The use of the RATINGS service. - Page 3 - OzChess

**Iconoclast** · 10-14-2007, 10:14 PM

Yes, the girls is rated.

Funny how quickly he gets onto bait.

He must have OzChess open 24/7. What a pathetic case of OCD.

**Iconoclast** · 10-14-2007, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

So, is the NSWJCL system better? It is certainly cheaper; for them.

Well, our Wollongong Junior Chess Club is absolutely happy with the NSWJCL system. It rates about 1000 games a year for us free. A great service - one well worth paying for! And from our observations, the ratings are pretty close to the each player's ability.

EDIT PS Bill Gletsos REFUSES to use the NSWJCL ratings as a starting point for juniors entering the ACF list.
This is crazy since there is currently available pubished conversion factor in the NSWJCL magazine.

BTW, that mag, put together by Charlse Zworltzine is a cracker, first class. (NSWCA has no magazine.)

**MOZ** · 10-14-2007, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Well, our Wollongong Junior Chess Club is absolutely happy with the NSWJCL system. It rates about 1000 games a year for us free. A great service - one well worth paying for! And from our observations, the ratings are pretty close to the each player's ability.

That is not a very scientific answer Matt. Canterbury Juniors is (equally) happy to use the ACF rapid ratings service.
The question is....So, is the NSWJCL system better? It is certainly cheaper; for them.

EDIT PS Bill Gletsos REFUSES to use the NSWJCL ratings as a starting point for juniors entering the ACF list.
This is crazy since there is currently available published conversion factor in the NSWJCL magazine.

I wonder if he will respond in a thread to this one of yours?

BTW, that mag, put together by Charlse Zworltzine is a cracker, first class. (NSWCA has no magazine.)

Electronic?

**Iconoclast** · 10-15-2007, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by MOZ

Electronic?

It's a stappled glossy with 80 to 120 pages. Fantastic! Such a pity that Charles will have nothing to do with the NSWCA with Gletsos at the helm.

**MOZ** · 10-15-2007, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

It's a stappled glossy with 80 to 120 pages. Fantastic! Such a pity that Charles will have nothing to do with the NSWCA with Gletsos at the helm.

A stapled glossy.

80-120 pages

Can we get a single copy down here so that it may inspire a Mexican editor or two in the junior community?

MOZ

**Just2Good** · 10-16-2007, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Yes, the girls is rated. Funny how quickly he gets onto bait. He must have OzChess open 24/7. What a pathetic case of OCD.

OCD? Need more info.

**Spiny Norman** · 10-18-2007, 03:42 PM

OCD = Obsessive Compulsive Disorder ... I'm borderline myself!

**WhiteElephant** · 10-18-2007, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by frosty

OCD = Obsessive Compulsive Disorder ... I'm borderline myself!

Me too.

Isn't it a prerequisite for playing chess?

**Firegoat7** · 10-18-2007, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by WhiteElephant

Me too. Isn't it a prerequisite for playing chess?

LoL

Me three.

cheers Fg7

**Iconoclast** · 10-18-2007, 09:13 PM

ummm ... errr ... I am reliably told that I am the anthesis of a OCD personality. I (apparently) randomly seek and create disorder.

Disorder is beautiful because at its heart, there are/is some truth/pattern/purpose. The fun is trying to identify the signal in the noise.

**vagrantnomad** · 10-23-2007, 01:20 AM

big read , i dont get it.

dose the rest of the chess playing world have these problems?

**Just2Good** · 10-24-2007, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by vagrantnomad

big read , i dont get it.

dose the rest of the chess playing world have these problems?

Which problem in particular vagrant? I can explain the rating systems to you if you want.

AO

**MOZ** · 12-23-2007, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

That is not a very scientific answer Matt. Canterbury Juniors is (equally) happy to use the ACF rapid ratings service.
The question is....So, is the NSWJCL system better? It is certainly cheaper; for them.

I wonder if he will respond in a thread to this one of yours?

Electronic?

