PDA

View Full Version : 2006 City Of Brisbane Championships



Garvinator
03-02-2006, 01:21 AM
Ok Round One has been run and won.

List of Players.


No Name Loc

1. PARDOEN, Alain 1949
2. EDWARDS, Jacob A 1946
3. BAILEY, Cameron R 1802
4. LESTER, George E 1778
5. AL ZAHER, Louay 1737
6. MANONGAS, Jesse 1729
7. HACKENSCHMIDT-UECKER, Jorg 1708
8. KORENEVSKI, Oleg 1674
9. ALKIN, John 1638
10. VAN PELT, Michael 1613
11. FLYNN, Chris 1586
12. BEAN, Richard W 1561
13. DUGGAN, Howard 1546
14. FLITCROFT-SMITH, George P 1509
15. BUCIU, Avram 1448
16. BRADY, Sean 1371
17. TANGIMENTUA, Tyson 1360
18. NUTT, Jeff 1337
19. RUSSELL, Luthien 1334
20. LYONS, Kieran C 1307
21. RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253
22. WATERS, Mick 1224
23. HUMPHREY, John 1216
24. GRENFELL, Regina 1205
25. LEGGETT, Brandon 1072
26. SCOTT, John D. 1067
27. LLOYD, Martyn 912
28. LEGGETT, Callum 837
29. WILSON, Sean 820
30. ROGERS, Jim 810
31. BORRILL, Mark 731
32. HURSE, Lachlan
33. LYONS, Russell
34. REDHEAD, Yru

Garvinator
03-02-2006, 01:26 AM
Round One Pairings:

The pairings are not quite what sp would generate due to two late arrivals being paired together, Wilson v Flynn.


No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 BRADY, Sean 1371 [0] 0:1 PARDOEN, Alain 1949 [0]
2 EDWARDS, Jacob A 1946 [0] 1:0 RUSSELL, Luthien 1334 [0]
3 LYONS, Kieran C 1307 [0] 0:1 BAILEY, Cameron R 1802 [0]
4 AL ZAHER, Louay 1737 [0] 1:0 RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253 [0]
5 WATERS, Mick 1224 [0] 0:1 MANONGAS, Jesse 1729 [0]
6 HACKENSCHMIDT-UECKER, Jorg 1708 [0] 1:0 HUMPHREY, John 1216 [0]
7 GRENFELL, Regina 1205 [0] 0:1 KORENEVSKI, Oleg 1674 [0]
8 ALKIN, John 1638 [0] 1:0 LLOYD, Martyn 912 [0]
9 ROGERS, Jim 810 [0] 0:1 VAN PELT, Michael 1613 [0]
10 BEAN, Richard W 1561 [0] 1:0 BORRILL, Mark 731 [0]
11 HURSE, Lachlan [0] 0:1 DUGGAN, Howard 1546 [0]
12 FLITCROFT-SMITH, George P 1509 [0] .5:.5 LYONS, Russell [0]
13 REDHEAD, Yru [0] 0:1 BUCIU, Avram 1448 [0]
14 WILSON, Sean 820 [0] 0:1 FLYNN, Chris 1586 [0]
15 TANGIMENTUA, Tyson 1360 [0] .5:0 BYE
16 NUTT, Jeff 1337 [0] .5:0 BYE
17 SCOTT, John D. 1067 [0] .5:0 BYE
18 LEGGETT, Brandon 1072 [0] .5:0 BYE
19 LEGGETT, Callum 837 [0] .5:0 BYE
20 LESTER, George E 1778 [0] .5:0 BYE

Garvinator
03-02-2006, 01:27 AM
Extremely Provisional Round Two Pairings as generated by sp:


