregroups to avoid two single downfloats) and I think it violates B3. It seems totally obvious to me that pairing a 5 with a 3.5 and a 4.5 with a 3 is closer to the spirit of the system than pairing a 5 with a 3 and a 4.5 with a 3.5.
I don't think it exactly violates B3 but it interptets it in a way which is probably not what was intended; what SP seems to do is apply B3 to the pairings in total rather than to each individual group.

In this case the Petunia and SP pairings both have a sum of 5.0 points difference so SP regards them as equally valid, and then prefers the one it came up with on some other grounds, whereas a human would regard the Petunia pairings as better.

In the later rounds of smallish tournaments, or in sparsely populated score zones, this effect happens more than occasionally so arbiters should be on the lookout for it. Another instance was the 2004 NSWCA May weekender which was much discussed in these pages, where the bottom player was catapulted up through a couple of score groups to give a player a soft ride to a rating prize.

Although SP as a tool is a good thing, it can become a crutch with people running tournaments without learning the pairing rules, or knowing them but not bothering to look for at least gross problems.

Garvinator
31-01-2006, 07:29 PM
Since there have been a few posts about protos, swiss master and swiss perfect, I thought I would put together some fictional pairings for the upcoming City of Brisbane and see what Swissperfect would generate for each round. Then I would put them up on here and let everyone else decide what they think for the pairings and if they look and are accurate.

Results are assumed based on wins for the higher rated player in each match for each round.

Feedback wanted.

Garvinator
31-01-2006, 07:32 PM
List of Players:


No Name Loc

1. EDWARDS, Jacob A 1946
2. JABUR, Majid 1855
3. BAILEY, Cameron R 1802
4. AL ZAHER, Louay 1737
5. HACKENSCHMIDT-UECKER, Jorg 1708
6. BRUCK, Patrick W 1690
7. KORENEVSKI, Oleg 1674
8. ALKIN, John 1638
9. VAN PELT, Michael 1613
10. CHELEBICHANIN, Nenad 1605
11. DUGGAN, Howard 1546
12. CHEVOR, Adam 1524
13. FLITCROFT-SMITH, George P 1509
14. HOLT, Stuart 1384
15. BRADY, Sean 1371
16. TANGIMENTUA, Tyson 1360
17. NUTT, Jeff 1337
18. RUSSELL, Luthien 1334
19. LYONS, Kieran C 1307
20. ABRAHAMS, Joe 1266
21. RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253
22. MCKAY, Nicholas 1221
23. HUMPHREY, John 1216
24. GRENFELL, Regina 1205
25. SCOTT, John D. 1067
26. SUMMERS, Terry 966
27. JOHNSTON, Andrew 960
28. LLOYD, Martyn 912
29. WILSON, Sean 781
30. ROGERS, Jim 764
31. BORRILL, Mark 731
32. HURSE, Lachlan
33. LYONS, Russell
34. WILSON, Bernie A.

Garvinator
31-01-2006, 07:33 PM
Cross Table after seven rounds:


No Name Loc Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 EDWARDS, Jacob A 1946 7 18:W 10:W 6:W 4:W 7:W 2:W 3:W
2 JABUR, Majid 1855 6 19:W 9:W 5:W 7:W 3:W 1:L 8:W
3 BAILEY, Cameron R 1802 5 20:W 12:W 8:W 5:W 2:L 4:W 1:L
4 AL ZAHER, Louay 1737 5 21:W 11:W 17:W 1:L 15:W 3:L 9:W
5 HACKENSCHMIDT-UECKER, Jorg 1708 5 22:W 14:W 2:L 3:L 19:W 16:W 10:W
6 BRUCK, Patrick W 1690 5 23:W 13:W 1:L 17:L 21:W 15:W 11:W
7 KORENEVSKI, Oleg 1674 5 24:W 16:W 10:W 2:L 1:L 13:W 12:W
8 ALKIN, John 1638 5 25:W 15:W 3:L 13:W 11:W 9:W 2:L
9 VAN PELT, Michael 1613 4 26:W 2:L 20:W 14:W 12:W 8:L 4:L
10 CHELEBICHANIN, Nenad 1605 4 27:W 1:L 7:L 23:W 25:W 17:W 5:L
11 DUGGAN, Howard 1546 4 28:W 4:L 22:W 16:W 8:L 14:W 6:L
12 CHEVOR, Adam 1524 4 31:W 3:L 19:W 25:W 9:L 22:W 7:L
13 FLITCROFT-SMITH, George P 1509 4 29:W 6:L 24:W 8:L 18:W 7:L 19:W
14 HOLT, Stuart 1384 4 32:W 5:L 21:W 9:L 17:W 11:L 22:W
15 BRADY, Sean 1371 4 33:W 8:L 26:W 20:W 4:L 6:L 18:W
16 TANGIMENTUA, Tyson 1360 4 30:W 7:L 23:W 11:L 29:W 5:L 21:W
17 NUTT, Jeff 1337 4 34:W 18:W 4:L 6:W 14:L 10:L 20:W
18 RUSSELL, Luthien 1334 3 1:L 17:L 32:W 31:W 13:L 25:W 15:L
19 LYONS, Kieran C 1307 3 2:L 28:W 12:L 24:W 5:L 26:W 13:L
20 ABRAHAMS, Joe 1266 3 3:L 27:W 9:L 15:L 28:W 29:W 17:L
21 RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253 3 4:L 29:W 14:L 26:W 6:L 24:W 16:L
22 MCKAY, Nicholas 1221 3 5:L 31:W 11:L 27:W 23:W 12:L 14:L
23 HUMPHREY, John 1216 3 6:L 33:W 16:L 10:L 22:L 31:W 32:W
24 GRENFELL, Regina 1205 3 7:L 32:W 13:L 19:L 27:W 21:L 30:W
25 SCOTT, John D. 1067 3 8:L 34:W 28:W 12:L 10:L 18:L 33:W
26 SUMMERS, Terry 966 3 9:L 30:W 15:L 21:L 31:W 19:L 29:W
27 JOHNSTON, Andrew 960 3 10:L 20:L 33:W 22:L 24:L 32:W 31:W
28 LLOYD, Martyn 912 3 11:L 19:L 25:L 30:W 20:L 33:W 34:W
29 ROGERS, Jim 764 2 13:L 21:L 30:W 32:W 16:L 20:L 26:L
30 LYONS, Russell 2 16:L 26:L 29:L 28:L 33:W 34:W 24:L
31 WILSON, Sean 781 1 12:L 22:L 34:W 18:L 26:L 23:L 27:L
32 BORRILL, Mark 731 1 14:L 24:L 18:L 29:L 34:W 27:L 23:L
33 HURSE, Lachlan 1 15:L 23:L 27:L 34:W 30:L 28:L 25:L
34 WILSON, Bernie A. 0 17:L 25:L 31:L 33:L 32:L 30:L 28:L

Garvinator
31-01-2006, 07:34 PM
Round by Round results:


R1:

No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 EDWARDS, Jacob A 1946 [0] 1:0 RUSSELL, Luthien 1334 [0]
2 LYONS, Kieran C 1307 [0] 0:1 JABUR, Majid 1855 [0]
3 BAILEY, Cameron R 1802 [0] 1:0 ABRAHAMS, Joe 1266 [0]
4 RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253 [0] 0:1 AL ZAHER, Louay 1737 [0]
5 HACKENSCHMIDT-UECKER, Jorg 1708 [0] 1:0 MCKAY, Nicholas 1221 [0]
6 HUMPHREY, John 1216 [0] 0:1 BRUCK, Patrick W 1690 [0]
7 KORENEVSKI, Oleg 1674 [0] 1:0 GRENFELL, Regina 1205 [0]
8 SCOTT, John D. 1067 [0] 0:1 ALKIN, John 1638 [0]
9 VAN PELT, Michael 1613 [0] 1:0 SUMMERS, Terry 966 [0]
10 JOHNSTON, Andrew 960 [0] 0:1 CHELEBICHANIN, Nenad 1605 [0]
11 DUGGAN, Howard 1546 [0] 1:0 LLOYD, Martyn 912 [0]
12 WILSON, Sean 781 [0] 0:1 CHEVOR, Adam 1524 [0]
13 FLITCROFT-SMITH, George P 1509 [0] 1:0 ROGERS, Jim 764 [0]
14 BORRILL, Mark 731 [0] 0:1 HOLT, Stuart 1384 [0]
15 BRADY, Sean 1371 [0] 1:0 HURSE, Lachlan [0]
16 LYONS, Russell [0] 0:1 TANGIMENTUA, Tyson 1360 [0]
17 NUTT, Jeff 1337 [0] 1:0 WILSON, Bernie A. [0]

Garvinator
31-01-2006, 07:35 PM
R2:

No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 EDWARDS, Jacob A 1946 [0] 1:0 RUSSELL, Luthien 1334 [0]
2 LYONS, Kieran C 1307 [0] 0:1 JABUR, Majid 1855 [0]
3 BAILEY, Cameron R 1802 [0] 1:0 ABRAHAMS, Joe 1266 [0]
4 RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253 [0] 0:1 AL ZAHER, Louay 1737 [0]
5 HACKENSCHMIDT-UECKER, Jorg 1708 [0] 1:0 MCKAY, Nicholas 1221 [0]
6 HUMPHREY, John 1216 [0] 0:1 BRUCK, Patrick W 1690 [0]
7 KORENEVSKI, Oleg 1674 [0] 1:0 GRENFELL, Regina 1205 [0]
8 SCOTT, John D. 1067 [0] 0:1 ALKIN, John 1638 [0]
9 VAN PELT, Michael 1613 [0] 1:0 SUMMERS, Terry 966 [0]
10 JOHNSTON, Andrew 960 [0] 0:1 CHELEBICHANIN, Nenad 1605 [0]
11 DUGGAN, Howard 1546 [0] 1:0 LLOYD, Martyn 912 [0]
12 WILSON, Sean 781 [0] 0:1 CHEVOR, Adam 1524 [0]
13 FLITCROFT-SMITH, George P 1509 [0] 1:0 ROGERS, Jim 764 [0]
14 BORRILL, Mark 731 [0] 0:1 HOLT, Stuart 1384 [0]
15 BRADY, Sean 1371 [0] 1:0 HURSE, Lachlan [0]
16 LYONS, Russell [0] 0:1 TANGIMENTUA, Tyson 1360 [0]
17 NUTT, Jeff 1337 [0] 1:0 WILSON, Bernie A. [0]

Garvinator
31-01-2006, 07:36 PM
R3:

No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 EDWARDS, Jacob A 1946 [2] 1:0 BRUCK, Patrick W 1690 [2]
2 HACKENSCHMIDT-UECKER, Jorg 1708 [2] 0:1 JABUR, Majid 1855 [2]
3 BAILEY, Cameron R 1802 [2] 1:0 ALKIN, John 1638 [2]
4 NUTT, Jeff 1337 [2] 0:1 AL ZAHER, Louay 1737 [2]
5 KORENEVSKI, Oleg 1674 [2] 1:0 CHELEBICHANIN, Nenad 1605 [1]
6 VAN PELT, Michael 1613 [1] 1:0 ABRAHAMS, Joe 1266 [1]
7 DUGGAN, Howard 1546 [1] 1:0 MCKAY, Nicholas 1221 [1]
8 LYONS, Kieran C 1307 [1] 0:1 CHEVOR, Adam 1524 [1]
9 FLITCROFT-SMITH, George P 1509 [1] 1:0 GRENFELL, Regina 1205 [1]
10 RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253 [1] 0:1 HOLT, Stuart 1384 [1]
11 BRADY, Sean 1371 [1] 1:0 SUMMERS, Terry 966 [1]
12 HUMPHREY, John 1216 [1] 0:1 TANGIMENTUA, Tyson 1360 [1]
13 SCOTT, John D. 1067 [1] 1:0 LLOYD, Martyn 912 [0]
14 BORRILL, Mark 731 [0] 0:1 RUSSELL, Luthien 1334 [0]
15 JOHNSTON, Andrew 960 [0] 1:0 HURSE, Lachlan [0]
16 WILSON, Sean 781 [0] 1:0 WILSON, Bernie A. [0]
17 LYONS, Russell [0] 0:1 ROGERS, Jim 764 [0]