New data

Rapid ratings
December 2007 quarter
Number of calculations to establish new ratings.

Code:

ACT   1513
NSW   1241
QLD    162
SA      400
VIC    3305

Traditional ratings
December 2007 quarter
Number of calculations to establish new ratings.

Code:

ACT    972
NSW  4773
QLD   3972
SA     1056
TAS    624
VIC    3342
WA     846

MOZ*

**Bill Gletsos** · 12-23-2007, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

New data

Rapid ratings
December 2007 quarter
Number of calculations to establish new ratings.
Code:
ACT   1513
NSW   1241
QLD    162
SA      400
VIC    3305
Traditional ratings
December 2007 quarter
Number of calculations to establish new ratings.
Code:
ACT    972
NSW  4773
QLD   3972
SA     1056
TAS    624
VIC    3342
WA     846
MOZ*

As usual your maths calculations are simply wrong.

Now one could forgive you if this was the first time you had made this mistake but I have previously explained to you why they were wrong on more than one occasion when you posted similar figures for earlier periods over on Matt's ACCF board.

e.g. If you are counting games then the figure for VIC for rapid games should be 1330 and if you are counting results it should be 2660. Similarly for QLD rapid the number of games is 72 and the number of results 144. The NSW rapid numbers are 540 and 1080 respectively. As for normal events then VIC figures are 1449 and 2898, QLD 1832 and 3664 and NSW 2236 and 4472 respectively.

Given you have consistently posted incorrect figures whenever you have previously posted these sort of figures then I suggest you refrain from posting them in future.

Having pointed out to you previously the error in your calculations then if in future you continue to post incorrect figures then I can only assume you are doing so to mislead rather than inform.

**MOZ** · 12-24-2007, 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

As usual your maths calculations are simply wrong.

Now one could forgive you if this was the first time you had made this mistake but I have previously explained to you why they were wrong on more than one occasion when you posted similar figures for earlier periods over on Matt's ACCF board.

No doubt you have claimed different figures on other occasions.
To the reader who has no other detail the ACF ratings page advises
QLD
29/10/2007 9 18 2007 The Gap Chess Club Allegro Tournament
which suggests this was a 9 player tournament of 18 rounds. One might presume that each round had a bye and each round had 4 games. That makes 9 events per round to be processed through software. That makes 9*18 events to be processed through the software for the entire tournament to be rated.
9*18 = 162 is the figure I reported.
You prefer (I presume) 8*18 = 144; distinguishing between a calculation and a bye (which I classed as a null-calculation for completeness sake).

e.g. If you are counting games then the figure for VIC for rapid games should be 1330 and if you are counting results it should be 2660. Similarly for QLD rapid the number of games is 72 and the number of results 144. The NSW rapid numbers are 540 and 1080 respectively. As for normal events then VIC figures are 1449 and 2898, QLD 1832 and 3664 and NSW 2236 and 4472 respectively.

Given you have consistently posted incorrect figures whenever you have previously posted these sort of figures then I suggest you refrain from posting them in future.

Yes, I have consistently regarded a bye as null-calculation required to be handled by the software.
I don't have any difficulty with you adopting a metric with a slightly different definition.
No-one else has PM'd me to say that my definition gives them a problem.

Having pointed out to you previously the error in your calculations then if in future you continue to post incorrect figures then I can only assume you are doing so to mislead rather than inform.

I very much doubt that the relativity between States is in any significant way affected by including the small amount of byes in the metric I calculate.
Therefore, given that relativity has been the core of the discussion between Matt and myself, and Frosty and myself, there has been no misleading. If you have evidence, of significant relativity changes by adopting your metric, feel free to publish here.

10-14-2007, 10:19 PM	#32 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by MOZ So, is the NSWJCL system better? It is certainly cheaper; for them. Well, our Wollongong Junior Chess Club is absolutely happy with the NSWJCL system. It rates about 1000 games a year for us free. A great service - one well worth paying for! And from our observations, the ratings are pretty close to the each player's ability. EDIT PS Bill Gletsos REFUSES to use the NSWJCL ratings as a starting point for juniors entering the ACF list. This is crazy since there is currently available pubished conversion factor in the NSWJCL magazine. BTW, that mag, put together by Charlse Zworltzine is a cracker, first class. (NSWCA has no magazine.)