No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 PARDOEN, Alain 1949 [1] : KORENEVSKI, Oleg 1674 [1]
2 VAN PELT, Michael 1613 [1] : EDWARDS, Jacob A 1946 [1]
3 BAILEY, Cameron R 1802 [1] : ALKIN, John 1638 [1]
4 FLYNN, Chris 1586 [1] : AL ZAHER, Louay 1737 [1]
5 MANONGAS, Jesse 1729 [1] : BEAN, Richard W 1561 [1]
6 DUGGAN, Howard 1546 [1] : HACKENSCHMIDT-UECKER, Jorg 1708 [1]
7 BUCIU, Avram 1448 [1] : LESTER, George E 1778 [.5]
8 LEGGETT, Brandon 1072 [.5] : FLITCROFT-SMITH, George P 1509 [.5]
9 TANGIMENTUA, Tyson 1360 [.5] : SCOTT, John D. 1067 [.5]
10 NUTT, Jeff 1337 [.5] : LEGGETT, Callum 837 [.5]
11 LYONS, Russell [.5] : BRADY, Sean 1371 [0]
12 RUSSELL, Luthien 1334 [0] : WILSON, Sean 820 [0]
13 LLOYD, Martyn 912 [0] : LYONS, Kieran C 1307 [0]
14 RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253 [0] : ROGERS, Jim 810 [0]
15 BORRILL, Mark 731 [0] : WATERS, Mick 1224 [0]
16 HUMPHREY, John 1216 [0] : HURSE, Lachlan [0]
17 REDHEAD, Yru [0] : GRENFELL, Regina 1205 [0]

Garvinator
03-02-2006, 01:28 AM
There is probably nothing to really comment on at the moment, but just putting them up for future rounds.

Garvinator
10-02-2006, 03:23 AM
Now the first differences appear in the pairings between swissperfect98 and swiss master 5.

One extra player has been added to the draw, Bernie Wilson- unrated player, starting on 0.5 points. This now creates an odd number of players.

Results from round two:


No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 PARDOEN, Alain 1949 [1] 1:0 KORENEVSKI, Oleg 1674 [1]
2 VAN PELT, Michael 1613 [1] 0:1 EDWARDS, Jacob A 1946 [1]
3 BAILEY, Cameron R 1802 [1] 1:0 ALKIN, John 1638 [1]
4 FLYNN, Chris 1586 [1] 0:1 AL ZAHER, Louay 1737 [1]
5 MANONGAS, Jesse 1729 [1] 1:0 BEAN, Richard W 1561 [1]
6 DUGGAN, Howard 1546 [1] 0:1 HACKENSCHMIDT-UECKER, Jorg 1708 [1]
7 BUCIU, Avram 1448 [1] 0:1 LESTER, George E 1778 [.5]
8 LEGGETT, Brandon 1072 [.5] 0:1 FLITCROFT-SMITH, George P 1509 [.5]
9 WALKER, Tyson 1360 [.5] 1:0 SCOTT, John D. 1067 [.5]
10 NUTT, Jeff 1337 [.5] 1:0 LEGGETT, Callum 837 [.5]
11 LYONS, Russell [.5] 1:0 BRADY, Sean 1371 [0]
12 RUSSELL, Luthien 1334 [0] 1:0 WILSON, Sean 820 [0]
13 LLOYD, Martyn 912 [0] 0:1 LYONS, Kieran C 1307 [0]
14 RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253 [0] .5:.5 ROGERS, Jim 810 [0]
15 BORRILL, Mark 731 [0] .5:.5 WATERS, Mick 1224 [0]
16 HUMPHREY, John 1216 [0] 1:0 HURSE, Lachlan [0]
17 REDHEAD, Yru [0] 0:1 GRENFELL, Regina 1205 [0]
18 WILSON, Bernie A. [0] .5:0 BYE

Garvinator
10-02-2006, 03:33 AM
Now for the different pairings for round three:


SP98:

No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 AL ZAHER, Louay 1737 [2] : PARDOEN, Alain 1949 [2]
2 EDWARDS, Jacob A 1946 [2] : MANONGAS, Jesse 1729 [2]
3 HACKENSCHMIDT-UECKER, Jorg 1708 [2] : BAILEY, Cameron R 1802 [2]
4 LESTER, George E 1778 [1.5] : LYONS, Russell [1.5]
5 FLITCROFT-SMITH, George P 1509 [1.5] : WALKER, Tyson 1360 [1.5]
6 KORENEVSKI, Oleg 1674 [1] : NUTT, Jeff 1337 [1.5]
7 ALKIN, John 1638 [1] : BUCIU, Avram 1448 [1]
8 RUSSELL, Luthien 1334 [1] : VAN PELT, Michael 1613 [1]
9 LYONS, Kieran C 1307 [1] : FLYNN, Chris 1586 [1]
10 BEAN, Richard W 1561 [1] : HUMPHREY, John 1216 [1]
11 GRENFELL, Regina 1205 [1] : DUGGAN, Howard 1546 [1]
12 LEGGETT, Callum 837 [.5] : RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253 [.5]
13 WATERS, Mick 1224 [.5] : WILSON, Bernie A. [.5]
14 ROGERS, Jim 810 [.5] : LEGGETT, Brandon 1072 [.5]
15 SCOTT, John D. 1067 [.5] : BORRILL, Mark 731 [.5]
16 BRADY, Sean 1371 [0] : WILSON, Sean 820 [0]
17 HURSE, Lachlan [0] : LLOYD, Martyn 912 [0]
18 REDHEAD, Yru [0] 1:0 BYE




