Tata Steel Chess 2018
Tata Steel Chess 2018
@ThomasJEvans, can you explain me the difference between =IF(x=y,1,0) and =IF(OR(x=y),1,0)? 
Edit: And, would you check for possible new players in the last leg of TPG2017 and add them? 
Thank you!
I presume you're looking at this type of formula:
=IF(OR(F2=X2,F2=Y2,F2=Z2),5,0)
The OR formula is a Boolean case that returns True or False. Iirc, you used something like:
=IF(F2=X2,5,0)+IF(F2=Y2,5,0)+IF(F2=Z2,5,0)
before I suggested the OR formula.
Instead of having them as 3 separate IF statements when only one of them can be correct (as X2, Y2 and Z2 all have different values), the OR checks all 3 to see if at least one is true.
So the difference in your two cases is nothing because it does the same thing when there is only one case, but when you want multiple cases to award points, the OR formula is simpler as you can put them all into one formula.
Also, because of the picks, it is impossible for anyone except @MSC157 and @NewArdweaden to win overall. I also think @macer75 can overtake me for 3rd place if results go his way.
EDIT: We've had exactly 400 participants this year across all of the tournaments!
Enjoying Kramnik's game, MSC?
Enjoying Kramnik's game, MSC?
^^
Hoping Yifan Hou will play 1.f3 soon and complain about "too many strong players".
Drawn according to tablebases.
Oh, and I figured it out now, Thomas.
Meanwhile, we should not forget to mention him, @ThomasJEvans, for his outstanding "logical" work on spreadsheets Without him, I doubt I'd manage to figure out how to make those awesome spreadsheets. Thank you!
An interesting stat - for the GER scoring, I think there will be an interesting battle for 3rd. @macer75 and @NewArdweaden guessed the same numbers of decisive games, but the difference between those two is incredibly small and unique scoring system allows them to change places.
Macer missed one event, so he has a worse "reduction factor", but predicted much more accurately in those remaining to NewArd. So, if they both predict accurately this time around, too, Macer will prevail, however, in case of a bad score, NewArd may win by a thousandth of a point.
Thomas, do you think it would be possible to make a fun (temporary) spreadsheet "GCM2", where you could share points on event among points scorers. For example, current scoring system is 10-6-4-3-2-1, so, if there are 10 winners, everyone would "only" get (10+6+4+...)/10=2.60 pts 
Or 3 winners and 3 4th placers, and winners get 6.67 pts and 4th placers 2 pts
Thomas, do you think it would be possible to make a fun (temporary) spreadsheet "GCM2", where you could share points on event among points scorers. For example, current scoring system is 10-6-4-3-2-1, so, if there are 10 winners, everyone would "only" get (10+6+4+...)/10=2.60 pts
Or 3 winners and 3 4th placers, and winners get 6.67 pts and 4th placers 2 pts
Is it possible? Yes.
Can I do it? Not so sure. But at some point I will try (I think I have an idea how to do it that's easily adaptable to different score systems).
It all goes back to that retarded entry of mine for the world cup where all the top guys got 62+ points and I got 17...
Btw is a lower score a better score in GER?
It all goes back to that retarded entry of mine for the world cup where all the top guys got 62+ points and I got 17...
Btw is a lower score a better score in GER?
Though, for GER, you still wouldn't overtake me, despite getting all correct at World Cup entry.
And yes, lower score in the spreadsheet is better - these are actually percentages you were off of correct result out of all games (did I say it correctly?).
So, there are 20 games played, you predict 8 decisive, 10 is correct, so your GER score for the event is 2/20 = 10.0.
But, the overall score should be as high as possible.
Found a way to do it Good luck understanding the formula
I understand where you picked up the numbers and roughly why, but that's enough, haha Bravo!
@NewArdweaden, basically, for one event, you have this formula in a cell:
But a total GER score is calculated like this:
Had I missed world cup, my GER would be 99.517
Just a reminder to everyone:
In the Challenger podium section, I'll accept every player that is tied for 1st, 2nd or 3rd. For example, if we have clear 1st and 2nd and three players tied for 3rd, you get points for any of those 5 players (I'll check if that was the case in other tourneys, but I think it was).
As for the Masters, I only accept the official winner(s?).
Just a reminder to everyone:
In the Challenger podium section, I'll accept every player that is tied for 1st, 2nd or 3rd. For example, if we have clear 1st and 2nd and three players tied for 3rd, you get points for any of those 5 players (I'll check if that was the case in other tourneys, but I think it was).
As for the Masters, I only accept the official winner(s?).
When did you make up this rule?
I was doing some research to see what I should put for decisive games, and I noticed that for some reason the tournament since 2016 has become significantly more drawish than it was in the past. Just take a look at the crosstables for 2016 and 2015:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Steel_Chess_Tournament
I'm not sure how to explain the change, seeing as the rating distributions of the players invited seem pretty consistent. It just seems that in some years the top players destroy the 2600s and underperforming 2700s, and in other years they don't.