Or it can take account of the player who is having a good tournament and as a result meets very strong players in the later rounds as opposed to the player who starts badly and has a number of easy wins against lower rated players.Roger de Coverly wrote:Using (W-We) is an admission that the pairing scheme is unduly influenced by the exact sequence in the ranking of players in the middle and to the tail of tournaments.
I know I have seen numerous cases in weekenders where a player loses out on the grading prize due to a last round loss and is overtaken by a 'slow-starter'.
W-We invariably means only one winner. When it is decided by score there can be multiple ties. This is good if you want lots of prizewinners but bad as few of them remain for the prizegiving to pick up a relatively small sum.
There was at least one when I was at the event.NickFaulks wrote: Has there ever been a case in the Classic where a norm has been ruined by having to play two <2050 opponents
It also depends what you mean by ruined. I've had many cases where a player has needed to win in the last round where boosting two players to 2050 would have meant only a draw was needed. And conversely, when you could enhance two players, I've had players playing for a norm who would otherwise have not had a chance. I will admit that I don't remember if these were in the Classic, certainly one of the cases I recall was at Hastings.