SM5:

No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 AL ZAHER, Louay 1737 [2] : PARDOEN, Alain 1949 [2]
2 EDWARDS, Jacob A 1946 [2] : MANONGAS, Jesse 1729 [2]
3 HACKENSCHMIDT-UECKER, Jorg 1708 [2] : BAILEY, Cameron R 1802 [2]
4 LESTER, George E 1778 [1.5] : LYONS, Russell [1.5]
5 FLITCROFT-SMITH, George P 1509 [1.5] : WALKER, Tyson 1360 [1.5]
6 KORENEVSKI, Oleg 1674 [1] : NUTT, Jeff 1337 [1.5]
7 ALKIN, John 1638 [1] : BUCIU, Avram 1448 [1]
8 RUSSELL, Luthien 1334 [1] : VAN PELT, Michael 1613 [1]
9 LYONS, Kieran C 1307 [1] : FLYNN, Chris 1586 [1]
10 BEAN, Richard W 1561 [1] : HUMPHREY, John 1216 [1]
11 GRENFELL, Regina 1205 [1] : DUGGAN, Howard 1546 [1]
12 LEGGETT, Callum 837 [.5] : RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253 [.5]
13 WATERS, Mick 1224 [.5] : ROGERS, Jim 810 [.5]
14 WILSON, Bernie A. [.5] : LEGGETT, Brandon 1072 [.5]
15 SCOTT, John D. 1067 [.5] : BORRILL, Mark 731 [.5]
16 BRADY, Sean 1371 [0] : REDHEAD, Yru [0]
17 WILSON, Sean 820 [0] : LLOYD, Martyn 912 [0]
18 HURSE, Lachlan [0] 1:0 BYE

Garvinator
10-02-2006, 05:01 PM
is anyone going to offer some opinion from the pairing rules about which set of pairings is more correct?

Alan Shore
10-02-2006, 05:16 PM
I can give you the equitable reasoning that isn't based on any explicit pairing rules... pick the SP98 pairings to give Rogers WBW as opposed to giving S. Wilson WBW since he was a late arrival to round 1 and wasn't paired properly to begin with.

Garvinator
10-02-2006, 05:42 PM
I can give you the equitable reasoning that isn't based on any explicit pairing rules... pick the SP98 pairings to give Rogers WBW as opposed to giving S. Wilson WBW since he was a late arrival to round 1 and wasn't paired properly to begin with.

I would like to combine the pairings actually;)



12 LEGGETT, Callum 837 [.5] : RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253 [.5]
13 WATERS, Mick 1224 [.5] : WILSON, Bernie A. [.5]
14 ROGERS, Jim 810 [.5] : LEGGETT, Brandon 1072 [.5]
15 SCOTT, John D. 1067 [.5] : BORRILL, Mark 731 [.5]
16 BRADY, Sean 1371 [0] : REDHEAD, Yru [0]
17 WILSON, Sean 820 [0] : LLOYD, Martyn 912 [0]
18 HURSE, Lachlan [0] 1:0 BYE

Redhead has had WW, therefore he must get black in his next game. The pairings all match in the same scoregroup with Hurse having the bye.

In the 0.5 scoregroup, the pairings seem to make more sense for colours etc with the sp pairings.

Therefore, I would like to combine the pairings.

This being said, I would like to hear about the pairing rules, instead of just what I would prefer.

P.S. I would actually like to give S.Wilson the bye in this round so Hurse and Redhead get more rated games.

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2006, 06:14 PM
Are you sure that after having added Wilson in round 2 that Swiss Master has him in the same ranking order as SP.

If not that would account for the difference in the pairings.

Garvinator
10-02-2006, 07:05 PM
Are you sure that after having added Wilson in round 2 that Swiss Master has him in the same ranking order as SP.

