English Chess Forum

Pairings for anyone interested... Somewhat unpredictable as always.

http://www.essexchess.org.uk/index.php/mm-se57

Southend is International?

Maurice Staples is playing. OMG.

Richard Bates wrote:Pairings for anyone interested... Somewhat unpredictable as always.

http://www.essexchess.org.uk/index.php/mm-se57

Unpredictable as in wrong? They do not appear to be correct according to FIDE rules, but they may well be pairing to some other rules of course.

EDIT : In fact, looking at it a little more, they may be pairing using ECF grades instead of FIDE ratings though even then I do not understand Hebden and Ghasi having the same colour in Round 1.

JustinHorton wrote:Southend is International?

Well there's one Russian playing...

Sean Hewitt wrote:

Richard Bates wrote:Pairings for anyone interested... Somewhat unpredictable as always.

http://www.essexchess.org.uk/index.php/mm-se57

Unpredictable as in wrong?

They are not correct by FIDE rules, but they may well be pairing to some other rules of course.

I assume that an interpretation of ECF rules are being used. Although I think they still don't make much sense. Leaving aside that i'm reasonably sure the game on board 26 in round 2 must have finished 1-0 not 0-1.

Have they just got the PINs wrong?

I make them:
(1) Jones 2653 [W]
(2) Howell 2638
(3) Hebden 2518 [W]
(4) Wells 2491
(5) Ghasi 2452 [W]
(6) Cherniaev 2447
(7) Bates 2377 [W]
(8) Haydon 2302

So the colours are alternating correctly, which is a start. I don't have the patience to work out whether or not the pairings are correct (which means I have to work out all 50 players' PINs!). There is the disclaimer that the board numbers may be wrong, but it seems clear to me that the PINs are wrong. This notwithstanding, the pairings may be right!

Sean Hewitt wrote:They are not correct by FIDE rules, but they may well be pairing to some other rules of course.

Richard Bates wrote:I assume that an interpretation of ECF rules are being used.

First, there's no such thing as ECF Pairing Rules. They're CAA Pairing Rules, at best.

I've wielded some paper and a pen to work out the pairings for the top scoregroup in Round 3.

Under CAA, I get: Jones v Cherniaev, Bates v Howell, Hebden v Ledger, D., Player v Wells, Ghasi float
Under FIDE, I get: Jones v Cherniaev, Ghasi v Howell, Hebden v Bates, Ledger, D. v Wells, Player float
Southend got: Jones v Ghasi, Bates v Howell, Hebden v Cherniaev, Player v Wells, Ledger, D. float

So, taking Sean's hint, I checked to see if they were pairing to CAA rules using ECF grades.
I got: Jones v Cherniaev, Player v Howell, Ghasi v Wells, Hebden v Ledger, D. Bates float

Which isn't what Southend got, either.

Didn't think there'd be so many different ways of pairing 9 players together.

Alex Holowczak wrote:Under FIDE, I get: Jones v Cherniaev, Ghasi v Howell, Hebden v Bates, Ledger, D. v Wells, Player float

Really? I get Jones v Ghasi, Bates v Howell, Hebden v Cherniaev, Ledger D v Wells, Player float. Which seems to be the closest to what they've got - they've got that with Player and Ledger swapped round.

IM Jack Rudd wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote:Under FIDE, I get: Jones v Cherniaev, Ghasi v Howell, Hebden v Bates, Ledger, D. v Wells, Player float

Really? I get Jones v Ghasi, Bates v Howell, Hebden v Cherniaev, Ledger D v Wells, Player float. Which seems to be the closest to what they've got - they've got that with Player and Ledger swapped round.

Jones [W]
Howell
Hebden [W]
Wells
---------
Ghasi [W]
Cherniaev
Bates [W]
Ledger, D. [W]
Player [W]

So the set of pairings you should have are:
Jones v Ghasi
Cherniaev v Howell
Hebden v Bates
Ledger, D. v Wells
Player float

Then I switched Ghasi and Cherniaev. Of course you're right, because with FIDE, you transpose from the bottom when looking for a transfer, not from the top as you do with CAA... So I should have swapped Bates and Cherniaev as you did, rather than Ghasi and Cherniaev.

Have any of you ever kissed a girl?

Andrew Camp wrote:Have any of you ever kissed a girl?

Yes. And I liked it.

ETA: On a more serious note, whether the pairings at a reasonably prestigious tournament have been done correctly is an important topic. I'd rather it wasn't subjected to this sort of put-down.

This thread now feels like a skit from The Big Bang Theory...

IM Jack Rudd wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote:Under FIDE, I get: Jones v Cherniaev, Ghasi v Howell, Hebden v Bates, Ledger, D. v Wells, Player float

Really? I get Jones v Ghasi, Bates v Howell, Hebden v Cherniaev, Ledger D v Wells, Player float. Which seems to be the closest to what they've got - they've got that with Player and Ledger swapped round.

As you know, according to at least one of the participants it doesn't matter what pairings you get, they will be wrong...

I remember Jack Speigel's handling of the event with fondness. However, surely if the organisers are using FIDE ratings, and a pairing program, there can't be such a wide range of options?

Adam Raoof wrote:As you know, according to at least one of the participants it doesn't matter what pairings you get, they will be wrong...

But it's easier to have that argument if your pairings are actually correct.

Adam Raoof wrote:However, surely if the organisers are using FIDE ratings, and a pairing program, there can't be such a wide range of options?

Well, you'd like to think so. We don't know if they're using a pairing program or not. If we knew what pairing program was used, if any, we could comment on whether it was pairing correctly.

If they're using pairing cards (which I suspect they are, given they've said they're backloading the information into Tournament Director for the sake of web output), then they have a choice of pairing rules to use, and the possibility of making routine mistakes. These things happen...