2011 Winter Seasonal Tournament Results
January 2011
Final Standings:
Open Section:
| No. | Name | St | Rate | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ahundov, Ruslan I | WI | 2315 | 5.0 |
| 2 | zhou, Jerry Zhexua | WI | 1884 | 3.5 |
| 3 | ayoade, wale E | WI | 1705 | 2.5 |
| 4 | Bruch, Robert M | WI | 1864 | 2.5 |
| 5 | mckinney, christopher | WI | 1895 | 2.5 |
| 6 | Wiedenhoeft, Robert | WI | 1846 | 2.5 |
| 7 | pokorski, jeffrey | WI | 1774 | 2.0 |
| 8 | etzel, steven W | WI | 1503 | 1.5 |
| 9 | hernandez, joseph | WI | 1565 | 1.5 |
| 10 | harding, russell | WI | 1620 | 0.0 |
Reserve Section:
| No. | Name | St | Rate | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | paasch, vince | WI | 1400 | 5.0 |
| 2 | buschmann, alan E | WI | 1277 | 3.5 |
| 3 | Koepke, Kevin | WI | 3.0 | |
| 4 | najeeb, Hadi S | WI | 1207 | 3.0 |
| 5 | najeeb, Yaseen S | WI | 1108 | 3.0 |
| 6 | Sproehlich, Anthony | WI | 1317 | 3.0 |
| 7 | kaiser, kurt Raymond | WI | 2.0 | |
| 8 | Wanek, Ellen | WI | 2.0 | |
| 9 | kaiser, christian | WI | 1.0 | |
| 10 | kaiser, Carson A B | WI | 0.0 |
Final Crosstable:
Open Section:
| No. | Name | Rate | Pts | Rnd1 | Rnd2 | Rnd3 | Rnd4 | Rnd5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ahundov, Ruslan I | 2315 | 5.0 | W6 | W3 | W2 | W5 | W4 |
| 2 | mckinney, christopher | 1895 | 2.5 | W7 | W9 | L1 | D3 | L5 |
| 3 | zhou, Jerry Zhexua | 1884 | 3.5 | W8 | L1 | W6 | D2 | W7 |
| 4 | Bruch, Robert M | 1864 | 2.5 | L9 | W5 | D7 | W10 | L1 |
| 5 | Wiedenhoeft, Robert | 1846 | 2.5 | D10 | L4 | W9 | L1 | W2 |
| 6 | pokorski, jeffrey | 1774 | 2.0 | L1 | W10 | L3 | L7 | W9 |
| 7 | ayoade, wale E | 1705 | 2.5 | L2 | W8 | D4 | W6 | L3 |
| 8 | harding, russell | 1620 | 0.0 | L3 | L7 | -U- | -U- | -U- |
| 9 | hernandez, joseph | 1565 | 1.5 | W4 | L2 | L5 | -H- | L6 |
| 10 | etzel, steven W | 1503 | 1.5 | D5 | L6 | -B- | L4 | -U- |
Reserve Section:
| No. | Name | Rate | Pts | Rnd1 | Rnd2 | Rnd3 | Rnd4 | Rnd5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | paasch, vince | 1400 | 5.0 | W6 | W10 | W9 | W2 | W4 |
| 2 | Sproehlich, Anthony | 1317 | 3.0 | L9 | W6 | W3 | L1 | W10 |
| 3 | buschmann, alan E | 1277 | 3.5 | -H- | W4 | L2 | W8 | W5 |
| 4 | najeeb, Hadi S | 1207 | 3.0 | W8 | L3 | W10 | W9 | L1 |
| 5 | najeeb, Yaseen S | 1108 | 3.0 | -B- | L9 | W8 | W7 | L3 |
| 6 | kaiser, Carson A B | 0.0 | L1 | L2 | L7 | L10 | L8 | |
| 7 | kaiser, christian | 1.0 | L10 | L8 | W6 | L5 | L9 | |
| 8 | kaiser, kurt Raymond | 2.0 | L4 | W7 | L5 | L3 | W6 | |
| 9 | Koepke, Kevin | 3.0 | W2 | W5 | L1 | L4 | W7 | |
| 10 | Wanek, Ellen | 2.0 | W7 | L1 | L4 | W6 | L2 |
Tournament Champion: Ruslan Ahundov
Reserve Champion: Vince Paasch
Tie-Breaker Information
After this tournament, a player had some questions about the tie-breaker system we use, so I thought as TD it would be a good idea to explain them here. We follow the USCF tie-breaker guidelines, and I'll use this tournament's Open section results as an example.