If not that would account for the difference in the pairings.

Yes.


Sp:

No Name Loc

1. PARDOEN, Alain 1949
2. EDWARDS, Jacob A 1946
3. BAILEY, Cameron R 1802
4. LESTER, George E 1778
5. AL ZAHER, Louay 1737
6. MANONGAS, Jesse 1729
7. HACKENSCHMIDT-UECKER, Jorg 1708
8. KORENEVSKI, Oleg 1674
9. ALKIN, John 1638
10. VAN PELT, Michael 1613
11. FLYNN, Chris 1586
12. BEAN, Richard W 1561
13. DUGGAN, Howard 1546
14. FLITCROFT-SMITH, George P 1509
15. BUCIU, Avram 1448
16. BRADY, Sean 1371
17. WALKER, Tyson 1360
18. NUTT, Jeff 1337
19. RUSSELL, Luthien 1334
20. LYONS, Kieran C 1307
21. RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253
22. WATERS, Mick 1224
23. HUMPHREY, John 1216
24. GRENFELL, Regina 1205
25. LEGGETT, Brandon 1072
26. SCOTT, John D. 1067
27. LLOYD, Martyn 912
28. LEGGETT, Callum 837
29. WILSON, Sean 820
30. ROGERS, Jim 810
31. BORRILL, Mark 731
32. HURSE, Lachlan
33. LYONS, Russell
34. REDHEAD, Yru
35. WILSON, Bernie A.


SM5: I havent worked out yet how to export tables etc for SM5, but the list of players is in exactly the same order for SM5 as sp and in SM5.

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2006, 08:30 PM
I can give you the equitable reasoning that isn't based on any explicit pairing rules... pick the SP98 pairings to give Rogers WBW as opposed to giving S. Wilson WBW since he was a late arrival to round 1 and wasn't paired properly to begin with.S. Wilson wasnt a late arrival. You therefore mean B. Wilson not S. Wilson.

Garvinator
11-02-2006, 02:41 AM
S. Wilson wasnt a late arrival. You therefore mean B. Wilson not S. Wilson.
S. Wilson was a late arrival in round one and was paired with a similar late arrival after the round had started.
B. Wilson joined the competition in round two and has been given a half point bye.

Garvinator
11-02-2006, 03:03 AM
I posted this set of pairings for the 0.5 and 0 score groups earlier.


12 LEGGETT, Callum 837 [.5] : RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253 [.5]
13 WATERS, Mick 1224 [.5] : WILSON, Bernie A. [.5]
14 ROGERS, Jim 810 [.5] : LEGGETT, Brandon 1072 [.5]
15 SCOTT, John D. 1067 [.5] : BORRILL, Mark 731 [.5]
16 BRADY, Sean 1371 [0] : REDHEAD, Yru [0]
17 WILSON, Sean 820 [0] : LLOYD, Martyn 912 [0]
18 HURSE, Lachlan [0] 1:0 BYE

It is a combination of the sp and sm5 pairings. I believe I understand how both programs came to their conclusions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the zero score group, I believe that sp has allocated the bye first ie REDHEAD and then has paired the remaining four players accordingly.

SM5 has paired the 5 players using S1 and S2 and then has allocated the remaining player as the bye.

Hence:

SM5:

S1: Brady (1), Lloyd (2)
S2: Wilson. S (3), Hurse (4), Redhead (5).

Player 1 is paired first from S2 if possible. Brady is a best colour match with Redhead as Redhead is WW from the first two rounds, therefore in his next game he must be black. Brady is WB and so his next colour allocation should be white if possible.

Therefore it is 1 v 5 (Brady v Redhead)

Now Lloyd is paired with the first player from S2 (Wilson. S). Lloyd wants black, having been BW in the first two rounds. Wilson S wants white, having been WB in the first two rounds.

Therefore, both players receive their correct colour allocation and so Hurse gets the bye.

All in all, I think the difference between SP and SM5 for the zero scoregroup is due to how they have treated the bye.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the 0.5 score group, I think sp is correct.

The eight players are in seeded order:

S1: Richards, Waters, Leggett B, Scott
S2: Leggett C, Rogers, Borrill, Wilson B.

So, starting with Richards, his first pairing is Leggett C. They are a match for colour allocation (both want opposite colour) and no other player for Richards in S2 has a higher colour demand.

Therefore both programs give Leggett C v Richards and I agree with them.

Now the next pairing, I agree with sp which gives Waters v Wilson B.

My reasoning is: Firstly pair Waters v Rogers, but they both want the same colour (white), therefore the pairing is broken down and a better colour match is attempted to be found for Waters. Waters has already played Borrill, so they cant be paired. So that leaves Wilson B.

Waters wants White and Wilson has no due colour as he hasnt played a game so far. Therefore Wilson B can either be white or black, so he gets black.

Also going to the next pairing if Waters v Wilson B, Rogers v Leggett B works for colours well.

That leaves Scott v Borrill and both get their right colour allocation.

Therefore I believe the bottom six boards should be:


12 LEGGETT, Callum 837 [.5] : RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253 [.5]
13 WATERS, Mick 1224 [.5] : WILSON, Bernie A. [.5]
14 ROGERS, Jim 810 [.5] : LEGGETT, Brandon 1072 [.5]
15 SCOTT, John D. 1067 [.5] : BORRILL, Mark 731 [.5]
16 BRADY, Sean 1371 [0] : REDHEAD, Yru [0]
17 WILSON, Sean 820 [0] : LLOYD, Martyn 912 [0]
18 HURSE, Lachlan [0] 1:0 BYE

As i said earlier, I would like Wilson S to have the bye in fact to increase Hurse's amount of rated games, being an unrated player. Am I allowed to swap Wilson and Hurse according to the dutch paring rules? Both Wilson S and Hurse 'want' White in round 3 and so would be a straight swap.

Oepty
13-02-2006, 01:28 PM
Garvin. For what it is worth, I agree with you regarding the what the correct pairings are. I don't understand what SM5 has tried to do with the 0.5 scoregroup. It makes no sense to me at all.
Scott

Garvinator
17-02-2006, 12:59 AM
Need help. Some of these dont look right and disagree between pairing programs.

The four unrated players have been given provisional pairings and have been reseeded according to their new provisional ratings.


No Name Loc

1. PARDOEN, Alain 1949
2. EDWARDS, Jacob A 1946
3. BAILEY, Cameron R 1802
4. LESTER, George E 1778
5. AL ZAHER, Louay 1737
6. MANONGAS, Jesse 1729
7. HACKENSCHMIDT-UECKER, Jorg 1708
8. KORENEVSKI, Oleg 1674
9. ALKIN, John 1638
10. VAN PELT, Michael 1613
11. FLYNN, Chris 1586
12. BEAN, Richard W 1561
13. DUGGAN, Howard 1546
14. FLITCROFT-SMITH, George P 1509
15. BUCIU, Avram 1448
16. LYONS, Russell 1400
17. BRADY, Sean 1371
18. WALKER, Tyson 1360
19. NUTT, Jeff 1337
20. RUSSELL, Luthien 1334
21. LYONS, Kieran C 1307
22. RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253
23. WATERS, Mick 1224
24. HUMPHREY, John 1216
25. GRENFELL, Regina 1205
26. LEGGETT, Brandon 1072
27. SCOTT, John D. 1067
28. LLOYD, Martyn 912
29. LEGGETT, Callum 837
30. WILSON, Sean 820
31. ROGERS, Jim 810
32. BORRILL, Mark 731
33. WILSON, Bernie A. 700
34. HURSE, Lachlan 600
35. REDHEAD, Yru 600

Garvinator
17-02-2006, 01:00 AM
Results from round three:


