Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 52

Thread: SP SP error

  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310

    SP SP error

    No that is not stuttering in the title it comes from the 2007 Surfers Paradise Open Division.

    I think I have now seen the worst performance that Swiss imperfect has to offer. If someone can beat this, I will be astounded.

    On to the gory.

    Final round Open Division. Round running very late, I only had Swiss imperfect available as my own laptop had crashed (so swiss master 5 wasnt available).

    Round 7 came out by SIP as:

    Code:
    No Name                   Loc  Total  Result   Name                      Loc  Total
    
     1 ANTIC, Dejan (2)       2486 [5.5]   .5:.5   LANE, Gary W (4)          2405 [4]  
     2 FROEHLICH, Peter (5)   2365 [4.5]   .5:.5   SCHMALTZ, Roland (1)      2568 [5]  
     3 LY, Moulthun (7)       2280 [4.5]    1:0    DRAGICEVIC, Domagoj (11)  2139 [4]  
     4 KLEIN, Felix (8)       2212 [4]      1:0    LAZARUS, Benjamin (13)    2058 [4]  
     5 THOMAS, Brian (14)     1874 [4]      1:0    NAKAUCHI, Gene (15)       1870 [4]  
     6 SALES, Jesse Noel (6)  2312 [4]      1:0    LIU, Yi (29)              1510 [3.5]
     7 LOVEJOY, David (16)    1868 [3.5]    0:1    SOLOMON, Stephen J (3)    2447 [3.5]
     8 STOJIC, Dusan (10)     2142 [3]      1:0    MULLER, Jonas (21)        1677 [3]  
     9 VAN PELT, Michael (24) 1654 [3]      0:1    JONES, Lee R (12)         2086 [3]  
    10 KORENEVSKI, Oleg (20)  1695 [2.5]   .5:.5   GRIGG, Sam (22)           1676 [3]  
    11 STOKES, Mark C (23)    1668 [2.5]    1:0    STAHNKE, Alexander (27)   1615 [2.5]
    12 ALKIN, John (26)       1616 [2.5]    1:0    CHELEBICHANIN, Nenad (25) 1642 [2.5]
    13 KINDER, Jessica (28)   1588 [2.5]   .5:.5   CHUNG, Francisco (18)     1761 [2]  
    14 WELLER, Tony (17)      1788 [2]     .5:.5   SZUVEGES, Narelle S (19)  1699 [2]  
    15 LYONS, Kieran C (30)   1439 [2]      1:0    DELMASTRO, Joe (34)            [1.5]
    16 DILLA, Edsil (9)       2176 [1.5]    0:1    CRISTUTA, Roy (32)        1333 [1.5]
    17 CIGELJ, David (33)     1210 [1]      0:1    SRETENOVIC, Laz (31)      1430 [1]  
    without the scores obviously .

    I had a brief skim and saw all the 'jumbled up' scores and decided that I wasnt going to do a manual check and delay the final round. So I put up the SIP pairings. I was loath to attempt a manual pairing because it looked like from the pairings above that it would take some investigation to sort through it all. Yes, the final round apply pairings box did appear

    Play started a few minutes later. Stephen Solomon came up and asked me had Antic played Froehlich. I checked the computer and said it doesnt look like it. Stephen replied then that the pairings seemed wrong.

    I then had a brief look at and it was clear that SIP had fouled up.

    This was the pairing info after round 6 for the boards in question:

    Code:
     2 : 19,9,7,1,3,15     WBWBWB    D   5.5  
                                              
     1 : 18,10,6,2,8,7     BWBWBW    D   5    
                                              
     5 : 22,14,11,8,28,3   BWBWBB        4.5  
     7 : 24,16,2,14,22,1   BWBWBB    U   4.5  
                                              
     4 : 21,11,19,13,15,12 WBWBWB        4    
     6 : 23,13,1,15,19,22  WBWBWB        4    
     8 : 25,15,3,5,1,11    WBWBWB        4    
    11 : 28,4,5,3,10,8     BWWBBW    u   4    
    13 : 30,6,26,4,18,10   BWBWBW        4    
    14 : 31,5,27,7,24,25   WBWBWB    D   4    
    15 : 32,8,34,6,4,2     BWBWBW    U   4
    Now it is abundently clear that 2 should play 5 and 1 and 7 join the 4 point score group.