10-14-2007, 10:41 PM	#33 (permalink)
MOZ Volunteer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters. Posts: 3,495	Originally Posted by Iconoclast Well, our Wollongong Junior Chess Club is absolutely happy with the NSWJCL system. It rates about 1000 games a year for us free. A great service - one well worth paying for! And from our observations, the ratings are pretty close to the each player's ability. That is not a very scientific answer Matt. Canterbury Juniors is (equally) happy to use the ACF rapid ratings service. The question is....So, is the NSWJCL system better? It is certainly cheaper; for them. EDIT PS Bill Gletsos REFUSES to use the NSWJCL ratings as a starting point for juniors entering the ACF list. This is crazy since there is currently available published conversion factor in the NSWJCL magazine. I wonder if he will respond in a thread to this one of yours? BTW, that mag, put together by Charlse Zworltzine is a cracker, first class. (NSWCA has no magazine.) Electronic?

10-15-2007, 08:52 AM	#34 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by MOZ Electronic? It's a stappled glossy with 80 to 120 pages. Fantastic! Such a pity that Charles will have nothing to do with the NSWCA with Gletsos at the helm.

10-15-2007, 09:44 AM	#35 (permalink)
MOZ Volunteer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters. Posts: 3,495	I would like to see that. Originally Posted by Iconoclast It's a stappled glossy with 80 to 120 pages. Fantastic! Such a pity that Charles will have nothing to do with the NSWCA with Gletsos at the helm. A stapled glossy. 80-120 pages Can we get a single copy down here so that it may inspire a Mexican editor or two in the junior community? MOZ

10-16-2007, 07:38 PM	#36 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Iconoclast Yes, the girls is rated. Funny how quickly he gets onto bait. He must have OzChess open 24/7. What a pathetic case of OCD. OCD? Need more info. __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

10-14-2007, 10:14 PM	#31 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Yes, the girls is rated. Funny how quickly he gets onto bait. He must have OzChess open 24/7. What a pathetic case of OCD.

10-18-2007, 03:42 PM	#37 (permalink)
Spiny Norman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 224	OCD = Obsessive Compulsive Disorder ... I'm borderline myself!

10-18-2007, 03:59 PM	#38 (permalink)
WhiteElephant Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 98	Originally Posted by frosty OCD = Obsessive Compulsive Disorder ... I'm borderline myself! Me too. Isn't it a prerequisite for playing chess?

10-18-2007, 04:20 PM	#39 (permalink)
Firegoat7 Moderator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Getting owned by White in the Dragon and trying to recover lost positions from shock paralysis OTB Posts: 1,924 ICC Handle: guest	Originally Posted by WhiteElephant Me too. Isn't it a prerequisite for playing chess? LoL Me three. cheers Fg7

10-18-2007, 09:13 PM	#40 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	ummm ... errr ... I am reliably told that I am the anthesis of a OCD personality. I (apparently) randomly seek and create disorder. Disorder is beautiful because at its heart, there are/is some truth/pattern/purpose. The fun is trying to identify the signal in the noise.

10-23-2007, 01:20 AM	#41 (permalink)
vagrantnomad Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: qld at the moment Posts: 272	big read , i dont get it. dose the rest of the chess playing world have these problems?