No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 AL ZAHER, Louay 1737 [2] 0:1 PARDOEN, Alain 1949 [2]
2 EDWARDS, Jacob A 1946 [2] 1:0 MANONGAS, Jesse 1729 [2]
3 HACKENSCHMIDT-UECKER, Jorg 1708 [2] 1:0 BAILEY, Cameron R 1802 [2]
4 LESTER, George E 1778 [1.5] 1:0 LYONS, Russell 1400 [1.5]
5 FLITCROFT-SMITH, George P 1509 [1.5] .5:.5 WALKER, Tyson 1360 [1.5]
6 KORENEVSKI, Oleg 1674 [1] .5:.5 NUTT, Jeff 1337 [1.5]
7 ALKIN, John 1638 [1] 1:0 BUCIU, Avram 1448 [1]
8 RUSSELL, Luthien 1334 [1] 0:1 VAN PELT, Michael 1613 [1]
9 LYONS, Kieran C 1307 [1] 1:0 FLYNN, Chris 1586 [1]
10 BEAN, Richard W 1561 [1] 1:0 HUMPHREY, John 1216 [1]
11 GRENFELL, Regina 1205 [1] 1:0 DUGGAN, Howard 1546 [1]
12 LEGGETT, Callum 837 [.5] 0:1 RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253 [.5]
13 WATERS, Mick 1224 [.5] 1:0 WILSON, Bernie A. 700 [.5]
14 ROGERS, Jim 810 [.5] 1:0 LEGGETT, Brandon 1072 [.5]
15 WILSON, Sean 820 [0] 0:1 BORRILL, Mark 731 [.5]
16 BRADY, Sean 1371 [0] 1:0 REDHEAD, Yru 600 [0]
17 HURSE, Lachlan 600 [0] 0:1 LLOYD, Martyn 912 [0]
18 SCOTT, John D. 1067 [.5] -:- BYE

Garvinator
17-02-2006, 01:04 AM
and now for the pairings from swissperfect and swiss master:

Sp:


No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 PARDOEN, Alain 1949 [3] : EDWARDS, Jacob A 1946 [3]
2 LESTER, George E 1778 [2.5] : HACKENSCHMIDT-UECKER, Jorg 1708 [3]
3 FLITCROFT-SMITH, George P 1509 [2] : AL ZAHER, Louay 1737 [2]
4 MANONGAS, Jesse 1729 [2] : LYONS, Kieran C 1307 [2]
5 WALKER, Tyson 1360 [2] : ALKIN, John 1638 [2]
6 VAN PELT, Michael 1613 [2] : GRENFELL, Regina 1205 [2]
7 NUTT, Jeff 1337 [2] : BEAN, Richard W 1561 [2]
8 KORENEVSKI, Oleg 1674 [1.5] : WATERS, Mick 1224 [1.5]
9 LYONS, Russell 1400 [1.5] : ROGERS, Jim 810 [1.5]
10 RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253 [1.5] : BORRILL, Mark 731 [1.5]
11 FLYNN, Chris 1586 [1] : BRADY, Sean 1371 [1]
12 DUGGAN, Howard 1546 [1] : RUSSELL, Luthien 1334 [1]
13 BUCIU, Avram 1448 [1] : HUMPHREY, John 1216 [1]
14 SCOTT, John D. 1067 [.5] : LLOYD, Martyn 912 [1]
15 WILSON, Bernie A. 700 [.5] : LEGGETT, Callum 837 [.5]
16 LEGGETT, Brandon 1072 [.5] : HURSE, Lachlan 600 [0]
17 REDHEAD, Yru 600 [0] : WILSON, Sean 820 [0]
18 BAILEY, Cameron R 1802 [2] : BYE


SM5:


No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 PARDOEN, Alain 1949 [3] : EDWARDS, Jacob A 1946 [3]
2 LESTER, George E 1778 [2.5] : HACKENSCHMIDT-UECKER, Jorg 1708 [3]
3 FLITCROFT-SMITH, George P 1509 [2] : AL ZAHER, Louay 1737 [2]
4 MANONGAS, Jesse 1729 [2] : LYONS, Kieran C 1307 [2]
5 WALKER, Tyson 1360 [2] : ALKIN, John 1638 [2]
6 VAN PELT, Michael 1613 [2] : GRENFELL, Regina 1205 [2]
7 NUTT, Jeff 1337 [2] : BEAN, Richard W 1561 [2]
8 KORENEVSKI, Oleg 1674 [1.5] : WATERS, Mick 1224 [1.5]
9 LYONS, Russell 1400 [1.5] : ROGERS, Jim 810 [1.5]
10 RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253 [1.5] : BORRILL, Mark 731 [1.5]
11 FLYNN, Chris 1586 [1] : BRADY, Sean 1371 [1]
12 DUGGAN, Howard 1546 [1] : RUSSELL, Luthien 1334 [1]
13 BUCIU, Avram 1448 [1] : HUMPHREY, John 1216 [1]
14 LLOYD, Martyn 912 [1] : LEGGETT, Brandon 1072 [.5]
15 SCOTT, John D. 1067 [.5] : LEGGETT, Callum 837 [.5]
16 WILSON, Bernie A. 700 [.5] : HURSE, Lachlan 600 [0]
17 REDHEAD, Yru 600 [0] : WILSON, Sean 820 [0]
18 BAILEY, Cameron R 1802 [2] : BYE

pax
17-02-2006, 08:41 AM
If you want people to analyse the draw, I suggest you post a crosstable.