Garvinator
31-01-2006, 07:38 PM
R4:

No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 AL ZAHER, Louay 1737 [3] 0:1 EDWARDS, Jacob A 1946 [3]
2 JABUR, Majid 1855 [3] 1:0 KORENEVSKI, Oleg 1674 [3]
3 HACKENSCHMIDT-UECKER, Jorg 1708 [2] 0:1 BAILEY, Cameron R 1802 [3]
4 BRUCK, Patrick W 1690 [2] 0:1 NUTT, Jeff 1337 [2]
5 ALKIN, John 1638 [2] 1:0 FLITCROFT-SMITH, George P 1509 [2]
6 HOLT, Stuart 1384 [2] 0:1 VAN PELT, Michael 1613 [2]
7 TANGIMENTUA, Tyson 1360 [2] 0:1 DUGGAN, Howard 1546 [2]
8 CHEVOR, Adam 1524 [2] 1:0 SCOTT, John D. 1067 [2]
9 ABRAHAMS, Joe 1266 [1] 0:1 BRADY, Sean 1371 [2]
10 CHELEBICHANIN, Nenad 1605 [1] 1:0 HUMPHREY, John 1216 [1]
11 RUSSELL, Luthien 1334 [1] 1:0 WILSON, Sean 781 [1]
12 GRENFELL, Regina 1205 [1] 0:1 LYONS, Kieran C 1307 [1]
13 SUMMERS, Terry 966 [1] 0:1 RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253 [1]
14 MCKAY, Nicholas 1221 [1] 1:0 JOHNSTON, Andrew 960 [1]
15 ROGERS, Jim 764 [1] 1:0 BORRILL, Mark 731 [0]
16 LLOYD, Martyn 912 [0] 1:0 LYONS, Russell [0]
17 HURSE, Lachlan [0] 1:0 WILSON, Bernie A. [0]

Garvinator
31-01-2006, 07:38 PM
R5:

No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 BAILEY, Cameron R 1802 [4] 0:1 JABUR, Majid 1855 [4]
2 EDWARDS, Jacob A 1946 [4] 1:0 KORENEVSKI, Oleg 1674 [3]
3 BRADY, Sean 1371 [3] 0:1 AL ZAHER, Louay 1737 [3]
4 DUGGAN, Howard 1546 [3] 0:1 ALKIN, John 1638 [3]
5 VAN PELT, Michael 1613 [3] 1:0 CHEVOR, Adam 1524 [3]
6 NUTT, Jeff 1337 [3] 0:1 HOLT, Stuart 1384 [2]
7 LYONS, Kieran C 1307 [2] 0:1 HACKENSCHMIDT-UECKER, Jorg 1708 [2]
8 RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253 [2] 0:1 BRUCK, Patrick W 1690 [2]
9 SCOTT, John D. 1067 [2] 0:1 CHELEBICHANIN, Nenad 1605 [2]
10 FLITCROFT-SMITH, George P 1509 [2] 1:0 RUSSELL, Luthien 1334 [2]
11 ROGERS, Jim 764 [2] 0:1 TANGIMENTUA, Tyson 1360 [2]
12 HUMPHREY, John 1216 [1] 0:1 MCKAY, Nicholas 1221 [2]
13 LLOYD, Martyn 912 [1] 0:1 ABRAHAMS, Joe 1266 [1]
14 JOHNSTON, Andrew 960 [1] 0:1 GRENFELL, Regina 1205 [1]
15 WILSON, Sean 781 [1] 0:1 SUMMERS, Terry 966 [1]
16 LYONS, Russell [0] 1:0 HURSE, Lachlan [1]
17 WILSON, Bernie A. [0] 0:1 BORRILL, Mark 731 [0]

Garvinator
31-01-2006, 07:39 PM
R6:

No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 JABUR, Majid 1855 [5] 0:1 EDWARDS, Jacob A 1946 [5]
2 AL ZAHER, Louay 1737 [4] 0:1 BAILEY, Cameron R 1802 [4]
3 ALKIN, John 1638 [4] 1:0 VAN PELT, Michael 1613 [4]
4 TANGIMENTUA, Tyson 1360 [3] 0:1 HACKENSCHMIDT-UECKER, Jorg 1708 [3]
5 BRUCK, Patrick W 1690 [3] 1:0 BRADY, Sean 1371 [3]
6 KORENEVSKI, Oleg 1674 [3] 1:0 FLITCROFT-SMITH, George P 1509 [3]
7 CHELEBICHANIN, Nenad 1605 [3] 1:0 NUTT, Jeff 1337 [3]
8 HOLT, Stuart 1384 [3] 0:1 DUGGAN, Howard 1546 [3]
9 CHEVOR, Adam 1524 [3] 1:0 MCKAY, Nicholas 1221 [3]
10 RUSSELL, Luthien 1334 [2] 1:0 SCOTT, John D. 1067 [2]
11 SUMMERS, Terry 966 [2] 0:1 LYONS, Kieran C 1307 [2]
12 ABRAHAMS, Joe 1266 [2] 1:0 ROGERS, Jim 764 [2]
13 GRENFELL, Regina 1205 [2] 0:1 RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253 [2]
14 WILSON, Sean 781 [1] 0:1 HUMPHREY, John 1216 [1]
15 BORRILL, Mark 731 [1] 0:1 JOHNSTON, Andrew 960 [1]
16 HURSE, Lachlan [1] 0:1 LLOYD, Martyn 912 [1]
17 WILSON, Bernie A. [0] 0:1 LYONS, Russell [1]

Garvinator
31-01-2006, 07:40 PM
Round 7: Final Round


No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 EDWARDS, Jacob A 1946 [6] 1:0 BAILEY, Cameron R 1802 [5]
2 ALKIN, John 1638 [5] 0:1 JABUR, Majid 1855 [5]
3 VAN PELT, Michael 1613 [4] 0:1 AL ZAHER, Louay 1737 [4]
4 HACKENSCHMIDT-UECKER, Jorg 1708 [4] 1:0 CHELEBICHANIN, Nenad 1605 [4]
5 DUGGAN, Howard 1546 [4] 0:1 BRUCK, Patrick W 1690 [4]
6 KORENEVSKI, Oleg 1674 [4] 1:0 CHEVOR, Adam 1524 [4]
7 FLITCROFT-SMITH, George P 1509 [3] 1:0 LYONS, Kieran C 1307 [3]
8 MCKAY, Nicholas 1221 [3] 0:1 HOLT, Stuart 1384 [3]
9 BRADY, Sean 1371 [3] 1:0 RUSSELL, Luthien 1334 [3]
10 RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253 [3] 0:1 TANGIMENTUA, Tyson 1360 [3]
11 NUTT, Jeff 1337 [3] 1:0 ABRAHAMS, Joe 1266 [3]
12 LYONS, Russell [2] 0:1 GRENFELL, Regina 1205 [2]
13 ROGERS, Jim 764 [2] 0:1 SUMMERS, Terry 966 [2]
14 HUMPHREY, John 1216 [2] 1:0 BORRILL, Mark 731 [1]
15 SCOTT, John D. 1067 [2] 1:0 HURSE, Lachlan [1]
16 JOHNSTON, Andrew 960 [2] 1:0 WILSON, Sean 781 [1]
17 LLOYD, Martyn 912 [2] 1:0 WILSON, Bernie A. [0]

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2006, 07:40 PM
Without allowing for any draws whatsoever, You have an extremely simplistic test, that I doubt adequately tests the usage of the Dutch Rules.

Garvinator
31-01-2006, 07:40 PM
Let the feedback begin;)

Garvinator
31-01-2006, 07:41 PM
Without allowing for any draws whatsoever, You have an extremely simplistic test, that I doubt adequately tests the usage of the Dutch Rules.
you are right, but still looking through, I had some concerns. Of course, i do have a 12 hour window to make changes on here;) If you want me to throw in some draws, I will.