Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,321

    Pairing concerns

    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:

    Code:
    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:

    Code:
    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:

    Code:
    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:

    Code:
    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:

    Code:
    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:

    Code:
    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.

    Code:
    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:

    Code:
    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?

  2. #2
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,393
    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.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  3. #3
    CC Grandmaster Denis_Jessop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    3,333
    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
    ...I don't want to go among mad people Alice remarked, "Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: we're all mad here. I am mad. You're mad." "How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice. "You must be," said the Cat ,"or you wouldn't have come here."

  4. #4
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Denis_Jessop
    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
    You 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.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  5. #5
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,321
    Quote Originally Posted by Denis_Jessop
    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.

  6. #6
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,321
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    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.

  7. #7
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,060
    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.
    Last edited by Bill Gletsos; 16-08-2005 at 09:45 PM.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  8. #8
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,393
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    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.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,321
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    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.

  10. #10
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,393
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    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.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,321
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    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.

  12. #12
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,393
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    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.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  13. #13
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    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.

  14. #14
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,321

    From another thread

    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.
    Last edited by Garvinator; 31-01-2006 at 07:32 PM.

  15. #15
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,321

    List of Players

    List of Players:

    Code:
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Box Hill Swiss Pairing System
    By arosar in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 24-06-2005, 04:31 PM
  2. concerns and other matters
    By Garvinator in forum Chess Chat Tournament #1
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 15-06-2005, 08:05 PM
  3. Changing computer pairings/ Pairing Programs
    By Denis_Jessop in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27-05-2005, 04:39 PM
  4. Grand Prix Concerns
    By Paul S in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 12-02-2005, 12:30 AM
  5. Swiss Perfect and pairing errors
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 16-06-2004, 05:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •