Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:37:20 10/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2004 at 17:16:55, Ed Schröder wrote: >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 Were you asked to agree to the new rules before the last round? If not then I consder prodeo as the winner. One of the rules is that rules should be known and accepted by the participants before the director decides about them. Uri
This page took 0.02 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.