We also have two explanations of this anomaly, one given by
Mohammed (MH) and another given by CJ, after being challenged by Harry Malcolm.
MH claims that if a single error, in recording the result of
game 10 between him and Lina Camilleri (LC), is properly corrected by reversing
the scores of 382/276, the outcome would be LC winning third place by a total margin
of 378.
CJ claimed that another error cropped up later, which is a
second error recording the result of game 6 between LC and Eileen Mills (EM). A
win by LC in version 1 was corrected by reversing the scores. So instead of LC
winning by 8 points, she lost to EM by that much.
Without any further documentation or much ado, the smoking
gun becomes clear: If LC lost to EM by only 8 points, and won against MH by the
huge margin of 106 points, how can you explain her total margin in version I
being identical to her total margin in version 2? Also, the only correction
applied to EM results is a reversal of her score against LC, which involved a
margin of 8 points only. How could you explain the total margin of EM leaping
from 79 in version 1 to 109 in version 2? There has to be a series of
corrections applied to version 1 in order to produce version 2. You don’t have
to be a mathematician to come to this conclusion.
Version 1 of results published on Ozscrabble:
W
M Old
Chg New
1 9 +670 Gillian Renwick 974
+56 1030
2
8 +303 Elize
Plaganyi 803 +67 870
3
7 +320 Norma Engel 911
+24 935
4
6 +362 Lina Camilleri 802
+20 822
5
6 +95 Gayle Cameron 810
+10 820
6
6 -11 Carole Eden 874
+12 886
7
6 -92 Brian Rowe (589) (731)
8 5 +105 Angie Winkler 565
+35 600
9 5 +79 Eileen
Mills 768 +8 776
10 5 - 49 Mohammed Hegazi 943 -24 919
11
5 -115 Ann Goodwin 792
-9 783
12
5 -134 Gianna Devcic 906
-17 889
13 4
+290 Irlande Alfred
971 -58 913
14
4 +67 Marisa Nuccitelli 770 -27 743
15
3.5 -257 Judith Westwood 762 -29 733
16
3 -444 Mary Mackie 594 -12 582
17 2.5 -402
Balada Catanchin 632 -31 601
18
0 -787 *Trudy Kennedy
( 500)
Version 2 of results accepted and recorded as final
Rank
|
Player
|
Wins
|
Margin
|
Rating
change
|
||
1
|
9
|
670
|
974
|
+5
|
1030
|
|
2
|
8
|
303
|
803
|
+6
|
870
|
|
3
|
7
|
320
|
911
|
+2
|
935
|
|
4
|
6
|
362
|
802
|
+2
|
822
|
|
5
|
6
|
109
|
768
|
+2
|
796
|
|
6
|
6
|
95
|
810
|
+1
|
820
|
|
7
|
6
|
-11
|
874
|
+1
|
886
|
|
8
|
6
|
-92
|
589
|
)
|
731
|
|
9
|
5
|
105
|
565
|
+3
|
600
|
|
10
|
5
|
-115
|
792
|
-
|
783
|
|
11
|
5
|
-134
|
906
|
-1
|
889
|
|
12
|
4
|
290
|
971
|
-5
|
913
|
|
13
|
4
|
67
|
770
|
-2
|
743
|
|
14
|
4
|
-79
|
943
|
-4
|
899
|
|
15
|
3.5
|
-257
|
762
|
-2
|
733
|
|
16
|
3
|
-444
|
594
|
-1
|
583
|
|
17
|
2.5
|
-402
|
632
|
-3
|
601
|
|
18
|
0
|
-787
|
|
|
500
|
Final accepted results of Lina Camilleri
Round
|
Opponent
|
Scores
|
Margin
|
Wins
|
Cum. Margin
|
|||
394
|
264
|
130
|
1
|
130
|
||||
380
|
295
|
85
|
2
|
215
|
||||
326
|
385
|
-59
|
2
|
156
|
||||
423
|
294
|
129
|
3
|
285
|
||||
295
|
367
|
-72
|
3
|
213
|
||||
316
|
324
|
-8
|
3
|
205
|
||||
270
|
320
|
-50
|
3
|
155
|
||||
407
|
329
|
78
|
4
|
233
|
||||
367
|
344
|
23
|
5
|
256
|
||||
382
|
276
|
106
|
6
|
362
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Final accepted results of Eileen Mills
Round
|
Opponent
|
Scores
|
Margin
|
Wins
|
Cum. Margin
|
|||
343
|
387
|
-44
|
0
|
-44
|
||||
394
|
332
|
62
|
1
|
18
|
||||
378
|
335
|
43
|
2
|
61
|
||||
405
|
298
|
107
|
3
|
168
|
||||
338
|
421
|
-83
|
3
|
85
|
||||
324
|
316
|
8
|
4
|
93
|
||||
278
|
356
|
-78
|
4
|
15
|
||||
366
|
397
|
-31
|
4
|
-16
|
||||
336
|
321
|
15
|
5
|
-1
|
||||
381
|
271
|
110
|
6
|
109
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Final accepted results of Mohammed Hegazi
Round
|
Opponent
|
Scores
|
Margin
|
Wins
|
Cum. Margin
|
|||
410
|
387
|
23
|
1
|
23
|
||||
340
|
296
|
44
|
2
|
67
|
||||
317
|
381
|
-64
|
2
|
3
|
||||
321
|
291
|
30
|
3
|
33
|
||||
289
|
330
|
-41
|
3
|
-8
|
||||
417
|
293
|
124
|
4
|
116
|
||||
353
|
399
|
-46
|
4
|
70
|
||||
358
|
386
|
-28
|
4
|
42
|
||||
321
|
336
|
-15
|
4
|
27
|
||||
276
|
382
|
-106
|
4
|
-79
|
No comments:
Post a Comment