In the upcoming PA ty and later OH, I will tell you before last round start - who must be your opponent in pool checkers.neilwenberg wrote:All I can do is apologise to Nick Addante for asking him to play pool checkers.
Nick Addante Post on IL
-
Alex_Moiseyev
- Posts: 4346
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:03 pm
- What do you like about checkers?: .....
Re: Nick Addante Post on IL
I am playing checkers, not chess.
-
waynegober
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:56 pm
Re: Nick Addante Post on IL
I hope this all resolves in an appropriate way. It causes me to recall an incident, when I won my first ever state championship.
I was on "Top of the World" after the trophy presentation. Soon, however, an out-of-state player (upper minor level) who I had won 2 games from in the tournament... mid rounds.... told me online that he helped me win by throwing those games or he insinuated such. I was at first devasted and immediately thought "well, I dont deserve it". But then I went over the games and realized he wasn't good enough to have known the losing move and to have picked it , lol. I also realized the tournament was determined by how I did in later rounds 5, 6 and in this case 7 against the top players present at that tournament. My point is this...... It takes real talent to properly throw a game....
I have respect for the Ellison's and in no way believing they would do such a thing... however, 2 min. is pretty fast even for the world beaters at Kurnick. Maybe it was 3 min?? Best advice again for Nick.... keep improving and determine your own destiny. Justin, once only needed 2 draws in round 7 at an Okla. tourn. to be the state champ. He was 10 or 11 years old at the time. The last round the hotel took the playing room away from us and the last round we had to play in various motel rooms. Justin, thought he needed to win the round and pressed for wins. Instead he lost a game and one draw. He really only needed 2 draws and would have known that if we hadn't been separated and he being so young. He not only didn't win but only came in 2nd and missed an opportunity at history.... youngest Okla. champ ever and possibly on a National level youngest state champ (not sure).... I could go on and on about last round pairings over the years. It always seemed to work out the worst for me... so I decided to forget who I got paired with and just try and improve. I started seeing better results immediately in tournament finishes and seemingly didn't matter so much on the pairings.
Best Regards,
Wayne
PS Nick, dont quit !!!!! Stay and improve your play even more and you young fellows step up and run for some offices of the ACF and fix it !!!!
I was on "Top of the World" after the trophy presentation. Soon, however, an out-of-state player (upper minor level) who I had won 2 games from in the tournament... mid rounds.... told me online that he helped me win by throwing those games or he insinuated such. I was at first devasted and immediately thought "well, I dont deserve it". But then I went over the games and realized he wasn't good enough to have known the losing move and to have picked it , lol. I also realized the tournament was determined by how I did in later rounds 5, 6 and in this case 7 against the top players present at that tournament. My point is this...... It takes real talent to properly throw a game....
I have respect for the Ellison's and in no way believing they would do such a thing... however, 2 min. is pretty fast even for the world beaters at Kurnick. Maybe it was 3 min?? Best advice again for Nick.... keep improving and determine your own destiny. Justin, once only needed 2 draws in round 7 at an Okla. tourn. to be the state champ. He was 10 or 11 years old at the time. The last round the hotel took the playing room away from us and the last round we had to play in various motel rooms. Justin, thought he needed to win the round and pressed for wins. Instead he lost a game and one draw. He really only needed 2 draws and would have known that if we hadn't been separated and he being so young. He not only didn't win but only came in 2nd and missed an opportunity at history.... youngest Okla. champ ever and possibly on a National level youngest state champ (not sure).... I could go on and on about last round pairings over the years. It always seemed to work out the worst for me... so I decided to forget who I got paired with and just try and improve. I started seeing better results immediately in tournament finishes and seemingly didn't matter so much on the pairings.Best Regards,
Wayne
PS Nick, dont quit !!!!! Stay and improve your play even more and you young fellows step up and run for some offices of the ACF and fix it !!!!
-
waynegober
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:56 pm
Re: Nick Addante Post on IL
It just dawned on me. A year previous 2010, I played Gene Ellison in the last round and also won both games.
