Final standings for Polgar and Denker tournaments can be found here.
1-2 Kerr, Julia K (3) NY 5
1-2 Rodriguez, Eunice (11) FL 5
3-8 Livschitz, Louiza (4). CA 4.5
3-8 Jamison, Courtney (5). TX 4.5
3-8 Carter, Ashley (7) MI 4.5
3-8 Wheeless, Amelia A (14). NC 4.5
3-8 Mirchandani, Rita (24) FL 4.5
3-8 Lee, Megan (29). WA 4.5
In the Denker tournament, there were 49 boys and 2 girls. In the Polgar, there were 49 girls for a total of 100 qualified players.
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
So you have 51 girls and 49 boys altogether? Nice job!
This is not the final results.The tiebreak should be used here to determine the order,not by rating.
I believe the Monroi site has them in tiebreak order. They definitely aren’t in rating order.
In the Monroi site it is still in the rating order,not tiebreak. Is it the proffesional way to do that ?
Rating were NOT used to determine the winner, but rather modified median, solkoff, cumulative points and cumulative of opposition-in that order. Julia and Eunice both had 5 points, Eunice-having lost in the second round-ended up with the worse tie breaks. Therefore, Julia won, not by rating, but rather, by result.
If you don’t understand these methods of determining standings in a tournament, I’d suggest you take some time out to educate yourself before posting.
Congratulations to all the girls-they made a great effort at this tourney.
Then please show us the complete results, including the tiebreaks. We can’t believe what you are saying until we have proof that the standings were not determined by ratings. The Monroi site obviously has them posted with higher ratings first.
I don’t have access to final tie break numbers. They were posted at monroi.com going into the 6th round and showed Julia with the better numbers. It’s curious that you don’t believe that. This is why it is critical to win your early games in a tourney so that the tie breaks favor you. Just as in this case, early wins lead to stronger opponents and better tie break numbers. Early losses, such as Eunice’s in this tourney lead to unfavorable tie breaks. Sure, in the last round she one against the top seed, but then Julia won against the third seed, who-in her own right-had better cumulative numbers. The USCF take these results seriously and double check everything. I’m sure, if you inquire with the USCF directly, they’ll confirm the final results. Perhaps they will be reposted here, but that would require an official from the tourney to do so. I don’t happen to be one. I did see the numbers posted on line after the fifth round. If Eunice’s numbers were better than Julia’s, then she would have been playing Louisa for first place. Though the winning game was “ugly” due to time pressure, Julia won it and tourney-fair and square. To imply otherwise smacks of sour grapes.
Finally players who suspect results are incorrect can always appeal. None did-as they can all do basic math, understanding that the final ranking was accurate. What could possibly make you think otherwise?
Susan: Could the tie break numbers be posted? This line of commentary is petty at best and is a crummy thing to do to all those girls who worked so hard over the last week.
Just to let you know, this is not just about Julia, so you can stop explaining every single thing about why she deserved it. Other girls who were not neccesarily front-runners, had also experienced being placed lower than they should just because their ratings were lower, although they had high tiebreaks.
It’s just a numerical total. If you think they’re in error-ask the TD. Sounds like you or your child was playing and didn’t think the numbers added up. So check.
I cannot imagine that there was a mistake made in the tabulation insofar as ranking. It’s usually done by computer.
To all the girls, congrats on a great tournament! Thanks to Susan too!
Who should of stood higher in the rankings?
Here is a link to the standings as posted on monroi.com If you look, the listing is not in order of ratings. I think if one girl happens to follow another, it’s coincidence. Here is the link.
http://www.monroi.com/tournamentgate/07USOpen/standingsPD.html
I checked the monroi.com and found out that the listing is in order of rating.
Is possible that tie break number can be posted here in order to for a fair result?
Don’t know what list you’re looking at, but the one I saw was not in rating order. Are you sure you’re looking at the right list?
I think I see what you mean. By total cumulative wins the order falls by top rating to least per grouping of points.
This stands to reason as the higher rated players would have more success against stronger opponents and therefore the better tiebreaks per total point grouping.
It does look odd though, you’d think one of the lower rated players got the better tie breaks.
I remember seeing them after the fifth round. At that point they were all spot on. Louisa was at the top, followed by Julia and I think Julia’s rating is higher than Louisa’s. Just and example of a lower rated player having the better tie breaks.
I don’t know what the tie breaks were in the final round, but it would be pretty easy to figure out from the postings of the preceding round compared the the final results. They don’t typically post them, but I’m sure if a concerned person were to contact the TD or Susan, they’d be happy to provide it.
I haven’t seen Susan post to this comment line yet. Probably a lot to do. Why not inquire with the organizers directly? I’m sure they’d send them to you.
The newly posted results are different from Monroi.com, which means Monroi was definately ordered by rating.
The tie break result from top 32 players was posted this morning. It is BIG different from yesterday’s order.