Obviously, the standings in a tournament are primarily determined by the number of points a player has scored. When there are no duplicate scores, there is no need to employ tie-breakers. In this tournament's Open section, the first and second-place finishers had 5.0 and 3.5 points, respectively, making them the clear first and second places. But if you look at the next four players, they all had 2.5 points, so tie-breakers need to come into play.
Here is the final standings chart for the Open section, showing the tie-breaker values:
| Place | Name/Team | Rate | Score | MMed | Solk | Cum | CumOp |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ahundov, Ruslan I (1) | 2315 | 5.0 | 11.0 | 13.0 | 15.0 | 39.0 |
| 2 | zhou, Jerry Zhexua (3) | 1884 | 3.5 | 12.0 | 13.5 | 10.0 | 37.5 |
| 3 | mckinney, christopher (2) | 1895 | 2.5 | 8.5 | 15.0 | 10.0 | 44.5 |
| 4 | ayoade, wale E (7) | 1705 | 2.5 | 7.0 | 12.0 | 7.5 | 32.5 |
| 5 | Bruch, Robert M (4) | 1864 | 2.5 | 6.5 | 13.0 | 7.5 | 39.0 |
| 6 | Wiedenhoeft, Robert (5) | 1846 | 2.5 | 6.5 | 13.0 | 6.5 | 42.5 |
| 7 | pokorski, jeffrey (6) | 1774 | 2.0 | 9.0 | 14.0 | 5.0 | 42.5 |
| 8 | hernandez, joseph (9) | 1565 | 1.5 | 7.0 | 9.5 | 5.5 | 29.0 |
| 9 | etzel, steven W (10) | 1503 | 1.5 | 4.5 | 7.0 | 4.5 | 19.0 |
| 10 | harding, russell (8) | 1620 | 0.0 | 2.5 | 6.0 | 0.0 | 17.5 |
There are four tie-breakers in our scheme, applied in the order they appear from left to right:
Modified Median ("MMed") -- The total scores of all the player's opponents, MINUS the lowest. For Ahundov, who played Zhou (3.5), McKinney (2.5), Bruch (2.5), Wiedenhoeft (2.5) and Pokorski (2.0), this would be 3.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 + 2.5, or 11.0 (the lowest, 2.0, is dropped in this method).
Solkoff ("Solk") -- The total scores of all the player's opponents. For Ahundov, who played Zhou (3.5), McKinney (2.5), Bruch (2.5), Wiedenhoeft (2.5) and Pokorski (2.0), this would be 3.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 + 2.0, or 13.0.
Cumulative ("Cum") -- The total of the player's scores at the end of each round. For Ahundov, who had wins in each round, this would be 1.0 + 2.0 + 3.0 + 4.0 + 5.0, or 15.0.
Cumulative of Opponents ("CumOp") -- The total of the opponents' Cumulative scores. For Ahundov, this would be those of Zhou (10.0), McKinney (10.0), Bruch (7.5), Wiedenhoeft (6.5) and Pokorski (5.0), or 39.0.
So in this situation, the four player with scores of 2.5 have tie-breakers applied in order to determine the standings. The first tie breaker is the Modified Median, and McKinney's 8.5 here is higher than the next player's, so he takes third place.
Next, Ayoade's Modified Median of 7.0 is higher than the next player's 6.5, putting him clearly in fourth place.
The next two players, Bruch and Wiedenhoeft, have the same Modified Median of 6.5, so we look at the next tie breaker, the Solkoff. Again, these are the same at 13.0, so we have to look at the third tie-breaker, the Cumulative value. In this case, Bruch's is higher so he takes fifth place.