Hoogovens Beverwijk (1967)

<CG>’s data normalization is a mess. There’s really no other way to describe it. Facts is facts.

An example of this is Hoogovens Beverwijk 1967. This was the last Hoogovens tournament to take place in Beverwijk before it moved to Wijk aan Zee. A nice brief history of the storied tournament can be found at the Dutch writer (IM?) Jan van Reek’s website:

http://www.endgame.nl/wijk.htm

Take a moment to read about it, I’ll wait here for you to finish your (pea) soup…

 

OK then… let’s put the tournament crosstables here (I’ll complain about how difficult <CG> made their creation difficult below):

First the normal round-robin xtab; the Swiss version (which preserves pairing info) comes after:

Hoogovens Beverwijk
Beverwijk NED, 1967
Average Rating: 2401  (Category 7)
                            Rtng  Ti Age Nat    Score     S L C L D G S V K K D P R G L R   Perf Chg
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1: Spassky, Boris V        2548  gm  30 RUS  11.0 / 15   X = = 1 1 = = = 1 = 1 1 = 1 = 1   2551  +0  (+7 -0 =8)
 2: Lutikov, Anatoly S            gm  33 URS  10.5 / 15   = X = 1 1 = = 1 1 1 = = = 1 = =   2511      (+6 -0 =9)
 3: Ciric, Dragoljub M      2276  gm  32 SRB   9.0 / 15   = = X = = = = 0 1 = = = 1 = 1 1   2495 +27  (+4 -1 =10)
 4: Larsen, Bent                  gm  31 DEN   8.5 / 15   0 0 = X = 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 = 1 0   2401      (+7 -5 =3)
 5: Darga, Klaus                  gm  33 GER   8.0 / 15   0 0 = = X 1 = 1 = = = = = = = 1   2465      (+3 -2 =10)
 6: Gligoric, Svetozar            gm  43 SRB   7.5 / 15   = = = 0 0 X = 1 0 = = 1 = 1 1 0   2482      (+4 -4 =7)
 7: Szabo, Laszlo1 HUN            gm  49 HUN   7.5 / 15   = = = 0 = = X = 1 0 0 1 0 = 1 1   2430      (+4 -4 =7)
 8: Van Geet, Dirk Daniel   2278  im  34 NED   7.5 / 15   = 0 1 0 0 0 = X 0 1 1 1 1 = 0 1   2635 +42  (+6 -6 =3)
 9: Kuijpers, Frans               im  26 NED   7.5 / 15   0 0 0 0 = 1 0 1 X = = 1 = = 1 1   2517      (+5 -5 =5)
10: Kavalek, Lubomir        2527  gm  24 USA   7.0 / 15   = 0 = 1 = = 1 0 = X 0 = = 1 0 =   2307 -27  (+3 -4 =8)
11: Donner, Jan-Hein        2500  gm  39 NED   7.0 / 15   0 = = 0 = = 1 0 = 1 X = = 0 = 1   2347 -19  (+3 -4 =8)
12: Pomar Salamanca, Arturo 2345  gm  36 ESP   7.0 / 15   0 = = 1 = 0 0 0 0 = = X 1 = 1 1   2450 +14  (+4 -5 =6)
13: Robatsch, Karl          2460  gm  37 AUT   6.0 / 15   = = 0 0 = = 1 0 = = = 0 X = = =   2270 -23  (+1 -4 =10)
14: Ghitescu, Theodor       2380  gm  32 ROU   6.0 / 15   0 0 = = = 0 = = = 0 1 = = X = =   2361  -2  (+1 -4 =10)
15: Langeweg, Kick          2309  im  30 NED   5.0 / 15   = = 0 0 = 0 0 1 0 1 = 0 = = X 0   2368  +7  (+2 -7 =6)
16: Ree, Hans               2393  gm  23 NED   5.0 / 15   0 = 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 = 0 0 = = 1 X   2236 -18  (+3 -8 =4)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
120 games: +36 =57 -27

(Side note- Once again I’m using SCID 4.5, so the usual caveats  apply. The ages of the player are given at the time of the tournament, but the title and ratings may not be. The nationality of the players is contemporary, as in, their nationality as of today (~2014) or at their time of death. A word about the rating is in order. I use the full-blown rating.ssp input file, but the FIDE ELO ratings only correctly began in 1970

In 1970, FIDE adopted Elo’s system for rating current players, so one way to compare players of different eras is to compare their Elo ratings. The best-ever Elo ratings are tabulated below.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_top_chess_players_throughout_history#Elo_system

The pre-1970 SCID ratings are therefore a little confusing to me. SCID is also a little confused, since the rating is missing for some of the players. SCID may be using the USCF ratings, which were published for some international players who played in the US during the 60’s).

