PDA

View Full Version : 2006 Gold Coast Open Pairings



Garvinator
26-06-2006, 04:49 PM
I have had a look through the first four rounds of the Gold Coast Open pairings and have noticed that in rounds 2,3 and 4, Charles has changed the pairings away from swiss perfect and sm5 allocated pairings. I have not looked at rounds 5,6 and 7 yet.

In each round, this change was done to preference top half v bottom half, instead of matching colours which sp and sm5 has done.

Surely this is a violation of the dutch pairing rules. Can someone else check my results please?

Bill Gletsos
26-06-2006, 04:57 PM
I have had a look through the first four rounds of the Gold Coast Open pairings and have noticed that in rounds 2,3 and 4, Charles has changed the pairings away from swiss perfect and sm5 allocated pairings. I have not looked at rounds 5,6 and 7 yet.I had a very quick look at round 2 and it looks fine to me.

Are you sure you have the players entered in the correct seeding order.

Garvinator
26-06-2006, 05:02 PM
I had a very quick look at round 2 and it looks fine to me.

Are you sure you have the players entered in the correct seeding order.
Yes, I am sure. Just re-checked the names I had.

From caq website:


1 GM Rogers, Ian 2599
2 IM Solomon, Stephen J 2399
3 IM Froehlich, Peter 2373
4 Ly, Moulthun 2213
5 FM Humphrey, Jonathan 2179
6 Duxbury, Craig R A 2071
7 Stojic, Dusan 2067
8 Wongwichit, Phachara 1961
9 Lazarus, Benjamin 1914
10 O'Brien, John 1892
11 Stojic, Svetozar 1869
12 Lovejoy, David 1814
13 Lester, George E 1808
14 Weller, Tony 1782
15 Thomas, Brian 1749
16 Harris, Benjamin 1718
17 Guo-Yuthok, Sherab 1716
18 Alkin, John 1677
19 Elkington, Derek 1675
20 Korenevski, Oleg 1641
21 Jule, Alexandra 1610
22 Kinder, Jessica 1401
23 Nakauchi, Gene 1357
24 Muller, Jonas 1290
25 McGarity, Liam 1199
26 Baker, Brendan 1142

From my sp:


No Name Loc

1. ROGERS, Ian 2599
2. SOLOMON, Stephen J 2399
3. FROEHLICH, Peter 2373
4. LY, Moulthun 2213
5. HUMPHREY, Jonathan 2179
6. DUXBURY, Craig R A 2071
7. STOJIC, Dusan 2067
8. WONGWICHIT, Phachara 1961
9. LAZARUS, Benjamin 1914
10. O'BRIEN, John 1892
11. STOJIC, Svetozar 1869
12. LOVEJOY, David 1814
13. LESTER, George E 1808
14. WELLER, Tony 1782
15. THOMAS, Brian 1749
16. HARRIS, Benjamin 1718
17. GUO-YUTHOK, Sherab 1716
18. ALKIN, John 1677
19. ELKINGTON, Derek 1675
20. KORENEVSKI, Oleg 1641
21. JULE, Alexandra 1610
22. KINDER, Jessica 1401
23. NAKAUCHI, Gene 1357
24. MULLER, Jonas 1290
25. MCGARITY, Liam 1199
26. BAKER, Brendan 1142

Garvinator
26-06-2006, 05:10 PM
I had a very quick look at round 2 and it looks fine to me.

Are you sure you have the players entered in the correct seeding order.

Charles pairings:


Pairings: Round 2 next
Board Rating Name Result Name Rating
1 2071 Duxbury, Craig R A (1) 0 - 1 GM Rogers, Ian (1) 2599
2 2399 IM Solomon, Stephen J (1) 1 - 0 Stojic, Dusan (1) 2067
3 1892 O'Brien, John (1) 0 - 1 IM Froehlich, Peter (1) 2373
4 2213 Ly, Moulthun (1) ½ - ½ Stojic, Svetozar (1) 1869
5 1808 Lester, George E (1) ½ - ½ FM Humphrey, Jonathan (1) 2179
6 1961 Wongwichit, Phachara (0.5) 0 - 1 Kinder, Jessica (0.5) 1401
7 1199 McGarity, Liam (0.5) 1 - 0 Lazarus, Benjamin (0.5) 1914
8 1814 Lovejoy, David (0.5) 1 - 0 Jule, Alexandra (0.5) 1610
9 1782 Weller, Tony (0) 1 - 0 Elkington, Derek (0) 1675
10 1641 Korenevski, Oleg (0) ½ - ½ Thomas, Brian (0) 1749
11 1718 Harris, Benjamin (0) 1 - 0 Nakauchi, Gene (0) 1357
12 1290 Muller, Jonas (0) 0 - 1 Guo-Yuthok, Sherab (0) 1716
13 1677 Alkin, John (0) 1 - 0 Baker, Brendan (0) 1142

