A very interesting question. We have the same thing in the top USA results
between K4ZW and KQ2M.
K4ZW 7,583,034 3867 154 537
KQ2M/1 7,506,464 3864 157 579
If you look at the line score, you wonder how KQ2M could lose with such a
multiplier advantage and same QSOs.
The answer is in how CQ reports the results. The reported score is after
all penalties. The QSOs and multipliers are for valid contacts (before
penalties).
<from ubn>
To see how this works, I looked at the UBN report for K5ZD/1 (op N5RZ).
CALLS COM U+B %U+B 1BN %1BN QPts Zn CTY BScore FileName
----- --- --- ---- --- ---- ---- -- --- ------ --------
47 46 1 2.1 1 2.1 112 12 30 4704 K5ZD.161
358 354 4 1.1 7 2.0 1016 17 72 90424 K5ZD.81
280 275 5 1.8 9 3.2 809 24 84 87372 K5ZD.41
1120 1096 24 2.1 28 2.5 3238 34 125 514842 K5ZD.21
1331 1296 35 2.6 37 2.8 3909 31 114 566805 K5ZD.16
812 797 15 1.8 19 2.3 2372 25 100 296500 K5ZD.11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
$ 3948 3864 84 2.1 101 2.6 11456 143 525 7652608 K5ZD.ALL
Score totals with NIL and Bad call penalties factored in are shown below.
Four times the expected QSO-point credit, plus multiplier credit, was
removed for all "-B" or "-N" callsigns listed above. No credit is lost
for "N" or "U" calls.
46 100 12 29 4100 K5ZD.161
355 980 16 70 84280 K5ZD.81
275 765 24 82 81090 K5ZD.41
1107 3110 34 125 494490 K5ZD.21
1304 3601 31 114 522145 K5ZD.16
801 2240 25 100 280000 K5ZD.11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
& 3888 10796 142 520 7146952 K5ZD.ALL
</ubn>
The first table is the raw submitted score. The second table is after
reductions and penalties. The final line of the ubn report matches perfectly
with the score reported in the magazine.
K5ZD/1 7,146,952 3888 142 520
So, the error rate of the each participant is hidden by the way the scores
are reported, but the final score is correct. I think it is good they
report the scores this way. It accurately shows the number of contacts you
made and received credit for. The penalty is just that, a punishment on
your final score. It would be nice (and very interesting) if they also
reported the error rate (as the Russian DX Contest does).
Randy, K5ZD
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Nodir
> M. Tursoon-Zadeh
> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 5:49 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW SSB. Mathematics
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I am very curious how final results in CQ WW SSB were calculated.
>
> Jim CN2R and Al D4B showed incredible results. My
> congratulations for both of them!
>
> But what I see from results
>
> CN2R 8655 172 668 20,938,680
> D4B 8799 172 674 20,433,438
>
> D4B has more QSO's, more MULTS. Results is less than CN2R for
> about 500K.
>
> They are both in Africa and it is hard to presume that D4B
> worked much more other 1-point Africans. I know that Al
> worked 174 stations from AF and Jim about 50 less.
>
> I can't see where my mistake could be in my calculations. Any ideas?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Nodir Tursoon-Zadeh, EY8MM
> http://www.qsl.net/ey8mm
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|