A Time-Odds Blitz Tournament
| P. | D. | G. | W. | Final score | |
| Prokhov | xx | 0,0 | 0,0 | 1,0 | 1 |
| (5/5) | (4/6) | (2/8) | |||
| Donohoe | 1,1 | xx | 0,1 | 1,1 | 5 |
| (5/5) | (5/5) | (3/7) | |||
| Gologorsky | 1,1 | 1,0 | xx | 1,1 | 5 |
| (6/4) | (5/5) | (3/7) | |||
| Wilkins | 0,1 | 0,0 | 0,0 | xx | 1 |
| (8/2) | (7/3) | (7/3) |
DELAY vs. NO DELAY:
A 2 second delay was used in these games, because that's the way that it was done in the past.
Since this format's purpose is to equalize each player's chances of winning by putting the higher rated ones in time pressure, it might make sense to *not* allow them the game-prolonging delay.
QUICK vs. STANDARD:
The players are listed by rating, highest at the top.
The first number inside the parentheses is the minutes that the player in that row had in each game against that opponent.
'Standard' ratings were used here, not 'quick' ones.
The 'quick' ratings of all four of the players were lower than their 'standard' ratings.
The youngest players had larger gaps between their 'quick' and 'standard' ratings than the older players..
This is just a theory, but that last point could be because those players are in a rapidly improving phase, and because there are fewer 'quick' rated events than 'standard' ones their 'quick' ratings are lagging behind. This makes their 'quick' ratings more inaccurate than their 'standard' ones.
For a practical example, if 'quick' ratings had been used instead, Ms. Gologorsky would have received an additional 1 minute in her favor in every one of her games, and Mr. Donohoe would have had the benefit of an extra minute in his games against Dr. Prokhov.
Please send any comments can be sent to p*c*c*info@pittsburgh*c*c.org