Hoogovens Beverwijk
Beverwijk NED, 1967
Average Rating: 2401
                            Rtng  Ti Age Nat    Score       1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12   13   14   15    Perf Chg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1: Spassky, Boris V        2548  gm  30 RUS  11.0 / 15    5w+  7b+  8w= 13b= 10w+ 15w+  2b= 14w+ 11b=  3w= 12b+  9w= 16b=  4w+  6b=   2551  +0  (+7 -0 =8)
 2: Lutikov, Anatoly S            gm  33 URS  10.5 / 15    4w+  6b+  5w+  7b+  8w= 13b=  1w= 15b= 10w= 14w+ 11b+  3w= 12b=  9w= 16b=   2511      (+6 -0 =9)
 3: Ciric, Dragoljub M      2276  gm  32 SRB   9.0 / 15   12w=  9b= 16w+  4b=  6w-  5b=  7w+  8b= 13w+  1b= 15w+  2b= 14w= 11b= 10w=   2495 +27  (+4 -1 =10)
 4: Larsen, Bent                  gm  31 DEN   8.5 / 15    2b- 14w= 11b-  3w= 12b+  9w+ 16b+ 10b-  6w+  5b=  7w+  8b+ 13w+  1b- 15w-   2401      (+7 -5 =3)
 5: Darga, Klaus                  gm  33 GER   8.0 / 15    1b- 15w+  2b- 14w= 11b=  3w= 12b=  9w= 16b=  4w=  6b+ 10b=  7w=  8b+ 13w=   2465      (+3 -2 =10)
 6: Van Geet, Dirk Daniel   2278  im  34 NED   7.5 / 15   15b+  2w- 14b= 11w+  3b+ 12w+  9b= 16w-  4b- 10b+  5w-  7b-  8w- 13b+  1w=   2635 +42  (+6 -6 =3)
 7: Kuijpers, Frans               im  26 NED   7.5 / 15   13b=  1w- 15b+  2w- 14b= 11w=  3b- 12w=  9b- 16w+  4b-  6w+  5b= 10b+  8w+   2517      (+5 -5 =5)
 8: Gligoric, Svetozar            gm  43 SRB   7.5 / 15   10w+ 13w=  1b= 15w-  2b= 14w+ 11b=  3w= 12b=  9w= 16b+  4w-  6b+  5w-  7b-   2482      (+4 -4 =7)
 9: Szabo, Laszlo1 HUN            gm  49 HUN   7.5 / 15   11b-  3w= 12b- 10b+ 16w+  4b-  6w=  5b=  7w+  8b= 13w-  1b= 15w+  2b= 14w=   2430      (+4 -4 =7)
10: Pomar Salamanca, Arturo 2345  gm  36 ESP   7.0 / 15    8b- 12w= 13b+  9w-  1b- 16w+ 15b+  4w+  2b=  6w- 14b=  5w= 11b=  7w-  3b=   2450 +14  (+4 -5 =6)
11: Kavalek, Lubomir        2527  gm  24 USA   7.0 / 15    9w+ 16b-  4w+  6b-  5w=  7b=  8w= 13b=  1w= 15b=  2w- 14b+ 10w=  3w= 12b-   2307 -27  (+3 -4 =8)
12: Donner, Jan-Hein        2500  gm  39 NED   7.0 / 15    3b= 10b=  9w+ 16b=  4w-  6b-  5w=  7b=  8w= 13b=  1w- 15b+  2w= 14b- 11w+   2347 -19  (+3 -4 =8)
13: Robatsch, Karl          2460  gm  37 AUT   6.0 / 15    7w=  8b= 10w-  1w= 15b=  2w= 14b= 11w=  3b- 12w=  9b+ 16w=  4b-  6w-  5b=   2270 -23  (+1 -4 =10)
14: Ghitescu, Theodor       2380  gm  32 ROU   6.0 / 15   16w=  4b=  6w=  5b=  7w=  8b- 13w=  1b- 15w=  2b- 10w= 11w-  3b= 12w+  9b=   2361  -2  (+1 -4 =10)
15: Ree, Hans               2393  gm  23 NED   5.0 / 15    6w-  5b-  7w-  8b+ 13w=  1b- 10w-  2w= 14b= 11w=  3b- 12w-  9b- 16w+  4b+   2236 -18  (+3 -8 =4)
16: Langeweg, Kick          2309  im  30 NED   5.0 / 15   14b= 11w+  3b- 12w=  9b- 10b-  4w-  6b+  5w=  7b-  8w- 13b=  1w= 15b-  2w=   2368  +7  (+2 -7 =6)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
120 games: +36 =57 -27

OK, now, let’s talk about what <CG>’s PGN download of this tournament. All the games are in the collection done by user jww:

1967 Beverwijk Hoogovens.

Now the PGN collection must be normalized to get a correct cross table out after the download. Since the xtab is missing from jww’s collection (he used a link, which is now stale: http://pagesperso-orange.fr/eric.delaire/Tournois/Wijk.htm#1967), creating a correct xtab is more than an ideal exercise in redundancy. It’s an exercise in pain instead.

First of all, the names should be normalized. Which is normally fairly easy with SCID’s help. But there is one problem, which Szabo is the right Szabo?

Ambiguous: "Laszlo Szabo"    >> "Szabo, Laszlo8 HUN" (15)  1949.??.??--
Ambiguous: "Laszlo Szabo"    >> "Szabo, Laszlo7 HUN" (15)  1978.??.??--
Ambiguous: "Laszlo Szabo"    >> "Szabo, Laszlo6 HUN" (15)  1951.??.??--
Ambiguous: "Laszlo Szabo"    >> "Szabo, Laszlo5 HUN" (15)  1985.??.??--
Ambiguous: "Laszlo Szabo"    >> "Szabo, Laszlo4 HUN" (15)  1944.??.??--
Ambiguous: "Laszlo Szabo"    >> "Szabo, Laszlo3 HUN" (15)  1983.??.??--
Ambiguous: "Laszlo Szabo"    >> "Szabo, Laszlo2 HUN" (15)  1944.??.??--
Ambiguous: "Laszlo Szabo"    >> "Szabo, Laszlo1 HUN" (15)  1917.03.19--1998.08.08
Ambiguous: "Laszlo Szabo"    >> "Szabo, Laszlo GER" (15)  1955.??.??--

Normally, the dob (date of birth) of the player can be used to disambiguate. But here there are several players who would be of playing age in 1967. It turns out that the correct Szabo is the 1917 Szabo. Actually, I think SCID’s notation (e.g. Laszlo<n>) is less than optimal. Using the middle name (or patronymic, etc.) might be better, or using the dob, or both. If the player has a FIDE card than using that would probably be the best.

SCID does names nicely, because it recognizes common correction. And SCID can handle changing one tag, e.g. a Site tag, into the correct one rather easily. For example, changing “Beverwijk” into “Beverwijk NED”. But consider the work necessary to track down all the different instances of the Site name.

Here is all the different Site names found in the <CG> collection download:

01
02
05
06
07
08
08
09
11 Beverwijk
13
14
15
?
Beverwijk
Beverwijk  (12)
Beverwijk (Netherlands)
Beverwijk Netherland
It Beverwijk

I won’t bother tracking the number of each occurrence, because SCID handles one instance or ten instances the same. The work depends on the number of different instances, not the number of one instance. And one must be careful not to overwrite what are clearly Round numbers before correcting the Site name.

Here are all the different Event names in the <CG> collection:

11 Beverwijk
Beverwijk
Beverwijk (Netherlands)
Beverwijk I
Beverwijk Netherland
Hoogovens
It Beverwijk
NED

It’s not as bad as the Site tag normalization, but gheesh. Should I really have to do this? I mean, everybody who is downloading from <CG> will be required to replicate all this work.

Lastly, jww (the <CG> user), has done the collection organized by Rounding/Pairing. But guess what? The PGN games are often missing this information. Now, it turns out that it can be reconstructed correctly, using the available round numbers and some simple logic. Doing this I was able to finally able to print out the correct Swiss pairing xtab. Correct? Well, when checked against jww’s information!

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s