The 2007 Oceania Zonal finished yesterday, with Australian IM Zong-Yuan Zhao finishing outright first on 7/9. Zhao defeated James Morris (AUS) in the final round, while each of his closest challengers could only draw. The win qualifies Zhao for the next stage of the FIDE World Championship series.
In equal second were Puchen Wang (NZ), Igor Goldenberg (AUS) and Bob Smith (NZ), all on 6.5 points. It is not entirely clear which tie break system was used for the tournament (and FIDE regulations leave the choice up to the organisers) so I am not sure which players earn which titles (1 IM and 2 FM's) . If the ordering on the website is based on the tournament tie-breaks then the IM title goes to New Zealand Champion Puchen Wang, while FM titles are awarded to Australian juniors Gene Nakauchi and James Morris.
The Womens Zonal was a little more clearcut with IM Irinia Berezina leading from start to finish, scoring an undefeated 7.5 points. Outright second was Alexandra Jule on 6.5, which means that she will become a WIM. Again, based on the published standings Sue Maroroa and Rebecca Harris become WFM's, with Viv Smith being the unlucky player to miss out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
It would b egreat to hear who won the titles when you DO know thanks Shaun!
It appears to me that Puchen Wang made his third IM norm (thus qualifying for title). Bob Smith also appears to have made IM norm (his first I believe).
And of course Igor Goldenberg gets an IM norm.Igor Bjelobrk misses out because he only played 2 IM's and didn't play a Fijian.
Titles? Norms? (Or both?) Who has won or achieved what? Please?
According to FIDE rules, 2450 performance at the Zonal is counted as 20 games IM norm.
I've put in a phone call to one of the event arbiters to try and get a definite answer re titles etc. At this stage he isn't back from Fiji, but I will try again soon.
None of Wang, Goldenberg or Smith scored a 2450 performance (without adjusting ratings for low rated players) so they only get 9 game norms. (Of course 1 of them gets an IM title so the norm is irrelevant.)
Where does it say that the uplift does not count for the 20 game norm? All three players had true performance ratings well in excess of 2450 (around 2480-2490). It would be crazy for them to miss out because a couple of 1900 rated players dragged down their average rating..
You have the question the wrong way around - where does it say that you can raise ratings to calculate performance ratings?
1900 player are 1900 because they play like 1900 players - there is no reason to raise them to 2100.
True performance ratings are a red herring - Smith and Goldenberg get a 9 game norm for performances below 2450, which seems quite generous.
True performance ratings are the ratings at which expected performance=actual score. They are without a doubt a better estimate of performance than averaged performance ratings.
The example which proves this is a draw against a 2600 player and a win against a 1400 player= a true performance of 2600. The averaged performance rating however is more like 2200 which is just patently absurd.
As for the 2100 uplift, I am referring to FIDE Handbook rule B.01.1.46c.
B.01.1.46c doesn't apply to calculating performance ratings - only to working out norms.
"For the purposes of norms, the minimum rating (adjusted rating floor) for the opponents shall be as follows:
-International Master title - 2100
-No more than two opponents shall have their rating raised to this adjusted rating floor. Where more than two opponents are below the floor, the rating of the lowest two opponents shall be raised."
Seems pretty clear to me. We are, after all talking about norms (albeit 20 game norms). Is there a precedent for a player receiving a 9 game norm from a zonal in the way you suggest?
"9 or more games 2450+ (a)
=20 game norm"
Seems pretty clear to me - none of the three made a 2450+ performance.
When is a norm not a norm?
Post a Comment