Carnie: Congratulations, but your opponent could have tried something like 171.- K4b3 winning after 172. Kc1 with any king to c2 or after 172. Ka1 with any king to b2 ;-)

Czuch: First you may try to download the file again. Please compare the file sizes, the one which is shown during the download, and the one of the file on your computer after the download has finished. If the size of the downloaded file is less than the predicted size, then the file wasn't downloaded completely and thus can't be opened. If this happens more than once you may try to create the zip file again. If this doesn't help as well then I don't know either... Probably Fencer could check whether the zip file on the server is OK?

Pedro Martínez: Well, not really :) PGN files are just plain text files and can be opened with any text editor, like Notepad on Windows.

Czuch: You have to have a program which is able to open zip files, like Winrar for Windows.

Even if you already have a zip program on your computer, there may be a problem with the download. From time to time I'm not able to download the zip files completely, which also produces an error message that the file can't be opened. You may try to create the zip file again or you may ask Fencer...

rabbitoid: Yes, it is really no fun anymore to look for new tournaments when all the interesting ones are buried under dozens of duplicates with the very same parameters and the very same starting date. If there is no admin or moderator available who could approach her and make her stop this nonsense, then in my opinion there should be at least an automated task which deletes those duplicates, probably already at creation.

Fencer: Always Look On the Bright Side of Life :-)

Fencer: I still have problems to see the sense behind this regulation. It may be useful in games where luck is more relevant, but for chesslike games it's at least unusual. Who would have said that Fischer beat Taimanov, Larsen, Petrosian and Spassky 1:0 each, and would it have been fair to rate it this way instead of his actual 6:0, 6:0, 6,5:2,5 and 12,5:8,5?

In my eyes there are two major reasons against the current handling of matches:

1) The new rating doesn't reflect the performances of the players properly. ELO-calculation is based on the difference between the expected score (determined by the ELO-difference between the two players) and the actual score of the game(s). So if I win my match by 4:0 against a an even-rated opponent, my score is two points above my expectation, but if it's rated as one game it's only 0,5 above the expectation. If my opponents rating and my own would be 2100 each, then according to http://www.kosteniuk.com/EloCalc/uscf.php my rating would go up by 31 in case of a 4:0 and only 8 in case of a 1:0.

2) The game statistics of players who mostly play matches hardly have any significance. If a player has won two matches by 10:9, he still appears to be unbeaten, although he already has lost 18 games, and he appears to have played only two games yet, although he would have obtained an established rating if he had played 38 single games instead of two matches. Maybe this problem could be solved by a separate match statistics page?

Fencer: yes, I'm sure :) At least the message 4462156 said so:

[quote]
Du bist der Sieger!

kleineme: Alte BKR. = 2150, Neuer BKR = 2152 (+2)
Salkkuman: Alte BKR. = 1835, Neuer BKR = 1827 (-8)

Spielart: Chinesisches Schach
Turnier: Cup with 4 people- everything is on list
[/quote]

And, yes, it was a 1-win-match.

Fencer: then why has this game been rated: GameID 1491644 ?