From: fsmgs@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Michael Schmahl [Black-Robe Mage])
Subject: Re: Tie breaks for 5 Swiss Systems
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 02:32:02 GMT

Michael Schmahl [Black-Robe Mage] writes
> Michael Schmahl [Black-Robe Mage] writes
> > Kenneth Sloan writes
> > > In article <1992Dec10.152354.4516@admin1.memst.edu> gpylant@admin1.memst.edu  
> > writes:
> > > 
> > > Some of these tie-breaks favor the low-rated player in a Swiss - see the
> > > ones marked(!).  So...time to take a poll: which of these tiebreaks is
> > > your favorite, and why?  Let's limit the situation to: 5 round Swiss
> > > with a very wide range of pre-event ratings.  In particular - given the
> > > information below, and using *any* tiebreak criteria you can think of -
> > > which two out of the five players in the 3.0 score group would you
> > > select to play in the championship quad?
> > > 

Anyway, here's the table with the modification I propose.  Rather than multiply Cum  
by (R/2) I divided OCum by (R/2), equivalently, but all numbers are smaller.  My  
method works because there is actually a negative correlative effect between Cum  
and Ocum, so this measures whether they actually 'did better'

                      Birmingham City Championship
                              29 June 1992
                               Qualifier
         Name         Score   CmOC  Hark  Solk   Cum  Skof  Aver  OPer   OCum
            Jack Gwin   4.0   23.0   5.0   9.0  10.0   5.0  1586  1634   26.0
        Kenneth Sloan   3.0   22.0   4.0   9.5   9.0   4.0  1533  1712   26.0
          R. W. Ellis   3.0   19.0   4.0   8.5   7.0   4.0  1610  1544   24.0
    Michael J. DeVivo   3.0   17.0   4.0   6.5   7.0   4.0  1382  1477   20.0
        Keyvan Amouie   3.0   16.5   4.0   7.5   8.0   4.0  1595  1549   17.0
     Walter Schaetzle   3.0   16.5   4.0   7.5   6.0   4.0  1534  1623   21.0
 George Kanotheodonis   2.0   20.5   6.0  11.0   7.0   6.0  1721  1652   27.0
      William Collins   2.0   19.5   5.0  11.0   7.0   5.0  1619  1707   25.0
         Dale Robbins   2.0   17.0   5.0   9.0   6.0   5.0  1554  1509   22.0
         Ray M. Kline   2.0   17.0   5.0   9.0   5.0   5.0  1562  1620   24.0
            John Bell   2.0   15.5   4.0   7.0   5.0   4.0  1553  1530   21.0
        James C. Dean   2.0   15.0   4.5   8.5   5.0   4.0  1498  1643   20.0
     Robert Bashinsky   2.0   13.5   4.0   8.0   5.0   4.0  1574  1535   17.0
     Jay Clinton Well   2.0   10.5   3.0   6.0   3.0   3.0  1481  1436   15.0
  Ray F. Stanton, III   1.5    6.0   1.5   3.0   3.0   2.0  1339  1457    6.0
          David Kline   1.0   13.5   4.0   9.0   3.0   4.0  1576  1571   21.0
        Robert Rieves   1.0   11.5   3.5   6.5   3.0   3.5  1722  1478   17.0
      Wayne Yarbrough   1.0   10.0   4.0   7.5   2.0   4.0  1582  1436   16.0
         David Tucker   1.0    9.5   4.5   7.5   1.0   4.5  1802  1578   17.0
        John H. Moore   1.0    9.5   4.0   7.0   2.0   4.0  1474  1521   15.0
        Danny Sanforn   1.0    8.0   3.0   5.5   1.0   3.0  1371  1370   14.0

Note that CmOC generally agrees with Hark unless Hark is within 1 point, and almost  
always agrees with Solk.  I believe CmOC is the fourth-best tiebreak, after 1.  
playoffs, 2. head-to-head record/division record (if all ties have played one  
another, maybe combine with 1. above)  3.  Calculate ratings as if all players  
unrated and sort by post-ratings. 
--
CONFIG.DAT not found.  Reboot universe?
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess