Roger de Coverly wrote:Ian Thompson wrote:
Evidently not, according to the published list of prize winners. The 10 players tied for 3rd place are shown as winning £900 each when they should have got £1050 each, as the total of 3rd - 8th prizes is £10,500.
There do seem to have been several different versions of the prize fund in various documents. If the event is run again in the 2013 format, a coherent set of announcements as to initial and enhanced prize funds would seem necessary.
In this case it's not an enhancement, it's removal of guaranteed prizes. There are also other significant differences between the entry form I have and the one Justin Hadi posted. Of personal interest (for the second weekend events) is that my entry form does not prohibit players from winning more than one prize, whereas Justin Hadi's version does.
Roger de Coverly wrote:It's a guess, but were the W-We prizes something of a hybrid, in that a converted ECF grade was used as the rating for the calculation?
Who knows, but it's not relevant. There's nothing in either version of the entry form stating that grading prizes would be awarded in this way, so the correct winners of the prizes are the players who scored most points. Justin Hadi's version of the entry form says that in the event of a tie for a rating or grading prize it will go to the lowest rated player. That's what you might expect to see for a grading prize determined by points scored, but doesn't seem at all appropriate if you are using W-We.
Roger de Coverly wrote:In a massive ten round event, why is it wrong that points scored should be the tie break for grading or rating prizes?
It's not wrong. Using W-We is an obviously unfair way of determining winners. It can clearly result in someone scoring 100% but still not having the best W-We. Perhaps more likely, it can result in two players playing the same set of opponents, bar one, and getting exactly the same results, so the winner is whoever happened to play the higher rated of the two who were different, even though the difference in rating between the two might be negligible.
Roger de Coverly wrote:From a practical viewpoint, you never know whether you are in the running with these (W-We) awards.
That's another good reason why W-We is a poor way of determining prize winners.