English Chess Forum

Angus French wrote: What the software might have done is flagged that:
a) a player's grade was higher than the limit for the competition; or,
b) a player's grade was higher by more than a stipulated amount - 10 points, I believe - than the grade of a higher-board player.

(a) is easy enough. (b) is not, because for a 16-board match, you need to build in 120 comparisons for each side.

IM Jack Rudd wrote:

Angus French wrote: What the software might have done is flagged that:
a) a player's grade was higher than the limit for the competition; or,
b) a player's grade was higher by more than a stipulated amount - 10 points, I believe - than the grade of a higher-board player.

(a) is easy enough. (b) is not, because for a 16-board match, you need to build in 120 comparisons for each side.

(b) is also easy - through a simple loop.

At least they didn't tell me that I was playing - I've had games confused with Robert G Thompson before.

IM Jack Rudd wrote: (b) is not, because for a 16-board match, you need to build in 120 comparisons for each side.

Could you explain why this difficult to code please Jack?

John Upham wrote:

IM Jack Rudd wrote: (b) is not, because for a 16-board match, you need to build in 120 comparisons for each side.

Could you explain why this difficult to code please Jack?

Ah, I've just thought about it: I suppose you'd do something equivalent to this:

FOR A=1 TO N-1
FOR B=A+1 TO N
IF X(A)<X(B)-10 THEN E=1
NEXT B
NEXT A

(Not that I know how to code that in Excel without writing spaghetti code.)

http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/new.htm

Caution: no known penalties, but some of the matches won't have been Holowczacked yet.

http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/new.htm

Caution: no known penalties, but some of the matches won't have been Holowczacked yet.

Is it any wonder that we don't have a controller when the guy doing the job temporarily is derided for applying the rules that council voted in?!

Sean Hewitt wrote:Is it any wonder that we don't have a controller when the guy doing the job temporarily is derided for applying the rules that council voted in?!

Council voted for them with minimal discussion at the end of long meetings. Who drafted them?

It looks like pretty playful derision to me

Without assigning blame, the situation in the with all those penalties everywhere in the earlier stages was certainly gently silly/amusing.

MartinCarpenter wrote:It looks like pretty playful derision to me

Without assigning blame, the situation in the with all those penalties everywhere in the earlier stages was certainly gently silly/amusing.

Sure, but whose fault is that? The one who applies the rules, or the one who does not follow the rules?

Sean Hewitt wrote:http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/new.htm

Caution: no known penalties, but some of the matches won't have been Holowczacked yet.

Is it any wonder that we don't have a controller when the guy doing the job temporarily is derided for applying the rules that council voted in?!

There's backstory to this. While drafting them, various people were involved: myself, Dave Welch, Richard Haddrell, and others. Richard was asked to tidy up some grammar and ambiguities - a job he is very, very good at. I referred to one of the drafts as being "Haddrellised". I suspect that "Holowczacked" is a term used in a similar vain.

Not much discussion of the actual chess - as ever!

In the Open, Kent-Middlesex looks as if it was a good match. Surrey-Lancashire a little bit more one-sided, but many top players taking part in both matches. The final should be good.

In the Minor Counties, Bedfordshire beat Hampshire by the odd point in a very close match, within walking distance of a pub as has already been reported. Essex beat Lincolnshire be a slightly bigger margin, and must start as favourites for the final.

Big thanks to all the organisers, in particular the match captains, for making these events possible.

Well if they're making fun of the situation in and of itself then the issue of fault really isn't relevant (I'm pretty sure they're not assigning any.).

Graham Borrowdale wrote:In the Open, Kent-Middlesex looks as if it was a good match

And now Kent have lost
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/county-c ... -20122013/

Mick Norris wrote:

Graham Borrowdale wrote:In the Open, Kent-Middlesex looks as if it was a good match

And now Kent have lost
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/county-c ... -20122013/

"Kent board 12 ineligible: Not an ECF member when the game was played. Game declared won for his opponent, and Kent penalised 1 gamepoint."

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: "Kent board 12 ineligible: Not an ECF member when the game was played. Game declared won for his opponent, and Kent penalised 1 gamepoint."

I wouldn't blame Kent if they decided to boycott the competition in future years. The ECF has got its pound of flesh in membership money, why does it need to wreck the competition for good measure?

Checking the exact time to the hour that someone became a member is taking compliance with rules to a level almost beyond belief.