Lindax wrote:JohnAarson wrote:lanceeee wrote:Hey JohnAarson,
How do you have me behind The Nederlands? We are tied in the division and I beat him head to head.
Lance
Hey there lanceeee. You are correct, the positions are mixed. But don't worry, because: 1) If you notice, the last field - pos(div) - notifies me that you ended the divisional games above The Netherlands with the same points (AKA you won the game between you two). And 2) this is only for 7 played games. I already have it updated in my excel file for the 8th round and in here the mistake is corrected. I will post the update now.
And what about the fact that Denver only played 5 out of 9 games? The other games must have been won by forfeits. That's 4 wins by forfeits, against my to 2 wins by forfeits.
I think I should be in 2nd position.
Lx
Well, not quite. You have won the following games on which your opponent did not show up: Colorado (R4), Boston (R6) and North Korea (R8). Next round you will play Toronto. They are out of the competition. That will make 4 wins without the opponent showing up.
Denver did not play 4 of the games, that's true. But one of those games, it was Denver who did not join, so they lost that one. They won 3 out of those 4 games. And they won 4 out of the other 6 games. In your case, your 3 (soon to be 4) games that did not occur were all a win on your behalf by forfeits. Also, I have reviewed carfully both of your games. In played matches, you have 3 wins and 4 losses. He has 4 wins and 2 losses. And if both of you were tied in points, he would still be ahead, since he won the game between the both of you.
That being said, I'm sorry, but I think the current standings are actually right.
I am very aware that the choice of some players playing more games than others because of forfeits is far from being perfect. However, for me it is the way that seems to be the best, since I don't want to keep adding new people in the middle of tournaments because of some players' inactivity at random times during tournaments.