The use of the RATINGS service. - OzChess

**MOZ** · 09-24-2007, 09:30 AM

Matt

You asked if any threads from ACCF should be transplanted here.
I have updated
http://p067.ezboard.com/faustralianc...art=51&stop=75
and it makes for interesting reading.

regards
MOZ

**Just2Good** · 09-24-2007, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

Matt

You asked if any threads from ACCF should be transplanted here.
I have updated
http://p067.ezboard.com/faustralianc...art=51&stop=75
and it makes for interesting reading.

regards
MOZ

A very good choice MOZ.

I can replicate the thread here in a better fashion that linking on it if you like. I think it would be a good idea, what do you think?

AO

**MOZ** · 09-24-2007, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

A very good choice MOZ.

I can replicate the thread here in a better fashion that linking on it if you like. I think it would be a good idea, what do you think?

AO

I think we might just use this thread, and see if (Egor in particular) can explain why NSWJCL dont seem to use the official ACF rapid-ratings system. Is this a vote of no-confidence in the official system?

Also, eventually, some ACF officer may want to address the trial that cost them $2500 but seemed to achieve little; but I think they are trying to bury that.

tks
MOZ

**Egor** · 09-25-2007, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by MOZ

I think we might just use this thread, and see if (Egor in particular) can explain why NSWJCL dont seem to use the official ACF rapid-ratings system.

I have no idea why the NSWJCL uses it's own rating system. However, I know the current president of the NSWJCL fairly well, so I'll ask him. I must warn you, based on past experience, that I may not get an answer.

**Egor** · 09-25-2007, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by MOZ

Also, eventually, some ACF officer may want to address the trial that cost them $2500 but seemed to achieve little; but I think they are trying to bury that.

Are you talking about the free rating of rapid events?

**MOZ** · 09-25-2007, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by Egor

Are you talking about the free rating of rapid events?

Egor

To express it accurately
>
I am talking about the 1-year moratorium by the ACF on their fee (levied on States) to rate rapid games.

That moratorium has finished. It was a trial. It is reputed to have cost $2500.

MOZ

**Gendo Ikari** · 09-25-2007, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by MOZ

I think we might just use this thread, and see if (Egor in particular) can explain why NSWJCL dont seem to use the official ACF rapid-ratings system. Is this a vote of no-confidence in the official system?

Also, eventually, some ACF officer may want to address the trial that cost them $2500 but seemed to achieve little; but I think they are trying to bury that.

tks
MOZ

When the ACF trialled having no ratings fees on the ACF rapid ratings only QLD took advantage of this to rate a large number of tournaments, thus it was discontinued and QLD events have gone back to submitting junior events only to QLD Junior ratings.

Why NSW did not support the ACF rapid ratings system is a mystery to me. As I understand it, Chess Victoria had a large rapid rating fee that nullified any cost-saving measures brought about by the ACF fees being lifted. All it seems to say is that no state outside of QLD supported the system and if another trial were to be reintroduced in the future it would require more support from most states.

**MOZ** · 09-25-2007, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Gendo Ikari

When the ACF trialled having no ratings fees on the ACF rapid ratings only QLD took advantage of this to rate a large number of tournaments, thus it was discontinued and QLD events have gone back to submitting junior events only to QLD Junior ratings.

Why NSW did not support the ACF rapid ratings system is a mystery to me. As I understand it, Chess Victoria had a large rapid rating fee that nullified any cost-saving measures brought about by the ACF fees being lifted. All it seems to say is that no state outside of QLD supported the system and if another trial were to be reintroduced in the future it would require more support from most states.

hi Gendo

I invite you to examine this link and you will see that Chess Victoria handsomely supports the rapid-rating service provided by the ACF.

If you agree that this is a reasonable view of the data then we could move to the next question...why such a small use of the service made by NSW and QLD.

regards
MOZ

If link above does not work, try,
http://www.auschess.org.au/ratings/sep07/raptour.txt

**Just2Good** · 09-25-2007, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

Also, eventually, some ACF officer may want to address the trial that cost them $2500 but seemed to achieve little; but I think they are trying to bury that.

I have been told that the idea originated with Graeme Gardiner. That's alright by me as I understand Graeme's business is heavily dependent upon chess juniors and by cutting the rating fee he could hold more rapid tournaments which were particularly popular with juniors, thus cutting an additional business expense.