    I checked this with SM5 when I got home and it agrees with 2 and 5.

    What sip seems to have done is just moved all four players into the 4 point score group and paired as normal (top half v bottom half).

    In my opinion, this is pitiful for a recognised pairing program to pair like this. I can accept that part of the problem does lie with me, but with previous experience on here of seeing manual pairings go wrong and with the last round starting very late, I didnt want to go with manual pairings and be wrong because it was rushed.

    My opinion is that the ACF Council needs to consider getting a general licence for a different pairing program. A pairing program that has fouled things up like this needs a serious review and scrutiny. I understand that SP is widely used in Australia, but when it makes simple errors like this, it needs to be changed.

  2. #2
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    What sip seems to have done is just moved all four players into the 4 point score group and paired as normal (top half v bottom half).
    No that clearly isnt the case as 5 wouldnt play 1 in that case.
    At a quick glance what appears to have happened with SP is the following.

    S1 = 2 and 1 and S2 = 5 and 7
    p = 2, w = 3, b = 1, q = 2 and x = 1

    Note that it is impossible to get p = 2, no matter what you do so you end up falling down to C14 where p is reduced by 1 to 1 and x is also reduced by 1 to 0

    2 v 5 violates the x = 0 condition
    In fact the only way to get the x = 0 condition from S1 and S2 is 5 v 1
    This means 2 and 7 float down to the 4 point group.

    It is not immediately obvious how SM5 gets the 2 v 5 pairing according to the C pairing rules.
    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.

  3. #3
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    No that clearly isnt the case as 5 wouldnt play 1 in that case.
    At a quick glance what appears to have happened with SP is the following.

    S1 = 2 and 1 and S2 = 5 and 7
    p = 2, w = 3, b = 1, q = 2 and x = 1

    Note that it is impossible to get p = 2, no matter what you do so you end up falling down to C14 where p is reduced by 1 to 1 and x is also reduced by 1 to 0

    2 v 5 violates the x = 0 condition
    In fact the only way to get the x = 0 condition from S1 and S2 is 5 v 1
    This means 2 and 7 float down to the 4 point group.

    It is not immediately obvious how SM5 gets the 2 v 5 pairing according to the C pairing rules.
    Ok I will have a better look now

  4. #4
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310
    It is not immediately obvious how SM5 gets the 2 v 5 pairing according to the C pairing rules.
    I think it is.

    Code:
    S1:	S2:
    
    2	5
    1	7
    Now 2 has played 1 and 7, so that only leaves 5 v 2. 1 v 7 have already played so they downfloat.

    SM5 gives a full pairing of:

    Code:
     1   Peter Froehlich              ( 4.5) - Dejan Antic                  ( 5.5)   5-  2        
     2   Gary Lane                    ( 4  ) - Roland Schmaltz              ( 5  )   4-  1        
     3   Moulthun Ly                  ( 4.5) - Domagoj Dragicevic           ( 4  )   7- 11        
     4   Felix Klein                  ( 4  ) - Ben Lazarus                  ( 4  )   8- 13        
     5   Brian Thomas                 ( 4  ) - Gene Nakauchi                ( 4  )  14- 15        
     6   Jesse Noel Sales             ( 4  ) - Yi Liu                       ( 3.5)   6- 29        
     7   David Lovejoy                ( 3.5) - Stephen Solomon              ( 3.5)  16-  3        
     8   Dusan Stojic                 ( 3  ) - Jonas Muller                 ( 3  )  10- 21        
     9   Michael Van Pelt             ( 3  ) - Lee Jones                    ( 3  )  24- 12        
    10   Oleg Korenevski              ( 2.5) - Sam Grigg                    ( 3  )  20- 22        
    11   Mark Stokes                  ( 2.5) - Alex Stahnke                 ( 2.5)  23- 27        
    12   John Alkin                   ( 2.5) - Nenad Chelebichanin          ( 2.5)  26- 25        
    13   Jessica Kinder               ( 2.5) - Francisco Chung              ( 2  )  28- 18        
    14   Tony Weller                  ( 2  ) - Narelle Szuveges             ( 2  )  17- 19        
    15   Kieran Lyons                 ( 2  ) - Joe Delamstro                ( 1.5)  30- 34        
    16   Edsil Dilla                  ( 1.5) - Roy Cristuta                 ( 1.5)   9- 32        
    17   David Cigelj                 ( 1  ) - Laz Sretenovic               ( 1  )  33- 31        
    

  5. #5
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    I think it is.

    Code:
    S1:	S2:
    
    2	5
    1	7
    Now 2 has played 1 and 7, so that only leaves 5 v 2. 1 v 7 have already played so they downfloat.
    Just stating it does not make it so.
    You havent made the slightest attempt to show how that fits in with the section C pairing rules.

    Get back to me when you can.
    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.

  6. #6
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    No that clearly isnt the case as 5 wouldnt play 1 in that case.
    At a quick glance what appears to have happened with SP is the following.

    S1 = 2 and 1 and S2 = 5 and 7
    p = 2, w = 3, b = 1, q = 2 and x = 1

    Note that it is impossible to get p = 2, no matter what you do so you end up falling down to C14 where p is reduced by 1 to 1 and x is also reduced by 1 to 0

    2 v 5 violates the x = 0 condition
    In fact the only way to get the x = 0 condition from S1 and S2 is 5 v 1
    This means 2 and 7 float down to the 4 point group.

    It is not immediately obvious how SM5 gets the 2 v 5 pairing according to the C pairing rules.
    I guess it has something to do with B3. The pairing 2-4 instead of 5-2 could be seen as a violation of B3 for the leading player (player 2). And since B3 is more important than B4, SM5 could have decided to accept 5-2 even though it violates B4.

    [There is a lot of discussion about the interpretation of B3 in the thread "Another sp error" http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6619]

    By the way, intuitively I think that a violation of a mild color preference (as will happen when accepting 5-2) shouldn't be a big problem. The rules introduced the concept of "strong" vs. "mild" color preferences in A7 (b and c). But somehow this concept doesn't seem to be used in the other part of C. I think that a violation of a mild color preference (as in the case in question) is a worse reason to move the leading player down than a violation of a strong color preference would be. But this consideration doesn't seem to play a role. Or do I overlook something?

  7. #7
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartolin
    I guess it has something to do with B3.
    No it doesnt.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartolin
    The pairing 2-4 instead of 5-2 could be seen as a violation of B3 for the leading player (player 2). And since B3 is more important than B4, SM5 could have decided to accept 5-2 even though it violates B4.
    You are pairing the players S1 = 2, 1 and S2 = 5, 7 not worrying about the next score group.
    It is clear that the value of p and of x is of prime importance.
    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
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    You are pairing the players S1 = 2, 1 and S2 = 5, 7 not worrying about the next score group.
    I'm afraid, I don't fully understand this.

    Wouldn't that mean, that the implications of B3 change dramatically once p is reduced by C14? If I don't have to care about players who are about to downfloat, it would suddenly be best to pair 5 and 7, once p becomes 1. In this case the score difference of the two players paired would be minimal (zero). So, 5-7 would be the best pair with respect to B3 and it should be taken since B3 is more important than B4. [Note that C8 allows exchanges since the group is considered homogenous according to A3. Furthermore B2 isn't in effect since this is the last round.]

    But to pair 5-7 and move 1 and 2 down would be just ridiculous.

    Once again, I seem to be unable to grasp how B3 is incorporated in the pairing procedure from C.

  9. #9
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray

    Code:
     2 : 19,9,7,1,3,15     WBWBWB    D   5.5  
                                              
     1 : 18,10,6,2,8,7     BWBWBW    D   5    
                                              
     5 : 22,14,11,8,28,3   BWBWBB        4.5  
     7 : 24,16,2,14,22,1   BWBWBB    U   4.5  
                                              
     4 : 21,11,19,13,15,12 WBWBWB        4    
     6 : 23,13,1,15,19,22  WBWBWB        4    
     8 : 25,15,3,5,1,11    WBWBWB        4    
    11 : 28,4,5,3,10,8     BWWBBW    u   4    
    13 : 30,6,26,4,18,10   BWBWBW        4    
    14 : 31,5,27,7,24,25   WBWBWB    D   4    
    15 : 32,8,34,6,4,2     BWBWBW    U   4
    Now it is abundently clear that 2 should play 5 and 1 and 7 join the 4 point score group.
    Can we see the whole pairing table? Recursive C12 pairing of heterogeneous brackets may force backtracking that requires unintuitive pairings going back several brackets, the same way that C13 and C14 did in http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6619

  10. #10
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310
    Quote Originally Posted by drbean
    Can we see the whole pairing table? Recursive C12 pairing of heterogeneous brackets may force backtracking that requires unintuitive pairings going back several brackets, the same way that C13 and C14 did in http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6619
    Code:
     2 : 19,9,7,1,3,15     WBWBWB    D   5.5  
                                              
     1 : 18,10,6,2,8,7     BWBWBW    D   5    
                                              
     5 : 22,14,11,8,28,3   BWBWBB        4.5  
     7 : 24,16,2,14,22,1   BWBWBB    U   4.5  
                                              
     4 : 21,11,19,13,15,12 WBWBWB        4    
     6 : 23,13,1,15,19,22  WBWBWB        4    
     8 : 25,15,3,5,1,11    WBWBWB        4    
    11 : 28,4,5,3,10,8     BWWBBW    u   4    
    13 : 30,6,26,4,18,10   BWBWBW        4    
    14 : 31,5,27,7,24,25   WBWBWB    D   4    
    15 : 32,8,34,6,4,2     BWBWBW    U   4    
                                              
     3 : 20,12,8,11,2,5    BWBWBW        3.5  
    16 : 33,7,29,21,25,19  WBWBWB    D   3.5  
    29 : 12,20,16,22,26,28 BWBWBW        3.5  
                                              
    10 : 27,1,24,25,11,13  WBWBWB    d   3    
    12 : 29,3,25,27,21,4   WBWBWW        3    
    21 : 4,28,30,16,12,18  BWBWBW        3    
    22 : 5,31,9,29,7,6     WBWBWW        3    
    24 : 7,33,10,34,14,30  WBBWBW        3    
                                              
    20 : 3,29,33,17,31,27  WBWBWB        2.5  
    23 : 6,30,32,26,-,33   BWBW-B    D   2.5  
    25 : 8,32,12,10,16,14  BWBWBW    U   2.5  
    26 : 9,17,13,23,29,32  WBWBWB        2.5  
    27 : 10,18,14,12,34,20 BWBWBW        2.5  
    28 : 11,21,17,9,5,29   WBWBWB        2.5  
                                              
    17 : 34,26,28,20,-,31  BWBW-B    d   2    
    18 : 1,27,31,33,13,21  WBWBWB        2    
    19 : 2,34,4,30,6,16    BWBWBW    U   2    
    30 : 13,23,21,19,9,24  WBWBWB        2    
                                              
     9 : 26,2,22,28,30,34  BWBWBW        1.5  
    32 : 15,25,23,31,33,26 WBWBWW    u   1.5  
    34 : 17,19,15,24,27,9  WBWBWB        1.5  
                                              
    31 : 14,22,18,32,20,17 BWBWBW        1    
    33 : 16,24,20,18,32,23 BWBWBW   Ud   1    

  11. #11
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    Code:
     2 : 19,9,7,1,3,15     WBWBWB    D   5.5  
                                              
     1 : 18,10,6,2,8,7     BWBWBW    D   5    
                                              
     5 : 22,14,11,8,28,3   BWBWBB        4.5  
     7 : 24,16,2,14,22,1   BWBWBB    U   4.5  
                                              
     4 : 21,11,19,13,15,12 WBWBWB        4    
     6 : 23,13,1,15,19,22  WBWBWB        4    
     8 : 25,15,3,5,1,11    WBWBWB        4    
    11 : 28,4,5,3,10,8     BWWBBW    u   4    
    13 : 30,6,26,4,18,10   BWBWBW        4    
    14 : 31,5,27,7,24,25   WBWBWB    D   4    
    15 : 32,8,34,6,4,2     BWBWBW    U   4    
                                              
     3 : 20,12,8,11,2,5    BWBWBW        3.5  
    16 : 33,7,29,21,25,19  WBWBWB    D   3.5  
    29 : 12,20,16,22,26,28 BWBWBW        3.5  
                                              
    10 : 27,1,24,25,11,13  WBWBWB    d   3    
    12 : 29,3,25,27,21,4   WBWBWW        3    
    21 : 4,28,30,16,12,18  BWBWBW        3    
    22 : 5,31,9,29,7,6     WBWBWW        3    
    24 : 7,33,10,34,14,30  WBBWBW        3    
                                              
    20 : 3,29,33,17,31,27  WBWBWB        2.5  
    23 : 6,30,32,26,-,33   BWBW-B    D   2.5  
    25 : 8,32,12,10,16,14  BWBWBW    U   2.5  
    26 : 9,17,13,23,29,32  WBWBWB        2.5  
    27 : 10,18,14,12,34,20 BWBWBW        2.5  
    28 : 11,21,17,9,5,29   WBWBWB        2.5  
                                              
    17 : 34,26,28,20,-,31  BWBW-B    d   2    
    18 : 1,27,31,33,13,21  WBWBWB        2    
    19 : 2,34,4,30,6,16    BWBWBW    U   2    
    30 : 13,23,21,19,9,24  WBWBWB        2    
                                              
     9 : 26,2,22,28,30,34  BWBWBW        1.5  
    32 : 15,25,23,31,33,26 WBWBWW    u   1.5  
    34 : 17,19,15,24,27,9  WBWBWB        1.5  
                                              
    31 : 14,22,18,32,20,17 BWBWBW        1    
    33 : 16,24,20,18,32,23 BWBWBW   Ud   1    
    Thanks for this pairing table. It smoked out more bugs in Games::Tournament::Swiss. Without the complete pairing table it is not possible for it to pair even the top tables.

    It is now pairing the first tables:

    Code:
    Round 7:  2 (5.5), 1 (5), 5 7 (4.5), 4 6 8 11 13 14 15 (4), 3 16 29 (3.5), 10 12 21 22 24 (3), 20 23 25 26 27 28 (2.5), 17 18 19 30 (2), 9 32 34 (1.5), 31 33 (1),
    C1, NOK. 2 only member in 1 (5.5).
    C1, Floating 2 down to 2 (5)
    C1, [1]  & [2] 1 2
    C1, Bracket 1 (5.5) dissolved. Pairing Bracket 2
    C1, NOK. 1 2 B1a/B2a incompatible in 2 (5)
    C1, Floating 1 2 down to 3 (4.5)
    C1, [2]  & [3] 5 7 1 2
    C1, Bracket 2 (5) dissolved. Pairing Bracket 3
    C1, NOK. 7 B1a/B2a incompatible in 3 (4.5)
    C1, Floating 7 down to 4 (4)
    C1, [3] 5 1 2 & [4] 4 6 8 11 13 14 15 7
    C2, x=0
    C3, p=1. Homogeneous.
    C4, S1: 2 & S2: 1 5
    C5, ordered: 2
               & 1 5
    C6PAIRS, B1a: table 1 NOK
    C7,          5 1
    C6PAIRS, B4: x=0, table 1 NOK
    C7, last transposition
    C8, exchange a in 3
    C8, 1, 2 5
    C5, ordered: 1
               & 2 5
    C6PAIRS, B1a: table 1 NOK
    C7,          5 2
    C6PAIRS, B5Down, table 1: 2 NOK. Floated Down 1 rounds ago
    C7, last transposition
    C8, last S1,S2 exchange in 3
    C9, Dropping B6 for Downfloats
    C4, S1: 2 & S2: 1 5
    C5, ordered: 2
               & 1 5
    C6PAIRS, B1a: table 1 NOK
    C7,          5 1
    C6PAIRS, B4: x=0, table 1 NOK
    C7, last transposition
    C8, exchange a in 3
    C8, 1, 2 5
    C5, ordered: 1
               & 2 5
    C6PAIRS, B1a: table 1 NOK
    C7,          5 2
    C6PAIRS, B5Down, table 1: 2 NOK. Floated Down 1 rounds ago
    C7, last transposition
    C8, last S1,S2 exchange in 3
    C9, Dropping B5 for Downfloats
    C4, S1: 2 & S2: 1 5
    C5, ordered: 2
               & 1 5
    C6PAIRS, B1a: table 1 NOK
    C7,          5 1
    C6PAIRS, B4: x=0, table 1 NOK
    C7, last transposition
    C8, exchange a in 3
    C8, 1, 2 5
    C5, ordered: 1
               & 2 5
    C6PAIRS, B1a: table 1 NOK
    C7,          5 2
    C6PAIRS, B56: OK.
    C6PAIRS, 1 paired. OK
    C6PAIRS, E1 5&1
    C6OTHERS, Floating remaining 2 Down. [3] 1 5 & [4] 4 6 8 11 13 14 15 7 2
    In Bracket 3, 7 is floated down because it has played 1 and 2 and it can't play 5 because they both have an Absolute preference for White.

    5 and 2 both have a preference for White, but 5 can only be paired with the remaining 1, with a preference for Black, after B5 for downfloats is waived for 2. 2 already downfloated in the previous round, so it can't downfloat again until this is done.

    Am I correct here? Is this the proper way to carry out a B5 check? It seems to be the same sort of logic as here: http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=158
    Last edited by drbean; 30-10-2007 at 01:02 PM.

  12. #12
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310
    Quote Originally Posted by drbean
    In Bracket 3, 7 is floated down because it has played 1 and 2 and it can't play 5 because they both have an Absolute preference for White.

    5 and 2 both have a preference for White, but 5 can only be paired with the remaining 1, with a preference for Black, after B5 for downfloats is waived for 2. 2 already downfloated in the previous round, so it can't downfloat again until this is done.

    Am I correct here? Is this the proper way to carry out a B5 check? It seems to be the same sort of logic as here:
    Ok I am going to have to admit that I dont understand this and a few previous issues. I have asked another arbiter regarding all this for his opinion and awaiting reply.

    Why are you worried about float status ie B5, B6?
    Round 7 is the final round, so B2, B5 and B6 don't apply.

    Now I commented previously that I thought it was obvious that 5 v 2 is the correct pairing and 1 and 7 are downfloated. I did not refer to all the x's, p's etc for the following reason.

    In the 2,1,5,7 group. 2 has played 1 and 7. This means 2 only has 5 as a legal pairing. 2 is the highest scorer and so is paired first. I would suspect that this is how SM5 has paired this group. I can now see how 5 v 1 is possible as it is a better colour match.

    Bill, I did not quite understand your post. The main point I didn't understand was, what do you believe the pairings should be?

    I just put the 5 v 1 pairing into SM5 and then auto paired the rest of the pairings and it has produced the same pairings as SP. Very interesting.

    So the question comes down to, what is the correct pairing: 5 v 2 or 5 v 1? SM5 says 5 v 2, SP says 5 v 1.

    I am relieved that I did not manual pair this round in a rush, as the matter is not so clear cut.
    Last edited by Garvinator; 30-10-2007 at 01:53 AM.

  13. #13
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by drbean
    In Bracket 3, 7 is floated down because it has played 1 and 2 and it can't play 5 because they both have an Absolute preference for White.
    We have a problem here, because the round in question is the last round. According to part B of the pairing rules, B2 doesn't apply for the last round for players with a score of over 50 %. But that's the case with player 7. Therefore you cannot move player 7 down that easily.

    Otherwise your (or Games::Tournament::Swiss's) reasoning would be correct, I think.

  14. #14
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by drbean
    Thanks for this pairing table. It smoked out more bugs in Games::Tournament::Swiss. Without the complete pairing table it is not possible for it to pair even the top tables.
    This is a bit off topic, but ... Is there an easy way to feed Games::Tournament::Swiss with a pairing table, without providing a list of players (aka "league.yaml")? I guess, I could just create such a list with fake entries ("name: Player_1, rating: 5000, name: Player_2, rating: 4900, etc."). But maybe this step can be avoided somehow?

  15. #15
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310
    I now understand the situation with the top board pairings, I partly understood it previously, but it just seemed wrong to not paired the person on the highest score with his first legal opponent.

    So, if we do have this correct, then why has SM5 paired 5 v 2 when it has been right so often before?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Does God Exist?
    By Paul S in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 5606
    Last Post: 02-03-2020, 09:20 PM
  2. Another sp error?
    By Garvinator in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: 27-04-2011, 02:20 AM
  3. stuff sf. "ACF Council Elections"
    By Basil in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 18-09-2006, 02:48 PM
  4. Weird zonal error
    By pax in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-02-2005, 06:31 PM
  5. spelling error
    By Choco in forum Help and Feedback
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-10-2003, 04:00 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
  •