Sp pairings:


No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 DUXBURY, Craig R A (6) 2071 [1] : ROGERS, Ian (1) 2599 [1]
2 SOLOMON, Stephen J (2) 2399 [1] : STOJIC, Dusan (7) 2067 [1]
3 O'BRIEN, John (10) 1892 [1] : FROEHLICH, Peter (3) 2373 [1]
4 LY, Moulthun (4) 2213 [1] : STOJIC, Svetozar (11) 1869 [1]
5 LESTER, George E (13) 1808 [1] : HUMPHREY, Jonathan (5) 2179 [1]
6 WONGWICHIT, Phachara (8) 1961 [.5] : MCGARITY, Liam (25) 1199 [.5]
7 LOVEJOY, David (12) 1814 [.5] : LAZARUS, Benjamin (9) 1914 [.5]
8 KINDER, Jessica (22) 1401 [.5] : JULE, Alexandra (21) 1610 [.5]
9 WELLER, Tony (14) 1782 [0] : ELKINGTON, Derek (19) 1675 [0]
10 KORENEVSKI, Oleg (20) 1641 [0] : THOMAS, Brian (15) 1749 [0]
11 HARRIS, Benjamin (16) 1718 [0] : NAKAUCHI, Gene (23) 1357 [0]
12 MULLER, Jonas (24) 1290 [0] : GUO-YUTHOK, Sherab (17) 1716 [0]
13 ALKIN, John (18) 1677 [0] : BAKER, Brendan (26) 1142 [0]

Bill Gletsos
26-06-2006, 08:03 PM
Serves me right for only checking the first score group. :doh:

After round 1 the players on 0.5 in pairing order are:

Wongwichit with colour preference of White
Lazarus with colour preference of Black
Lovejoy with colour preference of White
Jule with colour preference of Black
Kinder with colour preference of White
McGarity with colour preference of Black

Now w=3, b=3, q=3 and x=0.

This means we need three pairings with all players getting their colour preference.

So pairing S1 V S2 we get

S1 S2
Wongwichit Jule
Lazarus Kinder
Lovejoy McGarity
Now wongwichit - Jule is a colour match, Kinder - Lazarus is a colour match and Lovejoy - McGarity is a colour match.

This meets the q=3 and x=0 criteria.

Unfortunately they all played in round 1.

No transposition os S2 will result in meeting the x=0 criteria.
As such an exchannge must be carried out.

Lovejoy is exchanged with Jule.


S1 S2
Wongwichit Lovejoy
Lazarus Kinder
Jule McGarity
These also dont meet X=0, so carry out transpositions on S2.
The first transposition to meet x=0 is the ordedr in S2 of Mcgarity, Lovejoy, Kinder


S1 S2
Wongwichit McGarity
Lazarus Lovejoy
Jule Kinder
These lead to the pairings:

S1 S2
Wongwichit McGarity
Lovejoy Lazarus
Kinder Jule
which does meet the q=3 and x=0 criteria.

The SP pairings are therefore correct.

Bill Gletsos
26-06-2006, 08:54 PM
except that those were the three pairings from the first round that drew with each other :doh:I realised that straight after i posted it, but got distracted before editing it by goings on elsewhere on the BB.

Garvinator
26-06-2006, 10:15 PM
I realised that straight after i posted it, but got distracted before editing it by goings on elsewhere on the BB.
you got distracted by the use of the word goose and by AO making a goose of himself as usual ;) :P

Garvinator
26-06-2006, 10:20 PM
Charles:


1 2599 GM Rogers, Ian (2) 1 - 0 IM Solomon, Stephen J (2) 2399
2 2373 IM Froehlich, Peter (2) ½ - ½ Ly, Moulthun (1.5) 2213
3 2179 FM Humphrey, Jonathan (1.5) 1 - 0 McGarity, Liam (1.5) 1199
4 1869 Stojic, Svetozar (1.5) 1 - 0 Lester, George E (1.5) 1808
5 1401 Kinder, Jessica (1.5) ½ - ½ Lovejoy, David (1.5) 1814
6 1782 Weller, Tony (1) 0 - 1 Duxbury, Craig R A (1) 2071
7 2067 Stojic, Dusan (1) 1 - 0 Harris, Benjamin (1) 1718
8 1716 Guo-Yuthok, Sherab (1) 1 - 0 O'Brien, John (1) 1892
9 1914 Lazarus, Benjamin (0.5) 0 - 1 Alkin, John (1) 1677
10 1641 Korenevski, Oleg (0.5) 0 - 1 Wongwichit, Phachara (0.5) 1961
11 1749 Thomas, Brian (0.5) 1 - 0 Jule, Alexandra (0.5) 1610
12 1675 Elkington, Derek (0) 0 - 1 Muller, Jonas (0) 1290
13 1142 Baker, Brendan (0) 0 - 1 Nakauchi, Gene (0) 1357

Sp:

No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 ROGERS, Ian (1) 2599 [2] : SOLOMON, Stephen J (2) 2399 [2]
2 FROEHLICH, Peter (3) 2373 [2] : LY, Moulthun (4) 2213 [1.5]
3 HUMPHREY, Jonathan (5) 2179 [1.5] : MCGARITY, Liam (25) 1199 [1.5]
4 STOJIC, Svetozar (11) 1869 [1.5] : LESTER, George E (13) 1808 [1.5]
5 KINDER, Jessica (22) 1401 [1.5] : LOVEJOY, David (12) 1814 [1.5]
6 WELLER, Tony (14) 1782 [1] : DUXBURY, Craig R A (6) 2071 [1]
7 STOJIC, Dusan (7) 2067 [1] : HARRIS, Benjamin (16) 1718 [1]
8 GUO-YUTHOK, Sherab (17) 1716 [1] : O'BRIEN, John (10) 1892 [1]
9 LAZARUS, Benjamin (9) 1914 [.5] : ALKIN, John (18) 1677 [1]
10 THOMAS, Brian (15) 1749 [.5] : WONGWICHIT, Phachara (8) 1961 [.5]
11 JULE, Alexandra (21) 1610 [.5] : KORENEVSKI, Oleg (20) 1641 [.5]
12 ELKINGTON, Derek (19) 1675 [0] : MULLER, Jonas (24) 1290 [0]
13 BAKER, Brendan (26) 1142 [0] : NAKAUCHI, Gene (23) 1357 [0]

Bill Gletsos
26-06-2006, 10:28 PM
You will also find 2 pairings changed in round 4 and 2 in round 6. Rounds 5 & 7 are as generated by SP.

Garvinator
26-06-2006, 10:31 PM
You will also find 2 pairings changed in round 4 and 2 in round 6. Rounds 5 & 7 are as generated by SP.
the point is that I think you will find that each time Charles has changed the pairings because of top half v bottom half issues instead of matching for colours. That is what I had noticed in rounds 2,3 and 4. Thank you for looking at the rest of the rounds.

Desmond
26-06-2006, 10:37 PM
Perhaps Charles used a program other than SP that gave the pairings he used.

qpawn
27-06-2006, 02:57 PM
Bill Gletsos should have been more OBSERVANT with the pairings :evil:

Garvinator
27-06-2006, 04:23 PM
Bill Gletsos should have been more OBSERVANT with the pairings :evil:
what do you mean? Dare I ask :uhoh:

Bill Gletsos
27-06-2006, 04:26 PM
what do you mean? Dare I ask :uhoh:Don't worry it isnt like he has a clue how they should be done. He is just referring to my original post being wrong as you pointed out.

Garvinator
27-06-2006, 04:28 PM
Don't worry it isnt like he has a clue how they should be done. He is just referring to my original post being wrong as you pointed out.
oh ok that is alright if that is what he was trying to say. I thought he might have been saying that you should have done the pairings correctly at the tournament. Hence why I asked for clarification :eek: you just never know on here ;) :P

Ian Murray
29-06-2006, 12:40 PM
Perhaps Charles used a program other than SP that gave the pairings he used.
As is his wont, Charles was exercising his prerogative to improve pairings.

