|Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 |
|(21) Posted by Frank Richter [Wednesday, Jan 27, 2010 14:31]|
The first number looks like the rating, so the winner should be Yamada, Kohei according to the current rating list.
|(22) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Wednesday, Jan 27, 2010 15:04]; edited by Siegfried Hornecker [10-01-27]|
Translated on http://hk.mdbg.net/chindict/chindict.php since Chinese and Japanese seem to share a few symbols. No guarantee can be given for correctness by me. SH
EDIT: Added a few comments, hopefully the correct names can be guessed by someone now.
January 24にでopen reminders Tokyo International Solving Contestされたのはresult, sub-のとおり,.
"カTeゴリー1" Fitting the point of 60 points (the system limit of time, 240 minutes)
カwithinコッは2010.1. 1 nowにおけるのレーsolving ¥ ° Teィンをtable desu. *はハーィンフRei Te ¥ °.
1 Yamada Kohei (2374) 36. 0:00 pm 238
2 Suzuki knows (2016) 32. 5:00 pm 240 [SH: Name probably should be something like Língmù zhīdao or Suzuki zhīdao]
3-ho Minoru Tsutsui (* 1772) 19. 5:00 pm 240
4塩See Liang (1936) 17. 5:00 pm 235 [SH: transliteration: Yan Xian Lang]
5 small-Lin Min Tree (1918) 16. 5:00 240 [SH: Kobayashi Min-Shu, Xiaolin Min-Shu or the like]
6 Matsuzaki, Naoki (----) 7.5 Dian 240 points
7 in the village of Long 2 (* 1864) 7. 0:00 pm 240 [SH: should be Nakamura Long or Zhong cun Long]
8 Sato good effect (1672) 6. 5:00 pm 240 [SH: transliteration: Zuo Teng Shan Qi]
"カTeゴリー2" Fitting the points, 40 points (the system limit of time, 240 minutes)
1 Kitazume Xiaochang (* 1600) 5. 12:00 am 240
|(23) Posted by Marek Kolcak [Wednesday, Jan 27, 2010 20:21]|
It is possible to identify the names of japanese solvers according to their rating.
1 Yamada Kohei 36/238
2 Suzuki Tomomichi 32,5/240
3 Tsutsui Horomi 19,5/240
4 Shiomi Ryo 17,5/235
5 Kobayashi Toshiki 16,5/240
6 Matsuzaki Naoki 7,5/240
7 Nakamura Ryuji 7/240
8 Sato Zenki 6,5/240
1 Kitajume Takaaki 5/240
|(24) Posted by Paz Einat [Wednesday, Jan 27, 2010 23:38]|
Results in Israel can be found at
|(25) Posted by Abdelaziz Onkoud [Thursday, Jan 28, 2010 10:30]|
Les résultats Provisoires France (Paris)
CAILLAUD Michel FRA 52,5
VILLENEUVE Alain FRA 46,5
ONKOUD Abdelaziz MAR 42,25
DUPIN Jacques FRA 25,25
SOBRECASES Guy FRA 23,25
CAPRON Daniel FRA 17,5
BESANCON Remy FRA 16
TRITTEN Pierre FRA 10
|(26) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Saturday, Jan 30, 2010 06:32]|
Results from Finland:
|(27) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Wednesday, Feb 24, 2010 14:39]|
Does anyone know official preliminary results of this tournament? I am wondering why it takes so long to create a preliminary results. If all local controllers are required to have an email address than all results should be collected within couple of days. I know that it takes a time to compare solving sheets and make sure that there is a consistent marking of points, however I do not see any reason not to publish preliminary results sooner.
|(28) Posted by Branislav Djurašević [Thursday, Feb 25, 2010 12:58]|
We are from Serbia very much looking forward to be announced Misha's win, but according PCCC site http://www.sci.fi/~stniekat/pccc/isc10inv.htm deadlines are as following:
"The central controller checks the markings and distributes the final result to the various local controllers and to the delegates not later than February 27th 2010. Appeals to be sent to the central controller not later than March 13th 2010.
After handling possible appeals, the central controller will present the results and his report to the subcommittee (Chairman Uri Avner) by March 30th 2010. After review the results will be presented on the PCCC-website by April 30th 2010."
|(29) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Wednesday, Mar 3, 2010 08:37]; edited by Miodrag Mladenović [10-03-03]|
From the invitation letter:
The central controller checks the markings and distributes the final result to the various local controllers and to the delegates not later than February 27th 2010. Appeals to be sent to the central controller not later than March 13th 2010.
