Fall (Nov) 2014 SSC Tournament Results

Dan's picture

Final Results of the Sarasota Scholastic Chess Tournament, Nov 2, 2014

Section: Open

# Name Rtng Post Team Grd Rd 1 Rd 2 Rd 3 Rd 4 Rd 5 Tot TBrk[M] TBrk[S] TBrk[R] TBrk[O]
1 High, Greg 1952 1980 SVCC A W9 W8 D2 W7 W3 4.5 12 14 11.25 41.5
1 Leverich, Steven 1900 1938 SVCC A W11 W5 D1 W6 W7 4.5 11 11.5 10.25 38.5
3 Widrick, Joshua 1697 1681 SMA 12 W10 L6 W8 W4 L1 3.0 11.5 13 7 41.5
4 Smith, Tommy 1700 1628 SVCC A L8 B--- W6 L3 W10 3.0 9 9 4 31
5 Gantz, Steve 1400 1524 SVCC A X--- L2 L9 W11 W6 3.0 9 9 3 28.5
6 Faragalla, Sandy 1400 1540 SVCC A W7 W3 L4 L2 L5 2.0 10 14.5 5 44.5
7 Napolillo, John 1800 1722 SVCC A L6 W11 W10 L1 L2 2.0 8.5 13 3 43
8 Prince, Robert 1308 1570 SVCC A W4 L1 L3 W9 U--- 2.0 7.5 12 5 34.5
9 King, Rob 1677 1583 SVCC A L1 L10 W5 L8 W11 2.0 7 11.5 4 34.5
10 Schleppi, Bob 1300 1380 SVCC A L3 W9 L7 B--- L4 2.0 6.5 9.5 2 28
11 Armstrong, Brooks 1500 1408 SVCC A L2 L7 B--- L5 L9 1.0 6.5 11 0 31.5

Section: K-12 U1200

# Name Rtng Post Team Grd Rd 1 Rd 2 Rd 3 Rd 4 Rd 5 Tot TBrk[M] TBrk[S] TBrk[R] TBrk[O]
1 Patrick, Christopher 931 961 PV 7 W10 L2 W6 W5 W4 4.0 12.5 14 11 44
2 Probus, Jaden 948 972 NG 4 W6 W1 W3 D4 L5 3.5 13.5 16.5 12 48
3 Ginsberg-Klemmt, Ari 1046 1016 PV 7 X-- D4 L2 W7 W9 3.5 11 12.5 6 36.5
4 Bodor, Ellie 867 887 PV 8 W9 D3 W7 D2 L1 3.0 13.5 15 8 46.5
5 Klinger, Josh 779 782 CAS 8 W11 L7 W9 L1 W2 3.0 11.5 12 6.5 39.5
6 Garcia, Alex 510 567 H 7 L2 W8 L1 W11 W10 3.0 11 11.5 5.5 36.5
7 Tanner, Sebastian 735 720 SE 5 D8 W5 L4 L3 W11 2.5 8 12 5.25 38.5
8 Soukup, Carmen 105 233 H 6 D7 L6 W11 L10 B--- 2.5 4.5 7.5 2.25 21.5
9 Gruttadauria, Garrett 400 435 SSAS 8 L4 W10 L5 B--- L3 2.0 7.5 11 2 34
10 Press, James 500 442 H 8 L1 L9 B--- W8 L6 2.0 6.5 10.5 2.5 28.5
11 Ryan, Kayla 350 277 PA 7 L5 B--- L8 L6 L7 1.0 7.5 10.5 0 29

