[CQ-Contest] CQ WW SSB. Mathematics

[ct1boh@sapo.pt]

With claimed scores data from 3830 at 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 at 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 at contesting.com
> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Nodir
> > M. Tursoon-Zadeh
> > Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 5:49 PM
> > To: cq-contest at 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 at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at 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