2013 Final Stage

Discussion about all aspects of the ECF County Championships.
User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3323
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Postby IM Jack Rudd » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:53 am

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.

Angus French
Posts: 1328
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Postby Angus French » Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:00 am

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.
Last edited by Angus French on Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rob Thompson
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: Behind you

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Postby Rob Thompson » Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:01 am

At least they didn't tell me that I was playing - I've had games confused with Robert G Thompson before.
True glory lies in doing what deserves to be written; in writing what deserves to be read.

John Upham
Posts: 4014
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Postby John Upham » Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:10 am

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?

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3323
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Postby IM Jack Rudd » Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:06 am

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.)

Mick Norris
Posts: 6205
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Harwood, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Postby Mick Norris » Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:26 am

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

Caution: no known penalties, but some of the matches won't have been Holowczacked yet.
:lol:
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Postby Sean Hewitt » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:13 am

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?!

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 15594
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Postby Roger de Coverly » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:23 am

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?

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2232
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Postby MartinCarpenter » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:56 am

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.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 7859
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Postby Alex Holowczak » Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:38 pm

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.

Graham Borrowdale

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Postby Graham Borrowdale » Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:53 pm

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.

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2232
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Postby MartinCarpenter » Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:55 pm

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.).

Mick Norris
Posts: 6205
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Harwood, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Postby Mick Norris » Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:45 pm

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-champs-final-stage-results-20122013/
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 6350
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Postby Christopher Kreuzer » Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:54 pm

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-champs-final-stage-results-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."

:shock:

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 15594
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Postby Roger de Coverly » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:00 pm

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.


Return to “County Championships”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests