The piece of sheet the organizers provide is somewhat undecipherable, emphasizing things like on which table each game should be played on, rather than ease of overviewability.
So I tried to gather all the information in a more standard-like Berger table:
Feel free to re-post the link where anyone interested might see it.
Of course it is not a real Berger table. Anyone noticing Tommy's four white's in a row can tell that immediately. In real Berger-tables nobody can have more than two whites or blacks in a row. But the local arrangers have decided to re-invent the wheel, and construct their own ad-hoc round-robin scheme. Instead of using what have been standard in other parts of the world for decades.
Why not use the standard Berger tables?
Inserting the information to the table and calculate the performance ratings took me an hour at most, so it should not unreasonable to expect the organizers to publish standings in a similar table. Most likely modern tournament software does all this automatically.
The official homepage has of course not even a word about a national championships on it. Instead main news is famous and Important people having visited.
Which should be a warning sign, to losely cite an alleged quote of Margaret Thatcher: Beware when an organization is mostly about who rather than what (they do).