Canterbury Open 2020 has finished. You can find the results here.
Also, I’ve calculated the improvement score for each player. Please see the previous post to become familiar with it. The results are in the table below. You can find a more detailed report in Comments.
1
Ullah,Sami
0.26
u1600 =2nd
2
Allison,Brian C
0.24
u1800 1st
3
Ng,Clive
0.19
Open 2nd
4
Monir,Arman
0.12
5
Gergis,Steven
0.11
6
Dragalchuk,Vladislav
0.09
Open 3rd
7
Dib,Michel
0.06
u1600 1st
8
Fernandez,Daniel Howard
0.02
Open 1st
9
Flatow,A (Fred)
-0.01
10
Drastik,Penelope
-0.02
11
Huynh,Arthur
-0.10
12
Allison,Graham
-0.10
u1800 2nd
13
Tefanis,Frank
-0.12
14
Plaza-Quinteros,Francisco
-0.12
15
Brown,Ted
-0.26
u1600 =2nd
Ineligible players (not enough rated games):
16
Ahmed,Zafar
0.00
17
Merhi,Alexandre
-0.11
u1800 3rd
18
Issa,Mostafa
-0.39
19
Zirdum,Ivan
-0.43
The last column is the standard official rating category prize the player has won. It’s not based on the improvement score.
I think this shows how the standard rating category prize distribution fails: in the cases 12, 15, 17 the players performed pretty badly given their current ratings but still won u1800 or u1600 prizes. Also, Sami Ullah had an impressive performance but got only the equal 2nd prize under 1600.
I have been calculating the Improvement Score – an experimental metric that is intended to possibly replace the rating category prizes. It’s just the mean (over the number of played games) of differences between the real and expected results based on the players’ ratings.
Here is the calculation for this tournament:
1
Merhi,Alexandre
0.215958
2
Dragalchuk,Vladislav
0.187954
3
Allison,Graham
0.041005
4
Ahmed,Zafar
0.013094
5
Ullah,Sami
-0.034158
6
Dib,Michel
-0.131608
7
Flatow,A (Fred)
-0.139010
8
Monir,Arman
-0.153234
Basically, a positive score means that the player performed better than their rating suggests, and vice versa. The higher is the better, apparently. This way we wouldn’t need to create rating categories and allocate prizes in them, which is good as we don’t have actual separate tournaments for the rating categories.
Alexandre Merhi would win this “Improvement” prize if we introduced it. His 0.22 result means that he gained 22% more points than expected in average.
The following is the detailed calculation for each player, just for reference. Also, see some explanation below.
——- Dib,Michel (1796) ——–
Round 1 vs Ahmed,Zafar: 0.000000 – 0.227871 = -0.227871.
Round 2 vs Merhi,Alexandre: 0.000000 – 0.798315 = -0.798315.
Round 3 vs Ullah,Sami: 1.000000 – 0.963576 = 0.036424.
Round 4 vs Flatow,A (Fred): 1.000000 – 0.065760 = 0.934240.
Round 5 vs Monir,Arman: 0.000000 – 0.059351 = -0.059351.
Round 6 vs Allison,Graham: 0.000000 – 0.544495 = -0.544495.
Round 7 vs Dragalchuk,Vladislav: 0.000000 – 0.261891 = -0.261891.
improvement score = -0.921258, rated games = 7, eligibility criteria met = yes, mean improvement score = -0.131608
——- Merhi,Alexandre (1557) ——–
Round 1 vs Dragalchuk,Vladislav: 0.000000 – 0.082265 = -0.082265.
Round 2 vs Dib,Michel: 1.000000 – 0.201685 = 0.798315.
Round 3 vs Ahmed,Zafar: 0.000000 – 0.069386 = -0.069386.
Round 4 vs Ullah,Sami: 1.000000 – 0.869850 = 0.130150.
Round 5 vs Flatow,A (Fred): 0.000000 – 0.017472 = -0.017472.
Round 6 vs Monir,Arman: 0.000000 – 0.015690 = -0.015690.
Round 7 vs Allison,Graham: 1.000000 – 0.231948 = 0.768052.
improvement score = 1.511703, rated games = 7, eligibility criteria met = yes, mean improvement score = 0.215958
——- Ullah,Sami (1227) ——–
Round 1 vs Allison,Graham: 0.000000 – 0.043232 = -0.043232.
Round 2 vs Dragalchuk,Vladislav: 0.000000 – 0.013235 = -0.013235.
Round 3 vs Dib,Michel: 0.000000 – 0.036424 = -0.036424.
Round 4 vs Merhi,Alexandre: 0.000000 – 0.130150 = -0.130150.
Round 5 vs Ahmed,Zafar: 0.000000 – 0.011033 = -0.011033.
Round 6 vs Flatow,A (Fred): 0.000000 – 0.002654 = -0.002654.
Round 7 vs Monir,Arman: 0.000000 – 0.002379 = -0.002379.
improvement score = -0.239106, rated games = 7, eligibility criteria met = yes, mean improvement score = -0.034158
——- Flatow,A (Fred) (2257) ——–
Round 1 vs Monir,Arman: 1.000000 – 0.472684 = 0.527316.
