Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 14:16:55 10/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2004 at 14:11:06, Theo van der Storm wrote: >On October 24, 2004 at 13:03:15, Volker Richey wrote: > >>Round 1: Kallisto - Diep 0 - 1 >>Round 3: Nexus - IsiChess 1 - 0 >>Round 3: Kallisto - ProDeo 0 - 1 >>Round 8: Diep - Goldbar 1 - 0 >>Round 11: IsiChess - ProDeo 0 - 1 >>Round 11: Nexus - XiniX 1 - 0 >> >>1. Diep 38,00 >>2. Nexus 37,75 >>3. ProDeo 37,50 >> >>Volker > >The games you mentioned appear to be correct, >but in the SB point it seems you erroneously subtracted >three Neurosis games worth 2 SB for each as well. > >So I wrote: >1. Diep 8,5 40.00 >2. Nexus 8,5 39.75 >3. Pro Deo 8.5 39.50 > >The rule was elected by the participants in an earlier >tournament and published before the start of this tournament. > >Best, >Theo If the rules of 2004 would have been used in 2001 would Rebel have won then? http://www.computerschaak.nl/docc01.html # Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 P BU SB G 1 Chess Tiger 14.6 X 1 1 1 1 0 ½ 1 . 1 ½ 1 1 . . . 9 70 57¾ 11 2 Rebel Century 4 0 X 1 1 ½ 1 1 ½ 1 1 1 . . . . 1 9 66 50¾ 11 I think the answer is yes, I remember that Rebel lost many points because it had to play EEC in the last round while it had a lead before the last round. I am not complaining, rules are rules, but a play-off somehow sounds more fair than randomness. Just a consideration. Ed
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.