[CQ-Contest] IARU HQ stations - final results question

Thu Jan 15 01:43:51 EST 2004

Important are qso's and multi's
the rest with zone's are big big mistake in the rules.
Just my opinion.
best regards & 73's
Joe SP9P

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kharker at cs.utexas.edu>
To: "SP5UAF" <tomek at sp5zcc.waw.pl>
Cc: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] IARU HQ stations - final results question

>      Along the same lines, the initial results for the 2002 IARU HF World
> Championship scored W1AW/5 wrong.  The QSO points for W1AW/5 were computed
> as if the station were in ITU zone 8 (which is where W1AW actually is) but
> the W1AW/5 operation took place entirely in ITU zone 7 (central Texas,
> to be specific) which made a BIG difference in the final score, as W1AW/5
> worked a lot more zone 8 stations than it worked zone 7 stations.
>
>      Now, if an HQ station happens to operate from multiple ITU zones
> or even continents (which has happened,) the score computation is even
> more complicated, and more likely to be erroneously reported - especially
> if the HQ station doesn't make a real effort to communicate the unusual
> situation to the log checkers.  Hopefully, in a few more years of computer
> log checking with this contest, most of these special cases with the
> HQ stations will have been accounted for in the process.  Or, maybe we
> should just get rid of HQ stations and all the silliness therein, and
> make the contest results easier to generate :-)
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 07:34:03PM +0100, SP5UAF wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Thanks to ARRL we already know the top scores of Single-Op and
> > Multi-Op stations as well as complete results of HQ stations in the
> > IARU HF 2003.
> > Well, we all know that usually final scores are reduced comparing to
> > claimed scores. No wonder, we all make mistakes receiving or typing
> > callsigns, serial numbers etc.
> >
> > But claimed and final scores can be surprising. Claimed scores were as
> > follows for IARU HF 2003 (top ten):
> > Call                 QSOs     Mult    hr  Score
> >                  CW     SSB
> > R7HQ                 16701     423        22,317,903
> > DA0HQ                19085     473    24  17,869,467
> > GB5HQ             6400  6487   448    24  17,074,624
> > TM0HQ             5873  6153   434    24  16,816,198
> > OL3HQ             5123  5677   428    24  15,807,324
> > SN0HQ             7809  7874   456    24  15,752,520
> > IU2HQ             5375  5633   443    24  13,300,189
> > YT0HQ             5648  5429   445    24  13,070,095
> > S50HQ             5054  4901   448    24  12,433,792
> > PA6HQ             4834  4540   406    24  11,646,110
> > SK9HQ             2234  1767   327    24   4,140,147
> >
> > And we have the following final scores (top 13) from the ARRL page
> > (http://www.arrl.org/contests/results/2003/IARU.pdf)
> > R7HQ            20,817,380
> > IUxHQ           17,824,836
> > DA0HQ           16,507,800
> > GB5HQ           15,705,914
> > TM0HQ           15,394,425
> > SN0HQ           14,483,480
> > EM5HQ           13,425,363
> > 9A0HQ           13,085,082
> > YT0HQ           11,662,121
> > S50HQ           11,311,048
> > OL3HQ           11,254,590
> > OH2HQ           10,880,332
> > PA6HQ           10,689,448
> >
> > It's a pity we do not know multiplier and points data details of the
> > final results. But we can see two big differences in claimed/final
> > scores.
> >
> > The first one is OL3HQ. Their claimed score was much bigger then the
> > final one. I think that they made a mistake in the claimed score.
> > Perhaps by mistake the "15" WAZ zone number was input in the log
> > instead of "28" (ITU zone). It could make such a difference in the
> > result.
> >
> > The second situation is with IUxHQ. Final score is about 4,5 milion
> > points better to claimed score. Perhaps Italian HQ operators lost
> > about 2.000 contacts in their claimed score. I think such a difference
> > in the QSO number can produce about 4,5 mln points in the final score.
> > Maybe we will be able to see the complete data (QSOs, QSO points,
> > multiplier) soon after the complete results are published. But perhaps
> > in the meantime someone from the Italian HQ team can give us some
> > light in the subject.
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> > 73
> > Tom
> > SP5UAF
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >     The world's top contesters battle it out in Finland!
> > THE OFFICIAL FILM of WRTC 2002 now on professional DVD and VHS!
> >        http://home1.pacific.net.sg/~jamesb/
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> -- 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> Kenneth E. Harker      "Vox Clamantis in Deserto"
kharker at cs.utexas.edu
> University of Texas at Austin                   Amateur Radio Callsign:
WM5R
> Department of the Computer Sciences          Central Texas DX & Contest
Club
> Taylor Hall TAY 2.124                         Maintainer of Linux on
Laptops
> Austin, TX 78712-1188 USA
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/kharker/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>     The world's top contesters battle it out in Finland!
> THE OFFICIAL FILM of WRTC 2002 now on professional DVD and VHS!
>        http://home1.pacific.net.sg/~jamesb/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>