Talk:Sonneborn–Berger score

Old talk

I scratched my head a bit over where to put this article. I think it's fair to say that the system is normally called "Sonneborn-Berger", so one could argue that it should be at Sonneborn-Berger score (which for now I have made redirect to here); certainly, this would fit in with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). The problem is that one day we might want to have an article on the system Sonneborn and Berger actually proposed, and that could only really go at Sonneborn-Berger score. This is the reason why I've decided to follow the Oxford Companion to Chess's lead and place this article here, at Neustadtl score. If somebody disagrees with my reasoning and wants to move it to Sonneborn-Berger score, then I won't argue--it was a pretty tight call, to be honest.

Incidentally, if somebody could check I've got my sums right in the crosstable, it'd be much appreciated. --Camembert 19:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not think the matter of putting the article under either name is important. What I miss is information on what was the actual system proposed by Sonnenborn and Berger. If you write the article on it I will appreciate it very much. Best regards. Well done. --alfanje 20:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The actual S-B was orignally a modification of this system. See tie-break systems. Bubba73 (talk), 17:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alfanje. The article says "strong critics of the system; they proposed their own tie-breaking system which was never popular and is not used today" which makes a curious reader wonder: What were the criticisms, what was their own system, why was it not favoured and how did their name get to override Neustadtl's? Personally (as a backgammon TD), I'd like more information about whether I should be honouring Neustadtl or is S.B. such a common term that I shouldn't concern myself. ;-) Ferdinangus (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarity for outsiders

I think this article isn't entirely clear for outsiders. I play chess quite often myself and have an above average interest in it, but I still don't completely get how the tiebreaker score is calculated. I guess what lacks is an explanation of what a conventional score is. Jellevc (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's explained more clearly on this page: http://www.chess.com/tournaments/help.html (about halfway through the page) Jellevc (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, "conventional scores" needs to be defined. This page should show an example calculation. When I apply the formula for Sloth I get 74.5, not 69.5. I took the scores in the penultimate column to mean the "conventional scores". I can only conclude that the scores in the penultimate column are not what is meant by "conventional scores".Rvanden (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Calculations seem to work for all players except Kletsel, where I get 47.75 points instead of the 53.5 shown. As well, the table posted at the ICCF's website does not note the SB score. A table detailing the full calculation would be quite useful here.Raellerby (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I get 47.75 also - I'll change it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

S-B vs. Neustadtl

The Oxford Companion to Chess, in the "Neustadtl" entry says "...now widely used for tie-breaking ... usually called the S-B score". But under S-B, it says "...although the name [S-B] has erroneously been transferred to the ... Neustadtl score". This is confusing to me. The Companion usually doesn't have two entries for different names for the same thing. It sounds to me that the Neustadtl is now called S-B in error. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I was just thinking that this article doesn't make any sense here. If it's a "misnomer" to call it S-B score and it has an alternate name, it should be at Neustadtl score. Even though WP suggests things be under their most common name, it's a guideline, not a policy, and should be applied with a certain amount of common sense. 174.57.199.184 (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)