Jump to content


Photo

Nederlands Kampioenschap 2018


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#21 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,145 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted A week ago

NK Senioren 2018 - Round 7
Standings
Place Name                    Feder Rtg  Loc Score M-Buch. Buch. Progr.

  1   Niemeijer, Pim          NL    1997     42      151.0 209.0  168.0
  2   Verleysdonk, Peter      NL    1683     32      128.0 177.0  113.0
  3   Geffen, Vince van       NL    1907     31      145.0 213.0  138.0
  4   Baas, Dennis            NL    1684     31      143.0 199.5  123.0
  5   Kik, Ricardo            NL    1778     31      136.0 200.0  142.0
  6   Gulden, Wout            NL    1772     31      132.0 184.0  131.0
  7   Roelofs, Max            NL    1793     31      129.0 187.5  122.0
  8   Bilt, Ruben van de      NL    1668     31      125.0 173.0  123.0
  9   Boer, Vincent de        NL    1862     29      141.0 200.0  135.0
 10   Geffen, Johnny van      NL    1747     29      135.0 196.0  130.0
 11   Slagboom, Tim           NL    1914     27      142.0 196.0  118.0
 12   Looye, Vincent          NL    1380     27      133.0 179.5  108.0
 13   Vos, Kees de            NL    1425     27      128.0 179.0   98.0
 14   Malinka, Martijn        NL    1431     27      121.5 178.0  108.0
 15   Enden, Steven van den   NL    1396     27      120.5 170.5   93.0
 16   Travaille, Anjo         NL    1816     26      144.0 199.0  132.0
 17   Sikteoeboen, Wim        NL    1637     26      120.0 170.5   98.0
 18   Franka, George          NL    1723     26      115.0 156.5   99.0
 19   Hardorff, Niels         NL    1610     24      121.5 162.0   97.0
 20   Speksnijder, Huib       NL    1722     24      120.0 165.5  115.0
 21   Geelhoed, Bram          NL    1623     24      118.0 163.5  107.0
 22   Lohrer, Markus          NL    1116     24      101.5 148.0   77.0
 23   Rietveld, Rutger        NL    1602     23      114.0 160.5   88.0
 24   Linden, Gertjan van der NL    1345     22      127.0 173.5   98.0
 25   Halbersma, Rein         NL    711      22      113.5 155.0   73.0
 26   Geelhoed, Thomas        NL    1378     22      112.0 157.5   83.0
 27   Schurink, Edy           NL    1475     22      109.0 154.5   98.0
 28   Vries, Joost de         NL    1003     22      109.0 154.5   78.0
 29   Gerrits, Theo           NL    1327     21      127.0 167.5   94.0
 30   Marechal, Peter         NL    1206     21      115.5 154.0   87.0
 31   Bavelaar, Marcel        NL    453      19      115.5 165.5   86.0
 32   Ooms, Jonathan          NL    1265     19      113.5 152.0   65.0
 33   Leijten, Ben            NL    1185     19       96.0 137.5   60.0
 34   Koenraats, Ruud         NL    1380     17      122.0 167.5   78.0
 35   Visser, Diederik        NL    1184     17      119.0 159.5   63.0
 36   Diependaal, Louis       NL    600      17      105.0 139.0   58.0
 37   Boogaart, Mark          NL    600      12       99.5 138.5   48.0
 38   Bergsma, Pjotter        NL    600      10       67.0 111.5   20.0
 39   Dönszelmann, Jonathan   NL    600      10       66.0 110.5   35.0
Cross Table
No Name                    Feder Rtg  Total  1      2      3      4      5      6      7    

1  Niemeijer, Pim          NL    1997 42.0  14:6.0  4:6.0  7:6.0  9:6.0  3:6.0 10:6.0  5:6.0
2  Verleysdonk, Peter      NL    1683 32.0  22:6.0 11:1.0 12:1.0 23:6.0 13:6.0 24:6.0 14:6.0
3  Geffen, Vince van       NL    1907 31.0  15:6.0  8:6.0  6:6.0 16:3.0  1:1.0 11:6.0  9:3.0
4  Baas, Dennis            NL    1684 31.0  35:6.0  1:1.0 15:6.0 13:6.0  6:3.0  8:3.0 12:6.0
5  Kik, Ricardo            NL    1778 31.0  24:6.0 23:6.0 11:6.0  7:3.0 16:3.0  9:6.0  1:1.0
6  Gulden, Wout            NL    1772 31.0  29:6.0 27:6.0  3:1.0 19:6.0  4:3.0 16:6.0 10:3.0
7  Roelofs, Max            NL    1793 31.0  26:6.0 19:6.0  1:1.0  5:3.0 17:3.0 31:6.0 16:6.0
8  Bilt, Ruben van de      NL    1668 31.0  28:6.0  3:1.0 34:6.0 12:6.0 29:3.0  4:3.0 21:6.0
9  Boer, Vincent de        NL    1862 29.0  34:6.0 17:6.0 10:6.0  1:1.0 20:6.0  5:1.0  3:3.0
10 Geffen, Johnny van      NL    1747 29.0  32:6.0 30:6.0  9:1.0 14:6.0 11:6.0  1:1.0  6:3.0
11 Slagboom, Tim           NL    1914 27.0  13:6.0  2:6.0  5:1.0 21:6.0 10:1.0  3:1.0 24:6.0
12 Looye, Vincent          NL    1380 27.0  16:1.0 38:6.0  2:6.0  8:1.0 19:6.0 29:6.0  4:1.0
13 Vos, Kees de            NL    1425 27.0  11:1.0 33:6.0 18:6.0  4:1.0  2:1.0 26:6.0 28:6.0
14 Malinka, Martijn        NL    1431 27.0   1:1.0 35:6.0 39:6.0 10:1.0 26:6.0 20:6.0  2:1.0
15 Enden, Steven van den   NL    1396 27.0   3:1.0 28:6.0  4:1.0 25:6.0 18:1.0 32:6.0 27:6.0
16 Travaille, Anjo         NL    1816 26.0  12:6.0 21:6.0 20:6.0  3:3.0  5:3.0  6:1.0  7:1.0
17 Sikteoeboen, Wim        NL    1637 26.0  25:6.0  9:1.0 24:1.0 22:6.0  7:3.0 19:3.0 30:6.0
18 Franka, George          NL    1723 26.0  30:1.0 32:6.0 13:1.0 35:6.0 15:6.0 21:3.0 20:3.0
19 Hardorff, Niels         NL    1610 24.0  37:6.0  7:1.0 30:6.0  6:1.0 12:1.0 17:3.0 31:6.0
20 Speksnijder, Huib       NL    1722 24.0  33:6.0 31:6.0 16:1.0 27:6.0  9:1.0 14:1.0 18:3.0
21 Geelhoed, Bram          NL    1623 24.0  38:6.0 16:1.0 26:6.0 11:1.0 34:6.0 18:3.0  8:1.0
22 Lohrer, Markus          NL    1116 24.0   2:1.0 34:1.0 38:6.0 17:1.0 36:6.0 23:3.0 29:6.0
23 Rietveld, Rutger        NL    1602 23.0  36:6.0  5:1.0 29:3.0  2:1.0 30:3.0 22:3.0 34:6.0
24 Linden, Gertjan van der NL    1345 22.0   5:1.0 36:6.0 17:6.0 29:1.0 27:6.0  2:1.0 11:1.0
25 Halbersma, Rein         NL    711  22.0  17:1.0 26:1.0 32:6.0 15:1.0 35:6.0 27:1.0  0:6.0
26 Geelhoed, Thomas        NL    1378 22.0   7:1.0 25:6.0 21:1.0 39:6.0 14:1.0 13:1.0 35:6.0
27 Schurink, Edy           NL    1475 22.0  39:6.0  6:1.0 31:6.0 20:1.0 24:1.0 25:6.0 15:1.0
28 Vries, Joost de         NL    1003 22.0   8:1.0 15:1.0 33:6.0 32:1.0 39:6.0 34:6.0 13:1.0
29 Gerrits, Theo           NL    1327 21.0   6:1.0 37:6.0 23:3.0 24:6.0  8:3.0 12:1.0 22:1.0
30 Marechal, Peter         NL    1206 21.0  18:6.0 10:1.0 19:1.0 31:3.0 23:3.0 37:6.0 17:1.0
31 Bavelaar, Marcel        NL    453  19.0   0:6.0 20:1.0 27:1.0 30:3.0 33:6.0  7:1.0 19:1.0
32 Ooms, Jonathan          NL    1265 19.0  10:1.0 18:1.0 25:1.0 28:6.0 37:6.0 15:1.0 33:3.0
33 Leijten, Ben            NL    1185 19.0  20:1.0 13:1.0 28:1.0 38:6.0 31:1.0 36:6.0 32:3.0
34 Koenraats, Ruud         NL    1380 17.0   9:1.0 22:6.0  8:1.0 36:6.0 21:1.0 28:1.0 23:1.0
35 Visser, Diederik        NL    1184 17.0   4:1.0 14:1.0 37:6.0 18:1.0 25:1.0  0:6.0 26:1.0
36 Diependaal, Louis       NL    600  17.0  23:1.0 24:1.0  0:6.0 34:1.0 22:1.0 33:1.0 37:6.0
37 Boogaart, Mark          NL    600  12.0  19:1.0 29:1.0 35:1.0  0:6.0 32:1.0 30:1.0 36:1.0
38 Bergsma, Pjotter        NL    600  10.0  21:1.0 12:1.0 22:1.0 33:1.0  0:6.0  0:     0:   
39 Dönszelmann, Jonathan   NL    600  10.0  27:1.0  0:6.0 14:1.0 26:1.0 28:1.0  0:     0:   
by Swiss Perfect (TM)  www.swissperfect.com

  • Don_Homer, Dobby125, Major Nelson and 1 other like this
"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

#22 Fks

Fks

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,184 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted A week ago

Congrats Nortrom :)

Would love to see pics of tourni!
  • texaspete09 likes this

Proud Member of the North American Stratego Federation (NASF)

http://forum.strateg...18/#entry461226


#23 Major Nelson

Major Nelson

    Major

  • Moderators
  • 1,140 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted A week ago

In the final standings, players from 3 to 8 were all tied, while the difference in points from the 3rd to the 18th was only 5 points. I think it would be better if you added 1 more round to the tournament's duration.


  • texaspete09 and Henry domerkant like this

Winning isn't everything, but wanting to win is.


#24 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,145 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted A week ago

DcuKNPU.jpg


uF0auK7.jpg


hSmKyll.jpg


TQN0qaw.jpg


qtjOGBW.jpg


bPlmiHq.jpg


Sq4aDS0.jpg


dOjHmWP.jpg


rz3ZzHS.jpg


onqBhw7.jpg
  • dalee and The Achaean like this
"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

#25 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,145 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted A week ago

In the final standings, players from 3 to 8 were all tied, while the difference in points from the 3rd to the 18th was only 5 points. I think it would be better if you added 1 more round to the tournament's duration.

I've had to backspace my response to this twice, because I'm not sure where to begin explaining why this is one of the worst proposals I've read in a very long time.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

#26 ☆OVERLORD☆

☆OVERLORD☆

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted A week ago

Does Peter Verleysdonk play here?

STRATEGO CAPTAINS CLUB ~ the strongest team of Greece


#27 Major Nelson

Major Nelson

    Major

  • Moderators
  • 1,140 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted A week ago

I've had to backspace my response to this twice, because I'm not sure where to begin explaining why this is one of the worst proposals I've read in a very long time.

Why, because the tournament will last two days?



Winning isn't everything, but wanting to win is.


#28 TemplateRex

TemplateRex

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Major

Posted A week ago

 

Why, because the tournament will last two days?


 

 

For <= 64 players, 6 rounds should be enough even to determine a winner. With 7 rounds, you already have the "backwave" effect of early losing players catching up with players who beat them earlier. With 8 rounds, this effect is even stronger.

 

And indeed, 7 rounds just about fits in a day.


I hereby grant explicit permission to all my opponents to record and publish my games as they see fit.


#29 Major Nelson

Major Nelson

    Major

  • Moderators
  • 1,140 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted A week ago

For <= 64 players, 6 rounds should be enough even to determine a winner. With 7 rounds, you already have the "backwave" effect of early losing players catching up with players who beat them earlier. With 8 rounds, this effect is even stronger.

 

And indeed, 7 rounds just about fits in a day.

I am not aware of how the number of rounds is determined. What I am aware of is that tournaments with about 40 participants have had 8, 9 or 10 rounds. The more the rounds the more objectively the final standings depict the quality of the participants. The only reason I see why 7 rounds are preferable is so that the tournament lasts only one day, but I don't understand why you would be so eager to avoid playing two days. 7 rounds were enough to determine the winner, but the rest of the standings do not depict clearly the difference in the various players' gamelevels. I find it ridiculous that in the final standings the 2nd player has only one more win than the 18th one.



Winning isn't everything, but wanting to win is.


#30 roeczak

roeczak

    Captain

  • Tournament Manager
  • 917 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted A week ago

It seems that most people prefer not to stay overnight I guess.
Has it been tried? I certainly like the atmosphere in the 2-day Greek Ch's. 

@Rein, congrats ! Time to enter an online tournament perhaps?


  • Major Nelson likes this
If you enjoy stratego you might want to subscribe to Roeczak. Member of Stratego Captains Club. Actively trying to promote the game and would like to help in any activity towards that goal. Highest Rating : 898 (Platinum Marshal)

#31 TemplateRex

TemplateRex

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Major

Posted A week ago

I've had to backspace my response to this twice, because I'm not sure where to begin explaining why this is one of the worst proposals I've read in a very long time.

 

One of the things that could be improved is the handling of byes and withdrawals. I got a bye in R7 this weekend, which I didn't like for three reasons: first, I wanted to play and second, I still had to wait a full round to know whether I got into the top 25, and third, I thought it would mess up my Buch points.

 

But in hindsight, I couldn't have been luckier with the bye, since I got the full 6 points and also the bye counted as 7 times 3.5 = 24.5 Buch points against a virtual opponent. In chess, you get your own R6 points + a virtual draw for the remaining rounds. So in chess I would have gotten 16 + 3.5 = 19.5 Buch points. As it was, I got 5 Buch points more than I would have had under the chess regulations. To add injury to insult, all my opponents, however, didn't get my 22 points as their Buch points, but rather my 16 points after R6 plus 3.5 = 19.5 Buch points. 

 

In the final ranking, I managed to obtain more Buch points than two of my opponents that beat me. Hondjekaptein especially was unlucky, because he played against three players who had had a bye (including me), so that cost him 3 * 3.5 = 10.5 Buch points. He also played against two players who withdrew in the final two rounds, and that cost him another 6 or 7 Buch points because they got scored 1 point each instead of 7 in total (these two withdrawals would have been paired against each other in R7 had they not withdrawn). In the end, I had 1.5 M-Buch points more than him.

 

I'm not complaining for winning my first pin, but it's kind of inconsistent that my own bye got the full 24.5 rather than 19.5 Buch points, but that my opponents didn't get my 22 but rather 19.5 Buch points for playing against me. If there had been a 40th player, with 16 points after R6 and if I had been paired against that player instead of a bye, I would have finished lower than I did now, even if I had beaten that opponent.


Edited by TemplateRex, A week ago.

  • Don_Homer likes this

I hereby grant explicit permission to all my opponents to record and publish my games as they see fit.


#32 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,145 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted A week ago

Those things happen unfortunately. 

 

Swiss system is good for determining #1, but it doesn't care much for other placements.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

#33 Yellowhat

Yellowhat

    Sergeant

  • Moderators
  • 473 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Scout

Posted A week ago

1 Niemeijer, Pim - Nortrom
2 Verleysdonk, Peter 
3 Geffen, Vince van - Spion...
4 Baas, Dennis - Morx
5 Kik, Ricardo 
6 Gulden, Wout 
7 Roelofs, Max - maxroelofs
8 Bilt, Ruben van de - Don_Homer
9 Boer, Vincent de 
10 Geffen, Johnny van 
11 Slagboom, Tim - Playa1
12 Looye, Vincent 
13 Vos, Kees de 
14 Malinka, Martijn 
15 Enden, Steven van den 
16 Travaille, Anjo - Garulfo
17 Sikteoeboen, Wim 
18 Franka, George 
19 Hardorff, Niels 
20 Speksnijder, Huib - Master Mind
21 Geelhoed, Bram - Yellowhat
22 Lohrer, Markus 
23 Rietveld, Rutger 
24 Linden, Gertjan van der
25 Halbersma, Rein - Templaterex
26 Geelhoed, Thomas - hondjekapitein

27 Schurink, Edy 
28 Vries, Joost de
29 Gerrits, Theo 
30 Marechal, Peter 
31 Bavelaar, Marcel 
32 Ooms, Jonathan - Jonathan888
33 Leijten, Ben 
34 Koenraats, Ruud 
35 Visser, Diederik 
36 Diependaal, Louis 
37 Boogaart, Mark 
38 Bergsma, Pjotter 
39 Dönszelmann, Jonathan 


  • ☆OVERLORD☆ likes this
Yellowhat is the literal translation of my surname.

#34 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 739 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 5 days ago

One of the things that could be improved is the handling of byes and withdrawals. I got a bye in R7 this weekend, which I didn't like for three reasons: first, I wanted to play and second, I still had to wait a full round to know whether I got into the top 25, and third, I thought it would mess up my Buch points.

 

But in hindsight, I couldn't have been luckier with the bye, since I got the full 6 points and also the bye counted as 7 times 3.5 = 24.5 Buch points against a virtual opponent. In chess, you get your own R6 points + a virtual draw for the remaining rounds. So in chess I would have gotten 16 + 3.5 = 19.5 Buch points. As it was, I got 5 Buch points more than I would have had under the chess regulations. To add injury to insult, all my opponents, however, didn't get my 22 points as their Buch points, but rather my 16 points after R6 plus 3.5 = 19.5 Buch points. 

 

In the final ranking, I managed to obtain more Buch points than two of my opponents that beat me. Hondjekaptein especially was unlucky, because he played against three players who had had a bye (including me), so that cost him 3 * 3.5 = 10.5 Buch points. He also played against two players who withdrew in the final two rounds, and that cost him another 6 or 7 Buch points because they got scored 1 point each instead of 7 in total (these two withdrawals would have been paired against each other in R7 had they not withdrawn). In the end, I had 1.5 M-Buch points more than him.

 

I'm not complaining for winning my first pin, but it's kind of inconsistent that my own bye got the full 24.5 rather than 19.5 Buch points, but that my opponents didn't get my 22 but rather 19.5 Buch points for playing against me. If there had been a 40th player, with 16 points after R6 and if I had been paired against that player instead of a bye, I would have finished lower than I did now, even if I had beaten that opponent.

Sorry for my late reaction but I think this reaction deserves a discussion. I do not know/understand all of it (for example the 10,5 buchpoints costing hondjekapitein but your argument is solid.

 

I do not understand why you get 3,5 buchpoints per round for the bye in the first place? I think the bye is the easiest opponent you can have, he scores 1 point per round. Why not just give 1 Buchpoint per round for the bye? With 3,5 buchpoint you treat the bye as if it is a mid level player…

 

To add something (for ISF members): At the teamcup they recently also adjust the scoring for the bye. I think the ''normall tournament bye'' should be reconsidered too. 


Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users