Rice Memorial (1916) – (can we finally finish?)

Having properly partitioned and stubified the <Rice Memorial> set of tournaments, we can load the snapshot of reworked tournaments into SCID. I call it CG-update.pgn:

CG-Update-Rice Memorial Final

You can see the CG-Update.pgn file poking up in the <Database Switcher> window in the upper right hand corner. It’s highlighted to show that’s the file currently being viewed. I also show the <Tournament Finder> window, the yellow hightlighting represents the mouse hovering over a given tournament. Right-clicking brings up the xtab window for that tournament allowing easy assess with just another click to any game within the tournament. You can see that I’m displaying the Swiss xtab for the <Rice Memorial Final (1916)> tournament. <CG> doesn’t have this tournament yet, I created it during the partitioning of the original <Rice Memorial> superset. It’s clearly a 5-RR which I won’t bother to show.

Instead I’ll next show the “slimmed-down” and shapely main <Rice Memorial (1916)> tournament (aka Preliminary).  Here’s the Swiss xtab:

CG-Update-Rice Memorial Main

You can see that it’s complete and accurate since the R10 stub was added. I wish the xtab would have a pop-up displaying a brief synopsis of each game (player names, opening, result and moves), but it doesn’t. But we can either browse or load any game by left-clicking the appropriate entry in the Swiss, and choosing the <Load Game> option (I wish we could just double-click to load, but <SCID> not quite so kind). Here’s the resulting screenshot of the main <SCID> window:

CG-Update-Rice Memorial R10 stub

Before finishing, let’s take another look at the <Tournament Finder> list, to see the results of “improvement” to <CG>’s database, before these games get resubmitted back:

                Date    Players Games   Elo     Site: Event     Winner

1       1916.02.06      5       10      0       New York USA: Rice Memorial Final                       1= Chajes 2.5, 1= Janowski 2.5, ...
2       1916.01.17      14      91      0       New York USA: Rice Memorial                             1. Capablanca 12, 2. Kostic 8.5, ...
3       1904.10.11      10      55      0       Saint Louis, MO USA: 7th American Chess Congress        1. Marshall 9.5, 2. Judd 7.5, ...
4       1900.08.12      3       5       0       Munich GER: Munich Playoff                              1. Pillsbury 3, 2. Schlechter 2, ...
5       1900.07.23      16      120     0       Munich GER: Munich                                      1= Pillsbury 12, 1= Schlechter 12, ...
6       1893.12.09      10      45      0       New York, USA: 1st City Chess Club Tournament           1. Pillsbury 7, 2. Hodges 6, ...
7       1880.01.31      2       2       0       New York USA: 5th American Chess Congress Playoff       1. Mackenzie 2, 2. Grundy 0
8       1880.01.06      10      90      0       New York USA: 5th American Chess Congress               1= Grundy 13.5, 1= Mackenzie 13.5, ...
9       1877.07.23      2       9       0       Leipzig GER: Anderssen - Paulsen Match                  1. Paulsen 5.5, 2. Anderssen 3.5
10      1877.07.23      2       1       0       Leipzig GER: Leipzig Playoff (2nd-3rd)                  1. Anderssen 1, 2. Zukertort 0
11      1877.07.16      12      66      0       Leipzig GER: Leipzig                                    1. Paulsen 9, 2. Anderssen 8.5, ...
12      1877.07.14      2       3       0       Leipzig GER: Leipzig (casual)                           1. Schallopp 2, 2. Anderssen 1

So, several of the tournaments have been partitioned into main + playoff or main + final or main + playoff + casual. A few had some stubs added for book-keeping purposes, either for missing games or for forfeit scoring. So you’ll notice all the N_games match the expected N_rr.

There are a few games which were draws and didn’t count, and were scored as “*” (i.e. no result).  The only special case left (that I can think of right now) is nullified drop-out games. Those games can have a variety of scores, and so they can’t be treated uniformly like non-scoring draws. Instead, those games would have to be put into their own “+”-tournaments (the “+” representing the <ChessBase>, <365chess> + others(??) convention).

Perhaps the above represents the  the best treatment. I’m naturally inclined to think so, but the <CG> biographers need to debate this and reach a consensus before folding the above back into the database.



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