I possibly could have done it in 2 min. but I hate blitz and looked at several of my moves too long . Still yet, I was finished in time to watch Ray and Michael finish their first game.
Wayne
I possibly could have done it in 2 min. but I hate blitz and looked at several of my moves too long
. Still yet, I was finished in time to watch Ray and Michael finish their first game.Wayne
-
waynegober
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:56 pm
Re: Nick Addante Post on IL
I know this matter is not really supposed to be humorous.
I can't help myself:)
Isn't it very ironic that blitz players would question if two games of a very serious nature
could be played in 1/0 each???
I can't help myself:)
Isn't it very ironic that blitz players would question if two games of a very serious nature
could be played in 1/0 each???
-
Eric Strange
- Posts: 438
- Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:10 pm
- What do you like about checkers?: What's not to like?
- Location: Colorado
- Contact:
Re: Nick Addante Post on IL
I think if it were me and nick who played it could be believable. But if Alex M and Richard Beckwith were to finish a game in 2 minutes something would be wrong.
So it is just based on who the players are.
So it is just based on who the players are.
Re: Nick Addante Post on IL
Hello to all,
I earlier this evening spoke to Gene Ellison by phone and he asked me if I would make a post. (I read to him some of what has been posted. His internet has not been working until yesterday afternoon and still is not working correctly and he cannot access the forum.) Anyway he asked to post this message.
Gary has written Alan Millhone, giving his/their version of how the games were played and the amount of time spent playing them.
BTW:
Gene says he did not keep track of the time played but believes 10 to 12 minutes is closer to the amount of time spent playing both game with the first game having been played the fastest.
I earlier this evening spoke to Gene Ellison by phone and he asked me if I would make a post. (I read to him some of what has been posted. His internet has not been working until yesterday afternoon and still is not working correctly and he cannot access the forum.) Anyway he asked to post this message.
Gary has written Alan Millhone, giving his/their version of how the games were played and the amount of time spent playing them.
BTW:
Gene says he did not keep track of the time played but believes 10 to 12 minutes is closer to the amount of time spent playing both game with the first game having been played the fastest.
CHECKERS: The Mind Sport of Kings and Ordinary Men.
-
Alex_Moiseyev
- Posts: 4346
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:03 pm
- What do you like about checkers?: .....
Re: Nick Addante Post on IL
Thanks, Pal !Palomino wrote:10 to 12 minutes
I also heard that IL Checkers Association may affilate Nick this year to QT ty in Italy ... rumors, rumors, rumors.
I am playing checkers, not chess.
-
RMDionisio
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:27 am
- What do you like about checkers?: 3-move and 11-man
- Location: Clinton, Iowa
Re: Nick Addante Post on IL
hello,
i wasnt able to make the tournament this year because my family and i took a vacation to the phillipines. all i can say is that the ellisons and previously john grisley host one of the toughest and nicely run tournaments held in the ACF every year. chasing the illinois state title took me most of my playing career. my first chance at it, all i had to do was draw a single game in the last round, and i wouldve ran away with it. worse case scenario, if i lost both games, and john grisley won both of his, it would go to honor points. my opponent was harry suter of iowa, and we drew the octopus. guess what, i got cocky, it went to honor points and i lost by a slim margin. my next encounter, me and gene were in contention for the title. i was late to that tournament and had to forfeit my first game. i cant remember who i played or what the outcome was, but gene had to play michael holmes. gene lost the first game, and in the 2nd, gene was in a rough position, and asked michael for a draw. michael refused believing he could win the game, and walked blindly into a 1 for 3 with gene. with that blunder, gene tied me on points and it went to honor points. i lost by 1 honor point.....but who could i blame?
i have always been in favor of title matches, and believe me, when i lost by 1, i wanted a title match and it was not granted. its hard to say what was and wasnt the outcome of the game. gene and gary play ultra fast, believe it or not. to me, its too hard to question how fast someone can play vs their honesty. i remember being in questionable outcomes of tournaments, but in the end, i only could blame myself for my performance.
i can only imagine how frustrated and angry nick feels; ive been down that road. as far as blame, considering all circumstances, there is no viable way of proving or disproving anything. ive been in a few situations where i had to play tooth and nail in my last round, and later while playing i find out that the opponent i was chasing accepted two draws from his opponent and essentially sealed my fate. we do not run tournaments in a big brother type fasion; someone always watching and/or everything is recorded, nor do we truly want to. are players allowed to predetermine outcomes? yes, absolutely. in the national tournament, last round of majors, teal stanley's opponent verbally forfeited all of his games after 1? game played. what if the situation had been gene wanting to go home but gary wanting to play? gene would forfeit the games and you land in the same situation. in the end, they sat down at a table with a board and pieces, and an outcome was determined. we cannot prove or disprove anything and that is what we go by officially. it is true that in every tournament, not everyone is happy with the result. both nick and the ellisons are my friends, and even looking at it objectively, there isnt anything that will change. at this point we can only determine what happens from here: will there be an IL match title, will there be a state title match challenge, or will there be nothing? i know of the moiseyev-beckwith matches, but in recent history, there was also the holmes-chappell challenge. correct me if i am wrong, but i believe holmes-chappell was a title challenge. this is what actually inspired me to want to pursue a match with gene concluding my 1 point loss.
to wrap this all up, despite what anything can now be done, nothing can be done about the outcome of the 2011 IL state tournament. there will always be conspiracies, hard feelings, what ifs, soap opera stories and photo finishes after the end of every tournament.
- ray dionisio
i wasnt able to make the tournament this year because my family and i took a vacation to the phillipines. all i can say is that the ellisons and previously john grisley host one of the toughest and nicely run tournaments held in the ACF every year. chasing the illinois state title took me most of my playing career. my first chance at it, all i had to do was draw a single game in the last round, and i wouldve ran away with it. worse case scenario, if i lost both games, and john grisley won both of his, it would go to honor points. my opponent was harry suter of iowa, and we drew the octopus. guess what, i got cocky, it went to honor points and i lost by a slim margin. my next encounter, me and gene were in contention for the title. i was late to that tournament and had to forfeit my first game. i cant remember who i played or what the outcome was, but gene had to play michael holmes. gene lost the first game, and in the 2nd, gene was in a rough position, and asked michael for a draw. michael refused believing he could win the game, and walked blindly into a 1 for 3 with gene. with that blunder, gene tied me on points and it went to honor points. i lost by 1 honor point.....but who could i blame?
i have always been in favor of title matches, and believe me, when i lost by 1, i wanted a title match and it was not granted. its hard to say what was and wasnt the outcome of the game. gene and gary play ultra fast, believe it or not. to me, its too hard to question how fast someone can play vs their honesty. i remember being in questionable outcomes of tournaments, but in the end, i only could blame myself for my performance.
i can only imagine how frustrated and angry nick feels; ive been down that road. as far as blame, considering all circumstances, there is no viable way of proving or disproving anything. ive been in a few situations where i had to play tooth and nail in my last round, and later while playing i find out that the opponent i was chasing accepted two draws from his opponent and essentially sealed my fate. we do not run tournaments in a big brother type fasion; someone always watching and/or everything is recorded, nor do we truly want to. are players allowed to predetermine outcomes? yes, absolutely. in the national tournament, last round of majors, teal stanley's opponent verbally forfeited all of his games after 1? game played. what if the situation had been gene wanting to go home but gary wanting to play? gene would forfeit the games and you land in the same situation. in the end, they sat down at a table with a board and pieces, and an outcome was determined. we cannot prove or disprove anything and that is what we go by officially. it is true that in every tournament, not everyone is happy with the result. both nick and the ellisons are my friends, and even looking at it objectively, there isnt anything that will change. at this point we can only determine what happens from here: will there be an IL match title, will there be a state title match challenge, or will there be nothing? i know of the moiseyev-beckwith matches, but in recent history, there was also the holmes-chappell challenge. correct me if i am wrong, but i believe holmes-chappell was a title challenge. this is what actually inspired me to want to pursue a match with gene concluding my 1 point loss.
to wrap this all up, despite what anything can now be done, nothing can be done about the outcome of the 2011 IL state tournament. there will always be conspiracies, hard feelings, what ifs, soap opera stories and photo finishes after the end of every tournament.