Round 2 vs Allison,Graham: 1.000000 – 0.944390 = 0.055610.
Round 3 vs Dragalchuk,Vladislav: 0.000000 – 0.834459 = -0.834459.
Round 4 vs Dib,Michel: 0.000000 – 0.934240 = -0.934240.
Round 5 vs Merhi,Alexandre: 1.000000 – 0.982528 = 0.017472.
Round 6 vs Ullah,Sami: 1.000000 – 0.997346 = 0.002654.
Round 7 vs Ahmed,Zafar: 1.000000 – 0.807424 = 0.192576.
improvement score = -0.973072, rated games = 7, eligibility criteria met = yes, mean improvement score = -0.139010
——- Monir,Arman (2276) ——–
Round 1 vs Flatow,A (Fred): 0.000000 – 0.527316 = -0.527316.
Round 2 vs Ahmed,Zafar: 1.000000 – 0.823862 = 0.176138.
Round 3 vs Allison,Graham: 1.000000 – 0.949863 = 0.050137.
Round 4 vs Dragalchuk,Vladislav: 0.000000 – 0.849020 = -0.849020.
Round 5 vs Dib,Michel: 1.000000 – 0.940649 = 0.059351.
Round 6 vs Merhi,Alexandre: 1.000000 – 0.984310 = 0.015690.
Round 7 vs Ullah,Sami: 1.000000 – 0.997621 = 0.002379.
improvement score = -1.072640, rated games = 7, eligibility criteria met = yes, mean improvement score = -0.153234
——- Allison,Graham (1765) ——–
Round 1 vs Ullah,Sami: 1.000000 – 0.956768 = 0.043232.
Round 2 vs Flatow,A (Fred): 0.000000 – 0.055610 = -0.055610.
Round 3 vs Monir,Arman: 0.000000 – 0.050137 = -0.050137.
Round 4 vs Ahmed,Zafar: 0.000000 – 0.198003 = -0.198003.
Round 5 vs Dragalchuk,Vladislav: 1.000000 – 0.228886 = 0.771114.
Round 6 vs Dib,Michel: 1.000000 – 0.455505 = 0.544495.
Round 7 vs Merhi,Alexandre: 0.000000 – 0.768052 = -0.768052.
improvement score = 0.287038, rated games = 7, eligibility criteria met = yes, mean improvement score = 0.041005
——- Dragalchuk,Vladislav (1976) ——–
Round 1 vs Merhi,Alexandre: 1.000000 – 0.917735 = 0.082265.
Round 2 vs Ullah,Sami: 1.000000 – 0.986765 = 0.013235.
Round 3 vs Flatow,A (Fred): 1.000000 – 0.165541 = 0.834459.
Round 4 vs Monir,Arman: 1.000000 – 0.150980 = 0.849020.
Round 5 vs Allison,Graham: 0.000000 – 0.771114 = -0.771114.
Round 6 vs Ahmed,Zafar: 0.500000 – 0.454078 = 0.045922.
Round 7 vs Dib,Michel: 1.000000 – 0.738109 = 0.261891.
improvement score = 1.315678, rated games = 7, eligibility criteria met = yes, mean improvement score = 0.187954
——- Ahmed,Zafar (2008) ——– Round 1 vs Dib,Michel: 1.000000 – 0.772129 = 0.227871. Round 2 vs Monir,Arman: 0.000000 – 0.176138 = -0.176138. Round 3 vs Merhi,Alexandre: 1.000000 – 0.930614 = 0.069386. Round 4 vs Allison,Graham: 1.000000 – 0.801997 = 0.198003. Round 5 vs Ullah,Sami: 1.000000 – 0.988967 = 0.011033. Round 6 vs Dragalchuk,Vladislav: 0.500000 – 0.545922 = -0.045922. Round 7 vs Flatow,A (Fred): 0.000000 – 0.192576 = -0.192576. improvement score = 0.091657, rated games = 7, eligibility criteria met = yes, mean improvement score = 0.013094
Here, for each game, 1.000000 means a win, 0.500000 means a draw, and 0.000000 means a loss. This is the real player’s score in the game. An expected score based on rating difference between the players is subtracted from the real score, and the result is the improvement score for this game. For instance, Round 6 calculation for Ahmed, Zafar: Round 6 vs Dragalchuk,Vladislav: 0.500000 – 0.545922 = -0.045922. 0.500000 means a draw. The Zafar’s rating is a little bit higher, so his improvement score for this game is negative.
The Canterbury Championship has been cancelled after two rounds due to the current medical issues. The next tournament – the Lightning Championship – is planned on the 27th of April, but who knows… Hope to see you then. There will be social chess in the meantime, so you can come and play some friendly games if you are well.
Update: I suppose the whole Lakemba club is closed now, so there is no social chess.
We have played a correspondence game against the united team of two Russian chess forums Zugzwang Club and Kasparov Chess. We lost but the game was interesting. It was the 5th such game, Russia leads 4-1.
On the 15th of July, the Canterbury Chess Club was visited by the youngest Australian grandmaster Anton Smirnov. He played against 6 players rated under 2000, blindfolded. The Anton’s result was four wins, two losses.
