Performance table (1999/00)

Wessex         White             Black             Total      
1999/00

P

W

D

L

%

Avge opp

  

P

W

D

L

%

Avge opp

  

P

W

D

L

%

Avge opp

  

Performance

Upton

3

3

    

100

2145

  

7

1

6

  

57

2209

  

10

4

6

0

70

2190

  

2339

Rossiter

6

2

3

1

58

2229

  

4

2

1

1

63

2265

  

10

4

4

2

60

2243

  

2303

Corkett

4

2

1

1

63

2251

  

5

  

4

1

40

2292

  

9

2

5

2

50

2274

  

2274

Neil

6

4

  

2

67

2209

  

3

1

1

1

50

1954

  

9

5

1

3

61

2124

  

2204

Yeo

4

1

2

1

50

2099

  

7

2

4

1

57

2176

  

11

3

6

2

55

2148

  

2184

Simons

7

2

3

2

50

2216

  

4

  

2

2

25

2151

  

11

2

5

4

41

2192

  

2127

Willmoth

1

1

    

100

2176

  

2

    

2

0

2188

  

3

1

0

2

33

2184

  

2059

Pye

3

  

2

1

33

2061

  

3

2

  

1

67

1999

  

6

2

2

2

50

2030

  

2030

White

1

1

    

100

1160

  

1

  

1

  

50

2119

  

2

1

1

0

75

1640

  

1833

Pleasants

3

1

1

1

50

2012

  

2

    

2

0

1901

  

5

1

1

3

30

1968

  

1819

Howard

4

2

1

1

63

1660

  

3

  

3

  

50

1621

  

7

2

4

1

57

1643

  

1693

Keeling

1

    

1

0

1208

  

1

    

1

0

2025

  

2

0

0

2

0

1617

    
                                             

TOTAL

43

19

13

11

59

    

42

8

22

12

45

    

85

27

35

23

52.3

      

It is not ideal, but I can't think of anything better so it will have to do. Do let me know about all the mistakes I have made!

The average opponent columns take the average of the opponent ratings as used for pairing purposes.  For those players without an ELO rating, this is a converted BCF grade (*8+600).  The performance column is calculated from FIDE rating tables.

Only Ian Upton performed better than his rating.  (This does not mean that we are all going to lose a stack of ELO points as a number of our opponents only had BCF grades, particularly on lower boards).  Based on this table, it might have been a good idea if he had given himself the White pieces more often!

4NCL, Division 2, Final Table

4NCL Div 2, 1999/2000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18   P W D L GPts MPts
1 S.Wales Dragons x 4 4   4½ 5 5 4½ 5½     7½ 6       5½ 6½   11 9 2 0 58 20
2 Barbican 4NCL 2nds 4 x 3   1½ 4½ 5   5 5½   5½ 6½ 5½       4½   11 8 1 2 50½ 17
3 Poisoned Pawns 4 5 x   4 3 5½ 5½   2½ 5 4 5   6         11 6 3 2 49½ 15
4 Kings Head       x 6 4 2 4½     3 5 3 5 5½   4 5   11 6 2 3 47 14
5 Bigwood 2nds 3½ 6½ 4 2 x   4   3½ 4½ 5½ 4½       7½ 4     11 5 3 3 49½ 13
6 Slough 2nds 3 3½ 5 4   x 4   5   4½ 4½   3½ 4 4½       11 5 3 3 45½ 13
7 Wessex 3 3 2½ 6 4 4 x   4½ 4 4½   5 5           11 5 3 3 45½ 13
8 BCCA 3½   2½ 3½       x 6   4½ 3 6 3½   5½ 5½ 5   11 6 0 5 48½ 12
9 Perceptron Youth 2½ 3     4½ 3 3½ 2 x   4½   4½ 5½     5 6   11 6 0 5 44 12
10 Guildford-ADC 2nds   2½ 5½   3½   4     x 3½   4 3½ 4 4½ 6 4½   11 4 3 4 45½ 11
11 Levy Gee 3Cs     3 5 2½ 3½ 3½ 3½ 3½ 4½ x       5 5 4½     11 5 0 6 43½ 10
12 Bristol 2nds ½ 2½ 4 3 3½ 3½   5       x   7½ 5 4   4½   11 4 2 5 43 10
13 Witney 2 1½ 3 5     3 2 3½ 4     x   4½ 4½   5   11 4 1 6 38 9
14 Index-IT 2nds   2½   3   4½ 3 4½ 2½ 4½   ½   x 3 3½ 5     11 4 0 7 36½ 8
15 Nidum Knights     2 2½   4       4 3 3 3½ 5 x 2½ 5 4   11 2 3 6 38½ 7
16 Thistle W. Rose         ½ 3½   2½   3½ 3 4 3½ 4½ 5½ x 4 3   11 2 2 7 37½ 6
17 Gwent Dragons 2½     4 4     2½ 3 2 3½     3 3 4 x 5   11 1 3 7 36½ 5
18 SCS 1½ 3½   3       3 2 3½   3½ 3   4 5 3 x   11 1 1 9 35 3

Given our performance against the top three, we cannot complain about not getting promoted.  I still don't think the pairing system worked particularly well.  Kings Head came very close to being promoted without playing any of the top three.  We were the only team not to benefit from playing any of the (weaker) bottom four clubs.

Last modified: May 8, 2000

Wessex Chess Club home page
michael_yeo@new-forest.org