Garvinator
17-02-2006, 09:17 AM
If you want people to analyse the draw, I suggest you post a crosstable.
nah, that would make things too easy;)

sp cross table.


No Name Loc Total 1 2 3 4

1 PARDOEN, Alain 1949 3 25:W 16:W 6:W 2:
2 EDWARDS, Jacob A 1946 3 26:W 9:W 7:W 1:
3 HACKENSCHMIDT-UECKER, Jorg 1708 3 27:W 23:W 5:W 4:
4 LESTER, George E 1778 2.5 0:D 24:W 17:W 3:
5 BAILEY, Cameron R 1802 2 14:W 8:W 3:L 0:
6 AL ZAHER, Louay 1737 2 18:W 22:W 1:L 11:
7 MANONGAS, Jesse 1729 2 19:W 10:W 2:L 14:
8 ALKIN, John 1638 2 28:W 5:L 24:W 12:
9 VAN PELT, Michael 1613 2 20:W 2:L 26:W 15:
10 BEAN, Richard W 1561 2 21:W 7:L 27:W 13:
11 FLITCROFT-SMITH, George P 1509 2 17:D 29:W 12:D 6:
12 WALKER, Tyson 1360 2 0:D 30:W 11:D 8:
13 NUTT, Jeff 1337 2 0:D 31:W 16:D 10:
14 LYONS, Kieran C 1307 2 5:L 28:W 22:W 7:
15 GRENFELL, Regina 1205 2 16:L 35:W 23:W 9:
16 KORENEVSKI, Oleg 1674 1.5 15:W 1:L 13:D 19:
17 LYONS, Russell 1400 1.5 11:D 25:W 4:L 20:
18 RICHARDS, Wilfred 1253 1.5 6:L 20:D 31:W 21:
19 WATERS, Mick 1224 1.5 7:L 21:D 32:W 16:
20 ROGERS, Jim 810 1.5 9:L 18:D 29:W 17:
21 BORRILL, Mark 731 1.5 10:L 19:D 33:W 18:
22 FLYNN, Chris 1586 1 33:W 6:L 14:L 25:
23 DUGGAN, Howard 1546 1 34:W 3:L 15:L 26:
24 BUCIU, Avram 1448 1 35:W 4:L 8:L 27:
25 BRADY, Sean 1371 1 1:L 17:L 35:W 22:
26 RUSSELL, Luthien 1334 1 2:L 33:W 9:L 23:
27 HUMPHREY, John 1216 1 3:L 34:W 10:L 24:
28 LLOYD, Martyn 912 1 8:L 14:L 34:W 30:
29 LEGGETT, Brandon 1072 .5 0:D 11:L 20:L 34:
30 SCOTT, John D. 1067 .5 0:D 12:L 0:- 28:
31 LEGGETT, Callum 837 .5 0:D 13:L 18:L 32:
32 WILSON, Bernie A. 700 .5 0:D 0:- 19:L 31:
33 WILSON, Sean 820 0 22:L 26:L 21:L 35:
34 HURSE, Lachlan 600 0 23:L 27:L 28:L 29:
35 REDHEAD, Yru 600 0 24:L 15:L 25:L 33:

pax
17-02-2006, 12:59 PM
Stupid SP with no colour in crosstable.

Well on a fairly brief inspection, SP looks to have made a mistake (the downfloat of B Leggett looking quite wrong). The SM draw is clearly superior, in that a) the same number of players meet their colour preferences, b) The highest player on 0.5 floats up, c) the lowest on 0.5 floats down (neither having floated in the previous two rounds).

I wonder whether SP thinks the 0 point byes of B Wilson and Scott count as downfloats?

Garvinator
17-02-2006, 03:22 PM
I wonder whether SP thinks the 0 point byes of B Wilson and Scott count as downfloats?
According to the fide swiss rules on the fide website and also on sp pairing program-

A5. Byes

Should the total number of players be (or become) odd, one player ends up unpaired. This player receives a bye: no opponent, no color, 1 point. A bye is considered to be a downfloat. (my bolding)

Bill Gletsos
17-02-2006, 03:27 PM
According to the fide swiss rules on the fide website and also on sp pairing program-

A5. Byes

Should the total number of players be (or become) odd, one player ends up unpaired. This player receives a bye: no opponent, no color, 1 point. A bye is considered to be a downfloat. (my bolding)I dont believe that is the case in respect to zero point byes.