10-24-2007, 07:42 PM	#42 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by vagrantnomad big read , i dont get it. dose the rest of the chess playing world have these problems? Which problem in particular vagrant? I can explain the rating systems to you if you want. AO __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

12-23-2007, 09:20 PM	#43 (permalink)
MOZ Volunteer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters. Posts: 3,495	Update on volumetric analysis of use of ACF ratings services. Originally Posted by MOZ That is not a very scientific answer Matt. Canterbury Juniors is (equally) happy to use the ACF rapid ratings service. The question is....So, is the NSWJCL system better? It is certainly cheaper; for them. I wonder if he will respond in a thread to this one of yours? Electronic? New data Rapid ratings December 2007 quarter Number of calculations to establish new ratings. Code: ACT 1513 NSW 1241 QLD 162 SA 400 VIC 3305 Traditional ratings December 2007 quarter Number of calculations to establish new ratings. Code: ACT 972 NSW 4773 QLD 3972 SA 1056 TAS 624 VIC 3342 WA 846 MOZ* __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

12-23-2007, 11:39 PM	#44 (permalink)
Bill Gletsos Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 653	Originally Posted by MOZ New data Rapid ratings December 2007 quarter Number of calculations to establish new ratings. Code: ACT 1513 NSW 1241 QLD 162 SA 400 VIC 3305 Traditional ratings December 2007 quarter Number of calculations to establish new ratings. Code: ACT 972 NSW 4773 QLD 3972 SA 1056 TAS 624 VIC 3342 WA 846 MOZ* As usual your maths calculations are simply wrong. Now one could forgive you if this was the first time you had made this mistake but I have previously explained to you why they were wrong on more than one occasion when you posted similar figures for earlier periods over on Matt's ACCF board. e.g. If you are counting games then the figure for VIC for rapid games should be 1330 and if you are counting results it should be 2660. Similarly for QLD rapid the number of games is 72 and the number of results 144. The NSW rapid numbers are 540 and 1080 respectively. As for normal events then VIC figures are 1449 and 2898, QLD 1832 and 3664 and NSW 2236 and 4472 respectively. Given you have consistently posted incorrect figures whenever you have previously posted these sort of figures then I suggest you refrain from posting them in future. Having pointed out to you previously the error in your calculations then if in future you continue to post incorrect figures then I can only assume you are doing so to mislead rather than inform.

12-24-2007, 12:12 AM	#45 (permalink)
MOZ Volunteer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters. Posts: 3,495	Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos As usual your maths calculations are simply wrong. Now one could forgive you if this was the first time you had made this mistake but I have previously explained to you why they were wrong on more than one occasion when you posted similar figures for earlier periods over on Matt's ACCF board. No doubt you have claimed different figures on other occasions. To the reader who has no other detail the ACF ratings page advises QLD 29/10/2007 9 18 2007 The Gap Chess Club Allegro Tournament which suggests this was a 9 player tournament of 18 rounds. One might presume that each round had a bye and each round had 4 games. That makes 9 events per round to be processed through software. That makes 918 events to be processed through the software for the entire tournament to be rated. 918 = 162 is the figure I reported. You prefer (I presume) 818 = 144; distinguishing between a calculation and a bye (which I classed as a null-calculation for completeness sake). e.g. If you are counting games then the figure for VIC for rapid games should be 1330 and if you are counting results it should be 2660. Similarly for QLD rapid the number of games is 72 and the number of results 144. The NSW rapid numbers are 540 and 1080 respectively. As for normal events then VIC figures are 1449 and 2898, QLD 1832 and 3664 and NSW 2236 and 4472 respectively. Given you have consistently posted incorrect figures whenever you have previously posted these sort of figures then I suggest you refrain from posting them in future. Yes, I have consistently regarded a bye as null-calculation required to be handled by the software. I don't have any difficulty with you adopting a metric with a slightly different definition. No-one else has PM'd me to say that my definition gives them a problem. Having pointed out to you previously the error in your calculations then if in future you continue to post incorrect figures then I can only assume you are doing so to mislead rather than inform. I very much doubt that the relativity between States is in any significant way affected by including the small amount of byes in the metric I calculate. Therefore, given that relativity* has been the core of the discussion between Matt and myself, and Frosty and myself, there has been no misleading. If you have evidence, of significant relativity changes by adopting your metric, feel free to publish here. __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game. Last edited by MOZ : 12-24-2007 at 12:14 AM Reason: Deleted incomplete sentence.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: