First, I want to say that I like CQWW. It is my favorite contest. Though
some see my initiation of this discussion as purely selfish only for the
benefit of 6Y1V, those that know me well know this is not the case. As
some have stated, I could more 6Y1V to P4 PJ2 or PJ4 quite easily. In
fact, Krassy has wanted to do so since we built the station.
I am really happy to see this discussion changing from the typical "no
way" attitude to a "what if" attitude.
Making a change in CQWW doesn't necessarily have to come from this
discussion. Perhaps what comes from it is alternative scoring system
solely for the benefit of letting people compare their results against
stations with more favorable locations, perhaps with alternative awards,
or perhaps in the end, we simply develop a brand new contest to be held
on a different date altogether. Who would complain about another major
contest (besides MMSN)?
I like the scoring of a distance based contest. One active contester
wrote to me and stated, "I travel to remote locations because it makes
no sense for me to build a competitive station at home since there is no
chance of winning."
Perhaps, a new contest, with some of the CQWW flare, but based on
distance scoring, could stimulate building competitive home stations (or
even clubs). What could be better for amateur radio? What could be
better for amateur radio manufacturers and dealers?
When I lived in Vermont and Virginia, I was interested in building a
competitive contest station, but I have little interest here in
southwestern Kentucky. That could easily change with a new world wide
contest based on distance, a contest that anyone could win!
The question now becomes, how do we implement such a scoring system? For
example, would it be possible to use a database of grid squares to
calculate the distance between each station in the contest? How could we
calculate long path contacts (almost all 6Y1V Q's on 40m/20m are LP to
VK/ZL)? There has been much talk about eliminating the signal report
from the exchange. In a distance based worldwide contest, the exchange
could be something like
GRID QSO #
----------------------------
K1LZ de 6Y1V FK08XK 1024
6Y1V de K1LZ FN42HG 583
The value of the contact would be the distance between grid square while
the multipliers for countries and/or zones could still be used. In fact,
you could even use a portion of the grid square as a multiplier.
A contest using this type of exchange not only levels the playing field,
it also seperates the best of the best because the exchange is more
difficult and less arbitrary.
Fabian, nice work with the your evaluation. I really appreciate your
participation in this discussion, the work you have done and I sincerely
respect your opinion regarding the tradition of CQWW.
Let the discussion continue!
David ~ KY1V
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jimk8mr@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 9:31 AM
To: mail@fkurz.net; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW contest analysis database
Excellent work!
Pure distance scoring is a great start. I'd like to next see a
distance
based computation for QSO points, while retaining multipliers. It is a
lot
more challenging from here in eastern zone 4 to find and work a BY than
it
is to find another JA. This next step would recognize that.
I'd suggests something like: QSO Points = 1 + (Km / 4000)
(not
an integer value)
The 4000 is somewhat arbitrary, but would give numbers close to 1 point
for
EU to EU qsos, around 3 for typical intercontinental qsos, and
something
approaching 6 for really long qsos to the antipodes. (Same country qsos
remaining at zero points).
Note that Fabian's distance scoring was done without waiting for the
CQWW
committee to wake up to the interest in such a scoring calculation. May
a
thousand flowers bloom!
Meanwhile, I'd like to see the 2008 M/2 distance results. (I was at
PJ2T,
M/2, in 2008 CQWW CW).
73 - Jim K8MR
In a message dated 12/11/2009 9:44:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mail@fkurz.net writes:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 08:02:19PM +0300, wally wrote:
> Now a volunteer with sufficient knowledge in this field can use this
data and
> make "Distance Based Top Scores" listings for CQWW Contests between
2006
-
> 2008.
Only for CQWW CW 2008, which could easily be downloaded from CQWW.com.
The database file advertised earlier here on this reflector was in
some cancerous proprietery format that I could not open.
I just downloaded all CQWW CW 2008 files and analyzed them by the
following simple methodology:
a) For each unique call in all logs, a DXCC was determined by a simple
algorithm based on the CTY.DAT file and saved in a database
b) A matrix with all distances between all known DXCCs was created.
With a total of DXCC^2 entries.
c) Each CQWW CW 2008 log was recalculated by accumulated kilometers
instead if the known CQWW scoring rules.
Here we go, for two interesting categories. The columns denote:
1. Place, calculated by kilometers
2. Distance of all QSOs in km
3. Callsign
4. Actual position in CQWW 2008 results (if easily found in printed
scores)
SINGLE-OP ONE NON-ASSISTED ALL HIGH FIXED
1. 45028774 V47NT 3
2. 40775552 ZS4TX (5.8m pts - not in top ten)
3. 39419835 PZ5TT 4
4. 38693640 8P5A 5
5. 36996791 V31WA 6
6. 35883301 EF8M (1?, DQ)
7. 32314061 ZF2AM (10)
8. 32120589 ZY7C --
9. 32108502 VK2IA ("only" 2.8m points)
10. 31531618 PW2D --
Top ten scorer 3V8BB (YT1AD, 1st) is at 27238661km, just below K1LZ.
CT3NT (CT1BOH) at 29775030km, below JH4UYB and 5H3EE!
MULTI-OP UNLIMITED ASSISTED ALL HIGH FIXED
1. 108586599 HC8N 1 (32m)
2 91206345 3X5A 2 (29m)
3. 55337998 JA5FDJ
4. 53295746 KH7X
5. 53263736 CT9L 3 (23m)
6. 46385052 KC1XX 4 (15m)
7. 46236480 JA3YBK
8. 45277088 K3LR 5 (14m)
9. 43290689 W3LPL
10. 41501754 HD2M
11. 37537522 EE2W (11m)
12. 36885769 LZ9W (12m)
13. 35973796 DF0HQ 6 (13m)
(LZ9W and EE2W are 2nd and 3rd in EU respectively; just opposite to
their positions calculated by the distances!)
Some scores may be missing from the results posted here. The format of
the Cabrillo headers for the categories were often not according to
the standard. Unedited results at http://fkurz.net/ham/scores9.txt
Conclusions? None.
CQWW is the name of the game and everyone knows the rules. They're
fine as they are. I like them. They encourage activities from remote
locations and don't let couch potatoes win.
"Fair" rules in a HF contest for everyone are an illusion. In terms of
pure CW skills, you may get as far as you can get to a fair judgement
if you go to an IARU HST competition. But be prepared to be beaten by
some 14 year old girls from ex-USSR countries. Now is that fair? :-)
73,
--
Fabian Kurz, DJ1YFK * Munich, Germany * http://fkurz.net/ .---.
Learn CW Online: http://lcwo.net/ | | |
_______________________________________________
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
|