F5 states:

F.5 Players who withdraw from the tournament will no longer be paired. Players known in advance not to play in a particular round are not paired in that round and score 0.

Typically this is handled as a bye but it is not a bye in line with A5.

Garvinator
17-02-2006, 03:46 PM
Stupid SP with no colour in crosstable.

Well on a fairly brief inspection, SP looks to have made a mistake (the downfloat of B Leggett looking quite wrong). The SM draw is clearly superior, in that a) the same number of players meet their colour preferences, b) The highest player on 0.5 floats up, c) the lowest on 0.5 floats down (neither having floated in the previous two rounds).
Ok, my concerns had started higher up the draw-

In the pairing Flitcroft-Smith v Al Zaher, while they are S2:S1, they are both due the same colour. Therefore, I had thought that pairing would be broken down and re-paired if possible to meet colour preferences.

So, i would think the pairings for that scoregroup should be:

Walker v Al Zaher
Manongas v Flitcroft-Smith
Nutt v Alkin
Van Pelt v K. Lyons
and then maybe Grenfell v Bean (but both want black, so higher seeded player gets correct colour preference.)

I am unsure if the pairings are supposed to be broken down again and re done since colour matching hasnt worked for Grenfell/Bean?

In the 0.5 and 0 scoregroups.

I am trying to self pair these score groups, but it is very dependant on the bye downfloat situation.

Bill Gletsos
17-02-2006, 03:56 PM
Ok, my concerns had started higher up the draw-

In the pairing Flitcroft-Smith v Al Zaher, while they are S2:S1, they are both due the same colour. Therefore, I had thought that pairing would be broken down and re-paired if possible to meet colour preferences.

So, i would think the pairings for that scoregroup should be:

Walker v Al Zaher
Manongas v Flitcroft-Smith
Nutt v Alkin
Van Pelt v K. Lyons
and then maybe Grenfell v Bean (but both want black, so higher seeded player gets correct colour preference.)

I am unsure if the pairings are supposed to be broken down again and re done since colour matching hasnt worked for Grenfell/Bean?

In the 0.5 and 0 scoregroups.

I am trying to self pair these score groups, but it is very dependant on the bye downfloat situation.The Swiss master pairings appear to be correct.

Garvinator
17-02-2006, 04:16 PM
The Swiss master pairings appear to be correct.

I am trying to understand why.

Bill Gletsos
17-02-2006, 06:27 PM
I am trying to understand why.The players in the score group in pairing order are:
1 Al Zaher
2. Manongas
3. Alkin
4. Van Pelt
5. Bean
6. Flitcroft-Smith
7. Walker
8. Nutt
9. Lyons
10. Grenfell

6 have a black colour preference, 4 have white.
p =5, q=5.
x=1.

so S1 v s2
gives

1 V 6 - does not give colour pref
2 v 7 - does not give colour pref
3 v 8 - gives colour pref
4 v 9 - gives colour pref
5 v 10 - does not give colour pref

3 dont match colour allocation where as there should be only 1 that doesnt match (x =1).

Therefore carry out C7 and do a transposition.
If it doesnt result in only one pairing not sartisfying colour preferences then repeat C7 with another transposition.

According to section D the order of transpositions to try is:

6 7 8 10 9
6 7 9 8 10
6 7 9 10 8
6 8 7 9 10
6 8 7 10 9
6 8 9 7 10
6 8 9 10 7
6 9 7 8 10
6 9 7 10 8
6 9 8 7 10
6 9 8 10 7
etc

Now:
6 7 8 10 9 still leaves 3 not satisfying without colour prefs
6 7 9 8 10 leaves 5
6 7 9 10 8 leaves 3
6 8 7 9 10 leaves 3
6 8 7 10 9 leaves 3
6 8 9 7 10 leaves 5
6 8 9 10 7 leaves 3
6 9 7 8 10 leaves 3
6 9 7 10 8 leaves 1

Therefore draw is:
6 v 1
2 V 9
7 V 3
4 V 10
8 v 5


See quite simple really.