While the practice does not enjoy universal support, arbiters have that right unless the tournament conditions specifically state otherwise.

Personally I prefer to see the Dutch Swiss rules applied without tampering, which Swiss Perfect does very well. However the rules don't particularly suit Australian conditions.

Bill Gletsos
29-06-2006, 01:12 PM
As is his wont, Charles was exercising his prerogative to improve pairings.I believe virtually all players expect that the Dutch rules be followed and not changed unless the pairing program has an error. The arbiter does not have the perogative to break the Dutch rules just because he feels the pairings can be improved.

While the practice does not enjoy universal support, arbiters have that right unless the tournament conditions specifically state otherwise. If SP gets the pairings wrong as it occasionally does then the arbiter has every right to change them. However in the majority of cases changes are being made to pairings where the computer pairings (SP) are completely correct.

Personally I prefer to see the Dutch Swiss rules applied without tampering, which Swiss Perfect does very well.Agreed. they should only be overridden when clearly incorrect.

However the rules don't particularly suit Australian conditions.Sorry, I dont agree with this. You either follow the Dutch Rules or you do not. You cannot just selectively choose to follow the Dutch rules in some pairings and ignore them in others.

Ian Murray
29-06-2006, 01:55 PM
Sorry, I dont agree with this. You either follow the Dutch Rules or you do not. You cannot just selectively choose to follow the Dutch rules in some pairings and ignore them in others.
What I meant was that the Dutch rules are particularly suited to GM tournaments and similar, where colour alternation has much greater import than rating difference

It can be argued (but not by me) that, with the wide divergence in ratings found in the average Oz tournament, rating difference should be given greater weight.

I agree with Bill - rules is rules! Trying to "improve" on Dutch pairings simply wastes time and the average player doesn't care either way.

Brian_Jones
29-06-2006, 02:24 PM
where colour alternation has much greater import than rating difference

I think you mean colour equalisation?

Garvinator
29-06-2006, 03:05 PM
Sorry, I dont agree with this. You either follow the Dutch Rules or you do not. You cannot just selectively choose to follow the Dutch rules in some pairings and ignore them in others.
I agree with this and have said so before. The main issue is not which pairing system is followed, but that different pairing systems are interchanged throughout the tournament under the way Charles pairs players.

As highlighted in this thread- Charles changed pairings away from the sp pairings in at least 4 rounds. None of these pairings were incorrect by the dutch pairing rules (a rare situation for sp) and were changed to favour top half v bottom half over colour. My understanding is that it is not uniformly applied in all rounds.

Similar practices to this came back to bite everyone in the ass at the Australian Championship.

Ian Murray
29-06-2006, 03:11 PM
I think you mean colour equalisation?
That's what I meant. I just spelt it wrong:)

Bill Gletsos
29-06-2006, 03:20 PM
None of these pairings were incorrect by the dutch pairing rules (a rare situation for sp)Actually SP gets it right far more than it gets it wrong.

Garvinator
29-06-2006, 03:35 PM
Actually SP gets it right far more than it gets it wrong.
Very much agreed.

Rincewind
29-06-2006, 03:43 PM
Actually SP gets it right far more than it gets it wrong.

But what is the expectation? It would be funny if Intel were marketing their latest FPU with the phrase "64-bit multiplication - it gets it right far more than it gets it wrong." :)

Bill Gletsos
29-06-2006, 03:47 PM
But what is the expectation? It would be funny if Intel were marketing their latest FPU with the phrase "64-bit multiplication - it gets it right far more than it gets it wrong." :)The thing is that in virtually all cases where SP is being overridden, it is in fact correct and the override is incorrect.

pax
06-07-2006, 02:03 PM
What I meant was that the Dutch rules are particularly suited to GM tournaments and similar, where colour alternation has much greater import than rating difference.

The problem with this argument is that if you favour top-bottom over colour equalisation, you can cause pairing difficulties in later rounds that make it impossible for the best pairings (rating/result wise) to be made.

The only exception is the last round of a tournament.