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   4 5 5 4 5     7 6       5 6   11 9 2 0 58 20
2 Barbican 4NCL 2nds 4 x 3   1 4 5   5 5   5 6 5       4   11 8 1 2 50 17
3 Poisoned Pawns 4 5 x   4 3 5 5   2 5 4 5   6         11 6 3 2 49 15
4 Kings Head       x 6 4 2 4     3 5 3 5 5   4 5   11 6 2 3 47 14
5 Bigwood 2nds 3 6 4 2 x   4   3 4 5 4       7 4     11 5 3 3 49 13
6 Slough 2nds 3 3 5 4   x 4   5   4 4   3 4 4       11 5 3 3 45 13
7 Wessex 3 3 2 6 4 4 x   4 4 4   5 5           11 5 3 3 45 13
8 BCCA 3   2 3       x 6   4 3 6 3   5 5 5   11 6 0 5 48 12
9 Perceptron Youth 2 3     4 3 3 2 x   4   4 5     5 6   11 6 0 5 44 12
10 Guildford-ADC 2nds   2 5   3   4     x 3   4 3 4 4 6 4   11 4 3 4 45 11
11 Levy Gee 3Cs     3 5 2 3 3 3 3 4 x       5 5 4     11 5 0 6 43 10
12 Bristol 2nds 2 4 3 3 3   5       x   7 5 4   4   11 4 2 5 43 10
13 Witney 2 1 3 5     3 2 3 4     x   4 4   5   11 4 1 6 38 9
14 Index-IT 2nds   2   3   4 3 4 2 4     x 3 3 5     11 4 0 7 36 8
15 Nidum Knights     2 2   4       4 3 3 3 5 x 2 5 4   11 2 3 6 38 7
16 Thistle W. Rose         3   2   3 3 4 3 4 5 x 4 3   11 2 2 7 37 6
17 Gwent Dragons 2     4 4     2 3 2 3     3 3 4 x 5   11 1 3 7 36 5
18 SCS 1 3   3       3 2 3   3 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