ACC Holiday Swiss – Results

Final Results:

# Name Rating Rd 1 Rd 2 Rd 3 Rd 4 Rd 5 Total
1 Erik Malmsten 1861 W20 W11 H— W2 W4 4.5
2 Arkadiy Ugodnikov 1876 W14 H— W3 L1 W6 3.5
3 Pepin Manalo 1840 W16 D13 L2 W12 W8 3.5
4 Daniel Wiebe 1810 L15 W20 W17 W7 L1 3.0
5 Bruce McKendry 1874 H— H— L7 W20 W12 3.0
6 Sebastian Palozzi 1527 H— L7 W11 W16 L2 2.5
7 Yakos Spiliotopoulos 1546 H— W6 W5 L4 U— 2.5
8 Lawrence Garcia 1445 H— H— W19 H— L3 2.5
9 Joseph Nguyen 1358 H— W16 H— H— U— 2.5
10 Qiyu Zhou 1619 H— H— H— W19 U— 2.5
11 Shabnam Abbarin 1595 H— L1 L6 H— W16 2.0
12 Zhanna Sametova 1555 H— H— H— L3 L5 1.5
13 Stephen Fairbairn 2026 W19 D3 U— U— U— 1.5
14 Jan-Lukas Wolf 1443 L2 H— H— H— U— 1.5
15 Hugh Siddeley 2056 W4 H— U— U— U— 1.5
16 Charles McLeod unr. L3 L9 W20 L6 L11 1.0
17 Daniel Zotkin 1698 H— H— L4 U— U— 1.0
18 Jennifer Ugodnikov 929 U— U— U— U— W20 1.0
19 Marcus Wilker 1793 L13 H— L8 L10 U— 0.5
20 Jean-Marc David unr. L1 L4 L16 L5 L18 0.0

8 thoughts on “ACC Holiday Swiss – Results”

  1. If a player does not play then he earns half a point! I would like to comment on that.
    Imagine two players “A” and “B”.
    – “A” loses his first match and then does not show up for the next four matches: his gain will be 0+0.5+0.5+0.5+0.5=2.5 .
    – “B” wins his first two matches and loses his three last: his gain will be 1+1+0+0+0 = 2.

    Conclusion: “A” who has never won anything will beat “B” who won two matches! Is that fair?

    At University, if a student does not show up for an exam, he will score 0 and not 50%.
    So, why is it the case for the Swiss tournament?

    1. Imagine that the scores are +1 for a win, 0 for a draw, and -1 for a loss. Like gambling, it can be better to walk away.

      Basically, though, we’re just trying to decide the winner of the tournament, not necessarily rank everyone else. It’s designed to allow people to enter the tournament late, or to miss a round or two and then return. In money tournaments, byes have to be declared in advance, not on an ad hoc basis. But we’re just trying to run a friendly club.

      Although I’m sure other examples could be made that would show the silliness of our system when it comes to ranking players who are not close to the top of the standings, in your example, technically A wouldn’t be given a half-point bye for the last round, so both A and B would finish with 2 points, and then B would be ahead of A on almost any tie-break system.

      1. Of course it is a friendly club but ironically, if you are just trying to decide the leader after round four as you claimed then the #2 is not #1 because #1 was away one night.

        Why don’t you assign: +1 for a win, +0.5 for a draw, and 0 for a loss or a match not played?

        1. Erik was +3 with 3 wins and 0 losses, while Dan was only +2 with 3 wins and 1 loss. I take your point that there’s a risk in playing: you could get ahead of, or you could get behind someone who doesn’t play. And maybe that’s not fair.

          But both the national (CFC) and international (Elo) chess rating systems work the same way: if you play and lose, your chess rating goes down. It’s worse than not playing at all. I believe bridge, for example, has a cumulative rating system that only ever goes up, so there’s no risk to your bridge rating by playing. But chess ratings don’t work that way.

  2. Congratulations to Erik and thanks to Hugh and Yakos (and any other club managers?). I’ve really enjoyed my first tournament at the club. You guys are doing a great job and it is appreciated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.