From: Pieter Stouten <stouten <at> SHOGI <dot> NET>
Date: 1 mar 2001
Subject: Re: Results from Stockholm Open 2001

On 01/03/01 at 15:01 +0100, Rikard Nordgren wrote:

>>  23.R. Lindkvist     S 12k  24- 16- 19- 8-  18- 0+  1 11  0  1
>>  24.T. Ito           J  1d  23+ 7-  11- 0-  0-  0-  1  9  1  6
>
>About this score table: Mr Ito (24) won the game vs. Mr Lindkvist
>they both have the same score. Isn't it strange that Lindkvist is
>before Ito in the final score? Isn't the higher SOS here irrelevant?
>
It is only a matter of rules. If the rules state SoS is the primary
tie-breaker then it is relevant. As to the reasons behind the order
of tie-breaking criteria, arguments exist either way: one can say, as
you do, that Ito beat Lindkvist and should end higher; one can also
argue that the overall performance of all opponents (as measured by
the SoS) should determine relative ranks. In this particular case,
Mr. Ito had an opportunity to increase his SoS (and his regular
score) by playing on the second day. He did not do that and therefore
ended below Mr. Lindkvist. Personally, I think that is fair.

Nilsson, Palmgren and Suzuki ended low on SoS exactly because some
players decided not to play the second day. In fact, several
tournament organizers strongly encourage players to participate
during all rounds out of fairness to their opponents.

Ciao,

Pieter