Section: K-5 U700

# Name Rtng Post Team Grd Rd 1 Rd 2 Rd 3 Rd 4 Rd 5 Tot TBrk[M] TBrk[S] TBrk[R] TBrk[O]
1 Fic, Alexander 370 622 SE 5 W18 W4 W2 W5 L3 4.0 15 16 12 50
2 Klinger, Tyler 662 677 CAS 5 W11 W8 L1 W7 W9 4.0 13 15.5 11.5 50
3 Gilkey, Banyan 623 636 SE 5 W12 W10 L5 W6 W1 4.0 12.5 15 12.5 50
4 Collins, Grant 539 597 PSE 5 W19 L1 W6 W8 W5 4.0 12.5 13.5 10 46
5 Garcia, Lucas 360 505 H 5 W16 W7 W3 L1 L4 3.0 15 17 9 50
6 Swick-Custer, Jayden 277 365 SE 5 X--- W9 L4 L3 W15 3.0 12.5 12.5 5 39
7 Siwicki, Ricky 538 515 PV 5 W13 L5 W12 L2 W11 3.0 12 14 7 44
8 Witherspoon, Robert 401 411 CAS 5 W17 L2 W15 L4 W14 3.0 12 13.5 6 40
9 Kos, Trafton 534 507 SE 4 W14 L6 W13 W10 L2 3.0 11.5 13.5 7 42
10 Brum, Avery 372 392 PSE 5 W20 L3 W14 L9 W13 3.0 11 11 4 34
11 Hibnick, Erin 250 299 SE 5 L2 W15 W17 D12 L7 2.5 7.5 13 5.25 38
12 Powers, Samuel 250 289 SE 5 L3 W20 L7 D11 W19 2.5 6.5 10.5 2.25 31
13 Ryan, Hugo 226 238 ME 5 L7 W16 L9 W18 L10 2.0 9 12 3 35
14 Lange, Felix 201 218 SE 5 L9 W18 L10 W16 L8 2.0 9 12 3 35
15 Ryan, Jona 100 101 ME 5 X--- L11 L8 W17 L6 2.0 7 10 2 31
16 Fuller, Raj 200 179 SE 4 L5 L13 W20 L14 W18 2.0 5 8 1 27
17 Flores, David 200 172 SE 4 L8 W19 L11 L15 W20 2.0 5 8 1 25
18 Sparling, Greyson 200 133 SE 4 L1 L14 W19 L13 L16 1.0 7 11 1 32
19 Freeman, Wesley 250 154 SE 5 L4 L17 L18 W20 L12 1.0 5.5 9.5 0 25
20 Gregory, Jackson 200 100 SE 4 L10 L12 L16 L19 L17 0.0 7.5 10.5 0 26

Section: K-3 U500

# Name Rtng Post Team Grd Rd 1 Rd 2 Rd 3 Rd 4 Rd 5 Tot TBrk[M] TBrk[S] TBrk[R] TBrk[O]
1 Oser, Vince 258 543 ASH 2 W3 W10 W2 W7 W4 5.0 12 14 15 45.5
2 Ginsberg-Klemmt, Maeva 276 425 PV 3 W14 W9 L1 W6 W3 4.0 13 14.5 9.5 45
3 Banyard, Trey 150 310 SE 3 L1 W15 W9 W5 L2 3.0 14.5 15.5 7 45.5
4 Lizotte, Liam 110 194 SE 2 L8 B--- W11 W10 L1 3.0 12 12 5 36
5 Brum, Noah 469 419 PSE 1 W13 L6 W8 L3 W7 3.0 10.5 12 6.5 41
6 Westover, Zachary 150 270 SE 3 W11 W5 L7 L2 D8 2.5 8 14.5 6.75 45.5
7 Simos, Alexander 470 410 PV 3 W15 D8 W6 L1 L5 2.5 8 14 5.25 44.5
8 Gruttadauria, Weston 150 243 SE 3 W4 D7 L5 D11 D6 2.5 7.5 13 6.75 42.5
9 Dorrill, Samuel 110 172 SE 2 W12 L2 L3 D14 W13 2.5 7 12.5 4.75 35
10 Klinger, Ashton 100 106 CAS 1 B--- L1 D12 L4 W16 2.5 6.5 11.5 1.25 28.5
11 Brum, Oliver 266 224 PSE 3 L6 W13 L4 D8 W14 2.5 6.5 10.5 4.25 34.5
12 Hembree, Jace 220 174 SE 3 L9 D14 D10 D13 W15 2.5 5 8.5 4.25 24.5
13 Hall, Will 150 110 SE 3 L5 L11 W16 D12 L9 1.5 9 12 1.25 27.5
14 Quartermaine, Ethan 150 105 SE 3 L2 D12 D15 D9 L11 1.5 8.5 12.5 3.25 33
15 Edwards, Atticus 150 100 SE 3 L7 L3 D14 X16 L12 1.5 6.5 9.5 0.75 29
16 Acharya, Neil 70 100 EAEE 0 U--- U--- L13 F15 L10 0.0 1.5 3.5 0 10.5

School Team results: 

  • First place:  Southside Elementary
  • Second Place:  Pine View
  • Third Place:  The Classical Academy of Sarasota

Team scores were computed by totaling the top 4 finishers from each school team, with a bonus point added if a player had to play in a higher section based on his or her rating.  Tie scores in the team section were resolved by comparing additional players' results on each team.  The top two were so close in scores that we needed to compare results of the top six players to break the tie.

Notes:

New this time was an Open/Invitational section for adults and the highest level juniors.  This was primarily comprised of local adult players from the Sarasota/Venice Chess Club.  Conspicuously missing from our tournament was the Venice Christian Chess Club.  We hope they'll return for our next one.  Trophies were awarded to the top six players in each scholastic section.  Cash prizes were awarded in the Open section.  Tie scores were resolved by Tiebreak calculations for the trophies.  The top two in the Open section tied with 4.5 pts each and split the cash prize equally.

Abbreviations:

ASH=Ashton, BDG = BD Gullett Elementary, BMS=Brookside Middle School, CAS=The Classical Academy of Sarasota, CC= Calvary Christian, CE = Cranberry Elementary, CM=Center Montessori, EA=Edison Academics, EAEE=European Academy of Early Education, FE=Fruitville Elementary, H=homeschool, ICS = Incarnation Catholic School, ISPR=Imagine School at Palmer Ranch, IV=Island Village Montessori, KE=Kinnan Elementary, ME= McNeal Elementary, NG=NewGate, NMS=Nolan Middle School, PA=Pinnacle Academy, PSE=Phillippi Shores Elementary, PV=Pine View, SA=Suncoast Academy, SB=Sarasota Baptist, SCS=Sarasota Christian School, SE=Southside Elementary, SLA=Student Leadership Academy, SMA=Sarasota Military Academy, SMS=Sarasota Middle School, SSA=Sarasota Suncoast Academy, SSAS=Sarasota School of Arts and Sciences, SSE=St. Stephen’s Episcopal, SVCC=Sarasota Venice Chess Club, VC=Venice Christian

W=Win (1pt), L=Loss (0pts), D=Draw (0.5pts), B=Bye (1.0 pts if forced to take due to odd number of players), H=Half-point Bye (0.5 in first round if arranged in advance), U=Unregistered (arrived late or withdrew early, 0pts), F=loss by Forfeit, X=win by forfeit.

Rtng- Starting rating was from current USCF rating (if based on at least 15 games and more recent than the prior SSC tournament), SSC rating obtained at the prior tournament, or an initial rating estimate based on grade level and number of years of experience.  Adult ratings in the Open section were from previous USCF rating, chess.com rating, and/or general estimate.

Post- New rating based on initial rating and this tournament's results.

TBrk- Tiebreak calculations.  Since there are many players with equal total point scores, tiebreak calculations are needed for sorting placements.  Various methods are used for these calculations:  M=Modified Median, S=Solkoff, R=Round Robin(aka Sonneborn-Berger), O=Opposition Cumulative Score.  If players are still tied after comparison of the first method, it goes to the next and so on.  Basically, the main Tiebreak determinant is the combined point total of a player's top four opponents (lowest performing opponent's score is not counted).  Detailed explanations about these methods can be found here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tie-breaking_in_Swiss-system_tournaments . The order we prioritize these is similar to that used by USCF, but our third choice is not Cumulative since it is too dependent on initial ratings, which in our case are frequently rough estimates.

Comments: 

Pairings were made automatically by SwissSys 8 software, based on starting rating.  In the first round this sorts players by rating, then pairs the top half with the bottom half.  In the second round the players with wins in the first round are paired with each other while those that lost the first round are paired with each other.  In successive rounds, those with equal cumulative scores are paired with each other (except where there is an odd number in a score group).

Since the adult section was entirely new and rating estimates were very rough, post ratings were adjusted to be double (K factor increased).  A 10pt positive ratings increase was adjusted to 20, etc.