- ray dionisio
-
waynegober
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:56 pm
Re: Nick Addante Post on IL
Ray wrote,
Ray, why don't you run for some office of he ACF
It is why I like to play live tournaments. The pressure cooker atmosphere, knowing all along, I could get a good thumping.to wrap this all up, despite what anything can now be done, nothing can be done about the outcome of the 2011 IL state tournament. there will always be conspiracies, hard feelings, what ifs, soap opera stories and photo finishes after the end of every tournament.
Ray, why don't you run for some office of he ACF
Re: Nick Addante Post on IL
A Checker Friend, JR Smith
Re: Nick Addante Post on IL
To Everyone, Very interesting topic I read almost every post on this listing and the others reguarding this issue. Nick is a strong player I met him and watched him play several times on kurnik. I have nothing against Nick. This is how I feel about certain things. It was mentioned he did not get his wake up call that he was suppose to get. Well it is a players responsibility to make sure he is awake on his own. And now you have Neil saying he is sorry for asking to play a quick game of pool checkers. I dont know if Nick put that in there to make it seem like a plot to misdirect his attention or comparing it to the speed of a tournament game that was played. The bottom line is you could of told Neil you did not want to play and watched your opponents play. So there for it will be impossible of any wrong doings for the fact they might of thought you will be there to watch their games played as far as preplanned wrong activity. Anyways thats how I feel. Billy
-
n1ck
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:43 am
- What do you like about checkers?: Freestyle Checkers - GAYP
Re: Nick Addante Post on IL
BOARD NAME RESULT NAME
1 Gene Ellison (0) 2 - 2 John Grisley (0)
2 Gary Ellison (0) 3 - 1 Ken Christian (0)
3 Michael Holmes (0) 4 - 0 Nick Addante (0)
4 Frank Davis (0) 2 - 2 Larry Keen (0)
5 Alan Millhone (0) 2 - 2 Flavious Burgess (0)
6 Alex Moiseyev (0) 4 - 0 Don West (0)
Round 1 pairings are random, according to Swiss Perfect system, yet Gene and Gary played the two worst finishers in the tournament in Round 1, while Nick Addante played the second highest finisher in the tournament. The probability of Gene and Gary both receiving the weakest players in the first round is (2/11)(1/9) = 2.02% . The probability of Nick receiving one of the two top finishers while Gene and Gary play the two weakest opponents is (2/11)(1/9)(2/7) = 0.58%
BOARD NAME RESULT NAME
1 Michael Holmes (4) 2 - 2 Alex Moiseyev (4)
2 Gary Ellison (3) 2 - 2 Gene Ellison (2)
3 John Grisley (2) 0- 4 Larry Keen (2)
4 Frank Davis (2) 1 - 3 Alan Millhone (2)
5 Flavious Burgess (2) 4 - 0 Ken Christian (1)
6 Nick Addante (0) 2 - 2 Don West (0)
Michael Holmes vs. Alex Moiseyev is a correct pairing
Gary Ellison is the only 3 point score, and has the chances of playing Gene, John, Larry, Frank, Alan, or Flavious. The odds of Gary receiving his brother Gene is (1/6) = 16.7%
Assuming the Gene vs. Gary Ellison matchup was not fixed, all other pairings are correct.
BOARD NAME RESULT NAME
1 Larry Keen (6) 1 - 3 Alex Moiseyev (6)
2 Michael Holmes (6) 3 - 1 Flavious Burgess (6)
3 Gary Ellison (5) 2 - 2 Alan Millhone (5)
4 Frank Davis (3) 3 - 1 Gene Ellison (4)
5 John Grisley (2) 1 - 3 Don West (2)
6 Nick Addante (2) 4 - 0 Ken Christian (1)
Larry Keen vs. Alex Moiseyev and Michael Holmes vs. Flavious Burgess are correct, with a 50% probability outcome as opposed to Alex vs. Flavious and Michael vs. Larry.
All other pairings are correct. There is a 50% probability Nick vs. John Grisley and Don vs. Ken alternate.
BOARD NAME RESULT NAME
1 Flavious Burgess (7) 0 - 4 Alex Moiseyev (9)
2 Michael Holmes (9) 3 - 1 Larry Keen (7)
3 Gary Ellison (7) 2 - 2 Frank Davis (6)
4 Alan Millhone (7) 1 - 3 Nick Addante (6)
5 Don West (5) 2 - 2 Gene Ellison (5)
6 John Grisley (3) 2 - 2 Ken Christian (1)
Alex Moiseyev can be paired with either of Flavious, Alan, or Gary Ellison each with a 33% chance. Gary escapes, and Alex is paired with Flavious instead. Michael can be paired with Larry, Alan or Gary, each with 33% chance. Gary escapes and Michael is paired with Larry instead. The probability of Gary escaping twice is (1/3)(1/3) = 11.1% probability. With this set in stone all other pairings are correct, with a 50% chance Gary receives Nick or Frank Davis. Gary escapes from Nick with a 50% chance.
BOARD NAME RESULT NAME
1 Gary Ellison (9) 0 - 4 Alex Moiseyev (13)
2 Michael Holmes (12) 2 - 2 Frank Davis (8)
3 Nick Addante (9) 2 - 2 Larry Keen (8)
4 Alan Millhone (8) 2 - 2 Don West (7)
5 Ken Christian (3) 1 - 3 Gene Ellison (7)
6 John Grisley (5) 1 - 3 Flavious Burgess (7)
Round 5 pairings are incorrect and should be Nick Addante vs. Alex Moiseyev, and Michael Holmes vs. Gary Ellison, as Nick and Michael already played. According to Swiss perfect, Michael Holmes must be paired with a 9. After this mistake, the remaining boards are paired correctly.
BOARD NAME RESULT NAME
1 Nick Addante (11) 1 - 3 Alex Moiseyev (17)
2 Michael Holmes (14) 3 - 1 Gene Ellison (10)
3 Alan Millhone (10) 0 - 4 Larry Keen (10)
4 Frank Davis (10) 2 - 2 Flavious Burgess (10)
5 Gary Ellison (9) 2 - 2 John Grisley (6)
6 Ken Christian (4) 3 - 1 Don West (9)
Nick Addante vs. Alex Moiseyev is correct.
Michael Holmes can be paired with Gene or Alan with 50% chance.
Alan vs. Larry is correct, Frank vs. Flavious is correct.
Gary Ellison vs. John Grisley is not correct, as Gary has not played Don West, and both are 9 point scores…
BOARD NAME RESULT NAME
1 Michael Holmes (17) 2 - 2 Alex Moiseyev (20)
2 Larry Keen (14) 2 - 2 Flavious Burgess (12)
3 Nick Addante (12) 2 - 2 Frank Davis (12)
4 Gary Ellison (11) 4 - 0 Gene Ellison (11)
5 Alan Millhone (10) 2 - 2 Don West (10)
6 Ken Christian (7) 2 - 2 John Grisley (8)
All pairings here look correct.
RANK NAME SCORE SB POINTS
1 Alex Moiseyev 22 330
2 Michael Holmes 19 295
3 Larry Keen 16 213
4 Gary Ellison 15 165
5 Nick Addante 14 178
6 Flavious Burgess 14 169
7 Frank Davis 14 201
8 Alan Millhone 12 162
9 Don West 12 137
10 Gene Ellison 11 134
11 John Grisley 10 114
12 Ken Christian 9 102
Notice the Sonneborn-Berger Points which multiplies the honor points you would receive from an opponent, by the score you received against them. Thus, it’s an indication not just of how hard of people you played, but how well you did against the people you hard people you played. Notice Gary has a lower SB point total than 5th, 6th, and 7th place. Not to mention, his 4 point victory against Gene earned him 44 points towards that total. If you notice, the SB totals correlate strongly with the actual place in the tournament. The only difference, is Gary should be in 7th based on SB, which would be true in actual score if he took 2 draws in the final round. Also, notice, that Frank Davis has a higher SB score than I do. This means I played harder opponents (my honor points are higher) but Frank played better against our hard opponents (his SB points are higher than mine).
Also notice, I was the only Illinois player not to play another Illinois player in this tournament. The probability I don’t play an Illinois player in this tournament is 1-(3/11)(3/10)(3/9)(3/8)(3/7)(3/6)(3/6) =0.1095%.
So like I said before, statistically there is something wrong here.
1 Gene Ellison (0) 2 - 2 John Grisley (0)
2 Gary Ellison (0) 3 - 1 Ken Christian (0)
3 Michael Holmes (0) 4 - 0 Nick Addante (0)
4 Frank Davis (0) 2 - 2 Larry Keen (0)
5 Alan Millhone (0) 2 - 2 Flavious Burgess (0)
6 Alex Moiseyev (0) 4 - 0 Don West (0)
Round 1 pairings are random, according to Swiss Perfect system, yet Gene and Gary played the two worst finishers in the tournament in Round 1, while Nick Addante played the second highest finisher in the tournament. The probability of Gene and Gary both receiving the weakest players in the first round is (2/11)(1/9) = 2.02% . The probability of Nick receiving one of the two top finishers while Gene and Gary play the two weakest opponents is (2/11)(1/9)(2/7) = 0.58%
BOARD NAME RESULT NAME
1 Michael Holmes (4) 2 - 2 Alex Moiseyev (4)
2 Gary Ellison (3) 2 - 2 Gene Ellison (2)
3 John Grisley (2) 0- 4 Larry Keen (2)
4 Frank Davis (2) 1 - 3 Alan Millhone (2)
5 Flavious Burgess (2) 4 - 0 Ken Christian (1)
6 Nick Addante (0) 2 - 2 Don West (0)
Michael Holmes vs. Alex Moiseyev is a correct pairing
Gary Ellison is the only 3 point score, and has the chances of playing Gene, John, Larry, Frank, Alan, or Flavious. The odds of Gary receiving his brother Gene is (1/6) = 16.7%
Assuming the Gene vs. Gary Ellison matchup was not fixed, all other pairings are correct.
BOARD NAME RESULT NAME
1 Larry Keen (6) 1 - 3 Alex Moiseyev (6)
2 Michael Holmes (6) 3 - 1 Flavious Burgess (6)
3 Gary Ellison (5) 2 - 2 Alan Millhone (5)
4 Frank Davis (3) 3 - 1 Gene Ellison (4)
5 John Grisley (2) 1 - 3 Don West (2)
6 Nick Addante (2) 4 - 0 Ken Christian (1)
Larry Keen vs. Alex Moiseyev and Michael Holmes vs. Flavious Burgess are correct, with a 50% probability outcome as opposed to Alex vs. Flavious and Michael vs. Larry.
All other pairings are correct. There is a 50% probability Nick vs. John Grisley and Don vs. Ken alternate.
BOARD NAME RESULT NAME
1 Flavious Burgess (7) 0 - 4 Alex Moiseyev (9)
2 Michael Holmes (9) 3 - 1 Larry Keen (7)
3 Gary Ellison (7) 2 - 2 Frank Davis (6)
4 Alan Millhone (7) 1 - 3 Nick Addante (6)
5 Don West (5) 2 - 2 Gene Ellison (5)
6 John Grisley (3) 2 - 2 Ken Christian (1)
Alex Moiseyev can be paired with either of Flavious, Alan, or Gary Ellison each with a 33% chance. Gary escapes, and Alex is paired with Flavious instead. Michael can be paired with Larry, Alan or Gary, each with 33% chance. Gary escapes and Michael is paired with Larry instead. The probability of Gary escaping twice is (1/3)(1/3) = 11.1% probability. With this set in stone all other pairings are correct, with a 50% chance Gary receives Nick or Frank Davis. Gary escapes from Nick with a 50% chance.
BOARD NAME RESULT NAME
1 Gary Ellison (9) 0 - 4 Alex Moiseyev (13)
2 Michael Holmes (12) 2 - 2 Frank Davis (8)
3 Nick Addante (9) 2 - 2 Larry Keen (8)
4 Alan Millhone (8) 2 - 2 Don West (7)
5 Ken Christian (3) 1 - 3 Gene Ellison (7)
6 John Grisley (5) 1 - 3 Flavious Burgess (7)
Round 5 pairings are incorrect and should be Nick Addante vs. Alex Moiseyev, and Michael Holmes vs. Gary Ellison, as Nick and Michael already played. According to Swiss perfect, Michael Holmes must be paired with a 9. After this mistake, the remaining boards are paired correctly.
BOARD NAME RESULT NAME
1 Nick Addante (11) 1 - 3 Alex Moiseyev (17)
2 Michael Holmes (14) 3 - 1 Gene Ellison (10)
3 Alan Millhone (10) 0 - 4 Larry Keen (10)
4 Frank Davis (10) 2 - 2 Flavious Burgess (10)
5 Gary Ellison (9) 2 - 2 John Grisley (6)
6 Ken Christian (4) 3 - 1 Don West (9)
Nick Addante vs. Alex Moiseyev is correct.
Michael Holmes can be paired with Gene or Alan with 50% chance.
Alan vs. Larry is correct, Frank vs. Flavious is correct.
Gary Ellison vs. John Grisley is not correct, as Gary has not played Don West, and both are 9 point scores…
BOARD NAME RESULT NAME
1 Michael Holmes (17) 2 - 2 Alex Moiseyev (20)
2 Larry Keen (14) 2 - 2 Flavious Burgess (12)
3 Nick Addante (12) 2 - 2 Frank Davis (12)
4 Gary Ellison (11) 4 - 0 Gene Ellison (11)
5 Alan Millhone (10) 2 - 2 Don West (10)
6 Ken Christian (7) 2 - 2 John Grisley (8)
All pairings here look correct.
RANK NAME SCORE SB POINTS
1 Alex Moiseyev 22 330
2 Michael Holmes 19 295
3 Larry Keen 16 213
4 Gary Ellison 15 165
5 Nick Addante 14 178
6 Flavious Burgess 14 169
7 Frank Davis 14 201
8 Alan Millhone 12 162
9 Don West 12 137
10 Gene Ellison 11 134
11 John Grisley 10 114
12 Ken Christian 9 102
Notice the Sonneborn-Berger Points which multiplies the honor points you would receive from an opponent, by the score you received against them. Thus, it’s an indication not just of how hard of people you played, but how well you did against the people you hard people you played. Notice Gary has a lower SB point total than 5th, 6th, and 7th place. Not to mention, his 4 point victory against Gene earned him 44 points towards that total. If you notice, the SB totals correlate strongly with the actual place in the tournament. The only difference, is Gary should be in 7th based on SB, which would be true in actual score if he took 2 draws in the final round. Also, notice, that Frank Davis has a higher SB score than I do. This means I played harder opponents (my honor points are higher) but Frank played better against our hard opponents (his SB points are higher than mine).
Also notice, I was the only Illinois player not to play another Illinois player in this tournament. The probability I don’t play an Illinois player in this tournament is 1-(3/11)(3/10)(3/9)(3/8)(3/7)(3/6)(3/6) =0.1095%.
So like I said before, statistically there is something wrong here.
-
Alex_Moiseyev
- Posts: 4346
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:03 pm
- What do you like about checkers?: .....
