[CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?

Fri Dec 11 17:19:06 PST 2009

I will be interesting explaining to an outsider about the distance. Instead of 0, 1, 2 and 3 pointers, because after you explain this, by the time you start talking about multipliers, the interest is long gone. "Too complicated"

"I covered half a million kilometers into 120 countries and 37 zones out of forty". It will make more sense in many ways to a newcomer and a second way of measuring performance without harming the object of our passion. Interesting experiment.

A speedometer can be set, just like that: klicks per hour!!! Running at 3 per minunte with EU from zone nine would be 1.620.000 km/hour, roughly 1.000.000 mph...

73

David  
HK1A
EC5KXA
ex-HK1KXA

PS: Better to use kilometers IMO. It's time to switch over :o)

> From: wally at el-soft.com
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:49:09 +0300
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?
> 
> VERY WELL DONE Andrew !
> 
> Better to use 500 miles instead of 1000 miles - will be even more appropriate
> imho.
> 
> Now, we only need to find a volunteer/volunteers to use open logs after
> formal final results are out by CQ and make an alternative TOP SCORES listing
> based on 1pt/Q for each 500 miles covered. 
> Even no need for awarding any plaques or diplomas. I am sure it will be
> sufficiently rewarding for each contester to see his/her call listed in this
> alternative Top Scores list. 
> "Distance Based Top Scores" list should be made by continents ( all of them !
> ), too beside world listings and should be uploaded on-line for everyone to
> see.
> 
> 73, Wally LZ2CJ
> 
> >> CQWW SSB 2008 results in the Single Op Single Band 80M High Power.....
> >>
> >> EA8CMX   476,652   1264   27   105  (Op OH2BYS)
> >> GI0KOW   414,392   2270   26   110
> >>
> >> Can anyone really say it is fair that someone with a much larger QSO
> >> total (almost 80% more) and higher overall mult total should finish
> >> lower in the standings?  I think this is the type of unfair result David
> >> was referring to in the original message in this thread before the focus
> >> got diverted.
> > 
> > Yes, it is fair because EA8 is 2,000 miles further away from Europe than
> GI. 
> > It is called the CQ World-Wide DX Contest so scoring is weighted three
> times 
> > higher for DX contacts. I can almost guarantee that the whole of GI0KOW's 
> > advantage over EA8CMX was in European one-point QSOs. 
> 
> Been busy at work so just got finished analyzing both logs.....
> 
> Yes, I agree, it is a DX contest, so let's throw away the man-made
> arbitrary continental boundaries so there is no controversial one
> point/three point divide and let's score it by distance instead.  It is
> a DX contest after all.
> 
> In theory, that should advantage EA8CMX as most of his contacts are in
> the higher distance category.  I counted the number of stations worked
> in each country in both logs, calculated the distance to the centre of
> each DXCC entity worked in both logs with googleearth, then split them
> into blocks of 0-1000 miles, 1001-2000 miles, 2001-3000 miles etc.  For
> the USA, Canada and Russia I measured to the centre of each zone within
> those respective countries to try to capture the distances more
> accurately in those large land mass countries.
> 
> If you apply 1pt/Q for each 1000 miles, ie 1pt for 0-1000 miles, 2pts
> for 1001-2000 miles, 3pts for 2001-3000 miles etc and continue to use
> country and zone mults, GI0KOW scores 620,024pts and EA8CMX scores
> 596,638pts.
> 
> If you slice the distances into fewer blocks, eg 0-2000 miles, 2001-4000
> miles etc and allocate 1pt for 0-2000 miles, 2pts for 2001-4000 miles
> etc, GI0KOW scores 387,464pts and EA8CMX scores 340,081pts.
> 
> If you reduce the number of blocks further to 0-3000 miles, 3001-6000
> miles etc and score 1pt for 0-3000 miles, 2pts for 3001-6000 miles etc,
> GI0KOW scores 365,704pts and EA8CMX scores 254,695pts (the lower number
> of Q's by EA8CMX starts to weight his score lower here).
> 
> Before anyone says I've used mults to make sure GI0KOW comes out ahead
> as he had a higher number of mults worked, sorry, but even without mults
> his totals are higher than EA8CMX.  The numbers are 4559pts/4486pts when
> using 1pt/1000 miles, 2849pts/2557pts when using 1pt/2000 miles and
> 2689pts/1915pts when using 1pt/3000 miles as above.
> 
> No matter how you score it based on distance, and by your own words this
> is a DX contest, GI0KOW should not have finished second.
> 
> > Yes, we can all bang on about the scoring rules but it isn't going to
> change. 
> 
> Maybe, but there is nothing to stop anyone highlighting the inequalities
> in the scoring.  And, didn't discussions like this lead to the 2pt rule
> in North America?  Never say never!!
> 
> > Live with it or chose to do other contests instead.
> 
> Well, isn't that a constructive comment to the discussion!
> 
> > Most proposals for rule changes are made by the very folks who would
> benefit from 
> > those changes. Funny that!
> 
> Not really, when (if) the solar cycle ever picks up and the higher bands
> start to play again, fair scoring by distance would disadvantage GI
> because it is one of the closest European countries to North America and
> would get lower points for each contact compared to say, Germany.
> 
> This is not about trying to get an advantage, this is about getting the
> logs scored fairly.
> 
> Vy 73,
> 
> Andrew AC6WI / GI0NWG
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online.
http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_1:092010