CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW SSB. Mathematics

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW SSB. Mathematics
From: ct1boh@sapo.pt
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 11:44:11 +0100
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
With claimed scores data from 3830@contesting.com and final scores it is pretty
easy to check the error rate from QSO deduction or (point deduction) and score
reduction.

Looking of the examples pointed out in this e-mail thread:

for CN2R
QSO reduction = 1,0%
Score reduction 3,9%

for K5ZD/1 (op N5RZ)
QSO reduction = 1,5%
Score reduction 6,6%

for D4B
QSO reduction = 3,7%
Score reduction 9,5%

with the current "heavy" penalty for bad QSO ruling that the entrant looses the
QSO point of the bad call + 3 * the QSO point of the bad call, it pays to be
accurate.

73
José Nunes
CT1BOH

Quoting Randy Thompson <k5zd@charter.net>:

> 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
>

___________________________________________________________________

O SAPO já está livre de vírus com a Panda Software, fique você também!
Clique em: http://antivirus.sapo.pt

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>