Re: Nick Addante Post on IL
Nick, there is no "weakest" players before 1st round started. John Grisley one time ws a State Champion and Ken Christian also is not a newcomer. Didn't you think that one of the reason they finished at the bottom of tourney, because they lost to Gary and Gene in first round ???n1ck wrote:BOARD NAME RESULT NAME
1 Gene Ellison (0) 2 - 2 John Grisley (0)
2 Gary Ellison (0) 3 - 1 Ken Christian (0)
3 Michael Holmes (0) 4 - 0 Nick Addante (0)
4 Frank Davis (0) 2 - 2 Larry Keen (0)
5 Alan Millhone (0) 2 - 2 Flavious Burgess (0)
6 Alex Moiseyev (0) 4 - 0 Don West (0)
Round 1 pairings are random, according to Swiss Perfect system, yet Gene and Gary played the two worst finishers in the tournament in Round 1, while Nick Addante played the second highest finisher in the tournament. The probability of Gene and Gary both receiving the weakest players in the first round is (2/11)(1/9) = 2.02% . The probability of Nick receiving one of the two top finishers while Gene and Gary play the two weakest opponents is (2/11)(1/9)(2/7) = 0.58%.
Should Don West complain that I played with him in 1st round ? This is Swiss system and pairing is random. Evrything is unique and if we play this ty today again and repeat everything again - I guarantee you that everything will be different.
I also can complain that Michael Holmes (my major competitor in IL) in first round played with you and I played with Don West and Michael had easier opponent. But I don't complain
Even more worse - I also had the same opening (!!!) with Don West which I played with him less than month ago in TN and he graciously scored two draws. But this time I was more lucky. Should I complain against ACF 3-moves deck and cards ?!
Swiss system is lottery, but your result and performance is not a lottery and reflects (in general) a proper ranking and level. I agree that field of players you played in IL State tourney is much stronger than list of Gene opponents, but this happened all the time due to unfearness of Swiss system. Round Robin in my eyes is much better and more accurate.
At the end I should say, that Dr. Beckwith now is study and reviewing my proposals regarding "State Title Recovery" rule. This rule, if accepted, would require to pair you in last round with Gene or Gary (randomly). But I want to remind you that ACF doesn't have an authority to command states how to do business. If accepted, It will be only advice and strong recommendation to state directors.
Last edited by Alex_Moiseyev on Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am playing checkers, not chess.
-
Eric Strange
- Posts: 438
- Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:10 pm
- What do you like about checkers?: What's not to like?
- Location: Colorado
- Contact:
Re: Nick Addante Post on IL
"Swiss system is lottery, but your result and performance is not a lottery and reflects (in general) a proper ranking and level. I agree that field of players you played in IL State tourney is much stronger than list of Gene opponents, but this happened all the time due to unfearness of Swiss system. Round Robin in my eyes is much better and more accurate."
The Swiss system should only be a lottery for the first round. According the statistical analysis pairings were done improperly after the first round. This is why I will eventually have pairings system at my website... so that things like this will not happen anymore.
The Swiss system should only be a lottery for the first round. According the statistical analysis pairings were done improperly after the first round. This is why I will eventually have pairings system at my website... so that things like this will not happen anymore.
-
Alex_Moiseyev
- Posts: 4346
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:03 pm
- What do you like about checkers?: .....
Re: Nick Addante Post on IL
Even if all pairing done properly - it is still a big lottery. Trust me, boyEric Strange wrote:The Swiss system should only be a lottery for the first round.
Only in one case (round 5) I agree with Nick that pairing should be done differently - in Round 5, when i suppose to play with Nick annd Michael should play with Gary. Anything else seems to be OK.
In last round, if my proposed "State Title Recovery" would be in place - Nick should play with Gary or Gene. I really hope Dr. Beckwith support and develop new rule and include it into his Tournament Guide and next year it will start working.
Nothing should stop Nick to get a title next year !!!
Last edited by Alex_Moiseyev on Thu Apr 21, 2011 11:11 pm, edited 3 times in total.
I am playing checkers, not chess.