Since we are now in the appeal period (February 27th to March 13th), is it OK to appeal that there are no preliminary results at all! I am wondering why the results are so late. Does anyone know why there are no preliminary results? If I remember good last year competition was held on January 27th and results were published on February 23rd. This year it looks like there are not so many solvers like last year but still there are no preliminary results.
|(30) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Friday, Mar 19, 2010 08:44]; edited by Miodrag Mladenović [10-03-19]|
It looks like results will not be official by April 1st. Several deadlines are missed and I do not see how it can happen. In my opinion this is potentially a huge issue. It will affect the whole rating system because of the way how it’s designed. One of the requirements for gaining of titles is to achieve at some point some specific number of rating points (depending on title it’s a different value). So if somebody gained enough points for some title and if results are published on April 1st they will fulfill requirement. However if results are not published by April 1st then it’s possible that solver makes some bad solving result that will pull him back on July 1st list. Also, all other rating calculation in the meantime will be wrong. It will be almost impossible to fix this later on retroactively. I think that going forward this ISC competition should not be rated. It does not make sense to rate this competition if it’s not possible to do this in a timely manner. Or the other option is to get rid of the rating system completely and go back to the old system where you could only get titles and there was no rating at all. I think that if we do want to keep rating system it’s mandatory to keep it updated all the time. Otherwise it does not make any sense to have it. I am wondering what the opinion of other solvers about this problem is.
|(31) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Friday, Mar 19, 2010 12:00]; edited by Juraj Lörinc [10-03-19]|
Frankly speaking, my opinion of ISC as a kind of official competition was very negative since its inception. Given the huge number of degrees of freedom compared to usual competitions (with one head judge and limited number of other judges), the possibility of unintentional mistake (or even intentional cheating, god forbid) making results unjust in some way is too high in my view. That is why I have never participated as solver.
To my surprise, the first few editions ran quite ok, without any voiced discontent and thus I agreed to act as a local controller in 2009. It went again quite ok, but on the other hand I have just seen in a practice many possible slippery points. In my view it is not possible to rectify them in affordable manner, given the voluntary nature of our hobby, etc.
In 2009 the head organizer - judge and everybody involved worked quite effectively, you know the speed of results publication. This year there is something stammering, but it well may be something out of head organizers reach.
In any case, rating of ISC results is wrong in my view, since the very beginning till today.
|(32) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Friday, Mar 19, 2010 22:48]|
I agree in general, but there is also something good in calculating ISC results for ratings (if we agree that ratings are good, which is not always the case). Lots of new solvers get a solving rating, which would be almost impossible without ISC.
|(33) Posted by Vlaicu Crisan [Saturday, Mar 20, 2010 23:55]|
I fully support Juraj's point of view: ISC results should have NO influence on solvers' ratings!
In my opinion we disregard too easily the cheating possibilities: an unexperienced local controller can [un]intentionally show the problems to one solver contestant before the event (e.g. by printing the sheets in a public place). Can the head organizers demonstrate convincingly that no fraud occurred during the e-mail transmissions? I do not want to offend anyone by asking this question, but the complete reliability of the final results.
A similar incident happened in WCSC held in Moscow 2003, when Bo Lindgren sent the problems by snail mail to the WCCC organizer (Andrey Selivanov). Andrey, who also participated in the solving contest and eventually won it, claimed he never received that mail. However, it was a great pity that Andrey's brilliant solving performance became unreliable for certain people for a mistake made by the director of the tourney. I remember I read an article in Variantim (?) commenting on this aspect. Why we don't learn anything from the past experience?
So, if we are speaking about the rating (sportive side of chess solving - which affects also granting solving titles as Misha already wrote before), then we must ensure that all solvers competed in the same circumstances. Until we are not able to produce a convincing evidence of this issue, we must carefully think about the consequences. ISC should remain just a simple contest to attract new solvers in the field, as initially designed.
|(34) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Sunday, Mar 21, 2010 12:33]|
As long as there is no evidence that the letter reached Andrej, it is clear for me that this is an unfounded rumor.
Moreover, it is anticipated by "the genius", Joe Cocker:
|(35) Posted by Thomas Maeder [Tuesday, Mar 23, 2010 17:47]|
Moreover, it is anticipated by "the genius", Joe Cocker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RnjWLVyMps
which was anticipated by The Box Tops (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z8RCfnWPOo) - the lead singer died just last week (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Chilton).
Any relation of this Box Tops single to top Single Box problems is purely coincidental (but I couldn't figure out anything better to bring this post on topic).
|(36) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Thursday, Mar 25, 2010 09:14]|
Thank you Thomas.
Indeed, I received, long ago, this last "Letter" from the Box Tops, but I swear that I did not read it.
Or maybe once or twice only.
|(37) Posted by Hannu Harkola [Sunday, May 2, 2010 01:28]; edited by Hannu Harkola [10-05-02]|
The preliminary results are now on the PCCC/ICCU website. Thanks to Axel Steinbrink who has collected them! The solving sheets have not yet been checked.
|(38) Posted by Hannu Harkola [Monday, Sep 6, 2010 17:36]|
Now the final results have been published on the PCCC website (http://www.saunalahti.fi/~stniekat/pccc/isc10.htm). Thanks again to Axel Steinbrink, who has finally managed to collect the solving sheets and check the solutions.
|(39) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Tuesday, Sep 7, 2010 02:26]|
I think for the study it is good if people are told that RB-BB is drawn.
6.Bf7? Bf2! 7.Bxg6 Bb3 8.Be4 Bh4+ 9.Kg6 Kg8 10.Rb7 Kf8 11.Rxb6 would win if RB-BB was won, but as it is it only draws.
No more posts
|Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 |
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions International Solving Contest-2010