(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 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.
2013 Final Stage
-
- Posts: 4828
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
- Location: Bideford
Re: 2013 Final Stage
-
- Posts: 2153
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Re: 2013 Final Stage
(b) is also easy - through a simple loop.IM Jack Rudd wrote:(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 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.
Last edited by Angus French on Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 757
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:03 pm
- Location: Behind you
Re: 2013 Final Stage
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.
-
- Posts: 7230
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
- Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Re: 2013 Final Stage
Could you explain why this difficult to code please Jack?IM Jack Rudd wrote: (b) is not, because for a 16-board match, you need to build in 120 comparisons for each side.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess
-
- Posts: 4828
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
- Location: Bideford
Re: 2013 Final Stage
Ah, I've just thought about it: I suppose you'd do something equivalent to this:John Upham wrote:Could you explain why this difficult to code please Jack?IM Jack Rudd wrote: (b) is not, because for a 16-board match, you need to build in 120 comparisons for each side.
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.)
-
- Posts: 10382
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Re: 2013 Final Stage
http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/new.htm
Caution: no known penalties, but some of the matches won't have been Holowczacked yet.
Any postings on here represent my personal views
-
- Posts: 2193
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Re: 2013 Final Stage
http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/new.htm
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?!Caution: no known penalties, but some of the matches won't have been Holowczacked yet.
-
- Posts: 21322
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: 2013 Final Stage
Council voted for them with minimal discussion at the end of long meetings. Who drafted them?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?!
-
- Posts: 3053
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
Re: 2013 Final Stage
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.
Without assigning blame, the situation in the with all those penalties everywhere in the earlier stages was certainly gently silly/amusing.
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: 2013 Final Stage
Sure, but whose fault is that? The one who applies the rules, or the one who does not follow the rules?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.
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.Sean Hewitt wrote:http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/new.htmIs 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?!Caution: no known penalties, but some of the matches won't have been Holowczacked yet.
Re: 2013 Final Stage
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 3053
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
Re: 2013 Final Stage
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.).
-
- Posts: 10382
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Re: 2013 Final Stage
And now Kent have lostGraham Borrowdale wrote:In the Open, Kent-Middlesex looks as if it was a good match
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/county-c ... -20122013/
Any postings on here represent my personal views
-
- Posts: 8838
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
- Location: London
Re: 2013 Final Stage
"Kent board 12 ineligible: Not an ECF member when the game was played. Game declared won for his opponent, and Kent penalised 1 gamepoint."Mick Norris wrote:And now Kent have lostGraham Borrowdale wrote:In the Open, Kent-Middlesex looks as if it was a good match
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/county-c ... -20122013/
-
- Posts: 21322
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: 2013 Final Stage
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?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."
Checking the exact time to the hour that someone became a member is taking compliance with rules to a level almost beyond belief.