So I can see why he was a proponent of it. What I can't understand is what was in it for the ACF or why they decided to proceed with it. I have also been told that it was put to a vote which narrowly passed to trial it for a year.

**Gendo Ikari** · 09-26-2007, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by MOZ

hi Gendo

I invite you to examine this link and you will see that Chess Victoria handsomely supports the rapid-rating service provided by the ACF.

If you agree that this is a reasonable view of the data then we could move to the next question...why such a small use of the service made by NSW and QLD.

regards
MOZ

Yes I see Victoria have submitted quite a few events lately. I don't think the submissions were nearly as prevalent last year. As for QLD this year, I believe the primary organiser of junior tournaments saw no reason to incur further cost when events could be submitted for junior rating rather than to a national system not supported by NSW (and seemingly only recently by VIC).

Spiny Norman · 09-26-2007, 04:33 PM

Gendo, as I believe I mused in another place and at another time, I perceived a major problem with the trial from a VIC perspective to be:

1) that the ACF reduced its fees, but it took VIC some considerable time after that (my recollection is around 8 or 10 months?) before it adjusted its fees downwards

2) that by the time more tournaments were ready to start coming in from VIC, the ACF was already abandoning its experiment, meaning that CV were left high-n-dry charging a lower fee to VIC clubs, but then getting hit again with higher fees by the ACF

Perhaps someone in VIC might move a motion at a forthcoming AGM to give the CV Executive the power to increase/decrease published fees in line with and proportionally with increases in their costs (e.g. ACF costs charged to CV). Its ridiculous that CV can set a fee around NOV at their AGM, the ACF can increase costs to CV, but CV is unable to respond (increase or decrease) until the next AGM, unless a special general meeting is called? It ought to be as simple as sending a letter to the club presidents to say "such-and-such is now costing us more, so from X-date the rating fee will be $Y, and if you're unhappy you can have it addressed at the next AGM".

MOZ, incidentally, your link should have been: http://www.auschess.org.au/ratings/sep07/raptour.txt

**MOZ** · 09-26-2007, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by frosty

....
MOZ, incidentally, your link should have been: http://www.auschess.org.au/ratings/sep07/raptour.txt

The original link worked for me Steve, But I will go back and add yours as an edit addition.

tks
T

**Just2Good** · 09-26-2007, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by frosty

Gendo, as I believe I mused in another place and at another time, I perceived a major problem with the trial from a VIC perspective to be:

1) that the ACF reduced its fees, but it took VIC some considerable time after that (my recollection is around 8 or 10 months?) before it adjusted its fees downards

2) that by the time more tournaments were ready to start coming in from VIC, the ACF was already abandoning its experiment, meaning that CV were left high-n-dry charging a lower fee to VIC clubs, but then getting hit again with higher fees by the ACF

Perhaps someone in VIC might move a motion at a forthcoming AGM to give the CV Executive the power to increase/decrease published fees in line with and proportionally with increases in their costs (e.g. ACF costs charged to CV). Its ridiculous that CV can set a fee around NOV at their AGM, the ACF can increase costs to CV, but CV is unable to respond (increase or decrease) until the next AGM, unless a special general meeting is called? It ought to be as simple as sending a letter to the club presidents to say "such-and-such is now costing us more, so from X-date the rating fee will be $Y, and if you're unhappy you can have it addressed at the next AGM".

MOZ, incidentally, your link should have been: http://www.auschess.org.au/ratings/sep07/raptour.txt

Hi Frosty

I am not sure exactly what you are saying. Are you saying that because Chess Victoria was slow to pass on the reduced rating fee that the trial period of one year that the ACF put in place should have been extended for Victoria?

AO

**MOZ** · 09-26-2007, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by frosty

Gendo, as I believe I mused in another place and at another time, I perceived a major problem with the trial from a VIC perspective to be:

1) that the ACF reduced its fees, but it took VIC some considerable time after that (my recollection is around 8 or 10 months?) before it adjusted its fees downards

2) that by the time more tournaments were ready to start coming in from VIC, the ACF was already abandoning its experiment, meaning that CV were left high-n-dry charging a lower fee to VIC clubs, but then getting hit again with higher fees by the ACF

Perhaps someone in VIC might move a motion at a forthcoming AGM to give the CV Executive the power to increase/decrease published fees in line with and proportionally with increases in their costs (e.g. ACF costs charged to CV). Its ridiculous that CV can set a fee around NOV at their AGM, the ACF can increase costs to CV, but CV is unable to respond (increase or decrease) until the next AGM, unless a special general meeting is called? It ought to be as simple as sending a letter to the club presidents to say "such-and-such is now costing us more, so from X-date the rating fee will be $Y, and if you're unhappy you can have it addressed at the next AGM".

MOZ, incidentally, your link should have been: http://www.auschess.org.au/ratings/sep07/raptour.txt

hi Frosty
Your suggestion perhaps does not pass the 'perspective test'.
Victoria is already a most significant user of the ACF rapid ratings service. < I invite you to contrast the high number of rated games in Victoria, with the dearth in NSW, QLD, WA, TAS>. (Together with the ACT) it would be fair to say Victoria and ACT are the main supporters of the service. There is no evidence that even more VIC events would be rapid-rated if the very small ACF charge had been 'factored-out' of the CV charge.
Your suggestion is a finesse that is not top of the priorities for an under-resourced volunteer admin.
That is not to say you don't have supporters. On chesschat, both Malcolm Pyke and Bill Gletsos put forward the same debating point.

regards
MOZ

**MOZ** · 09-26-2007, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by Gendo Ikari

Yes I see Victoria have submitted quite a few events lately. I don't think the submissions were nearly as prevalent last year. As for QLD this year, I believe the primary organiser of junior tournaments saw no reason to incur further cost when events could be submitted for junior rating rather than to a national system not supported by NSW (and seemingly only recently by VIC).

I have been reporting similar data on the ACCF forum since the trial-start was mooted.
I can confirm that VIC and ACT have been the consistent significant users of the official ACF rapid-ratings service. I can confirm that there was a short-term blip from QLD.

09-24-2007, 09:30 AM	#1 (permalink)
MOZ Figurehead absolute. Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Marginalised in a sad corner of cyberspace. Cul8r Posts: 2,210	The use of the RATINGS service. Matt You asked if any threads from ACCF should be transplanted here. I have updated http://p067.ezboard.com/faustralianc...art=51&stop=75 and it makes for interesting reading. regards MOZ

09-24-2007, 10:30 PM	#2 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 4,041 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by MOZ Matt You asked if any threads from ACCF should be transplanted here. I have updated http://p067.ezboard.com/faustralianc...art=51&stop=75 and it makes for interesting reading. regards MOZ A very good choice MOZ. I can replicate the thread here in a better fashion that linking on it if you like. I think it would be a good idea, what do you think? AO __________________ . "Men at some time are masters of their fate. The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars, but in ourselves..." ~ Cassius ~

09-24-2007, 11:52 PM	#3 (permalink)
MOZ Figurehead absolute. Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Marginalised in a sad corner of cyberspace. Cul8r Posts: 2,210	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One A very good choice MOZ. I can replicate the thread here in a better fashion that linking on it if you like. I think it would be a good idea, what do you think? AO I think we might just use this thread, and see if (Egor in particular) can explain why NSWJCL dont seem to use the official ACF rapid-ratings system. Is this a vote of no-confidence in the official system? Also, eventually, some ACF officer may want to address the trial that cost them $2500 but seemed to achieve little; but I think they are trying to bury that. tks MOZ

09-25-2007, 07:46 AM	#4 (permalink)
Egor Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 49	Originally Posted by MOZ I think we might just use this thread, and see if (Egor in particular) can explain why NSWJCL dont seem to use the official ACF rapid-ratings system. I have no idea why the NSWJCL uses it's own rating system. However, I know the current president of the NSWJCL fairly well, so I'll ask him. I must warn you, based on past experience, that I may not get an answer.

09-25-2007, 07:47 AM	#5 (permalink)
Egor Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 49	Originally Posted by MOZ Also, eventually, some ACF officer may want to address the trial that cost them $2500 but seemed to achieve little; but I think they are trying to bury that. Are you talking about the free rating of rapid events?

09-25-2007, 09:28 AM	#6 (permalink)
MOZ Figurehead absolute. Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Marginalised in a sad corner of cyberspace. Cul8r Posts: 2,210	Originally Posted by Egor Are you talking about the free rating of rapid events? Egor To express it accurately > I am talking about the 1-year moratorium by the ACF on their fee (levied on States) to rate rapid games. That moratorium has finished. It was a trial. It is reputed to have cost $2500. MOZ

09-25-2007, 10:02 AM	#7 (permalink)
Gendo Ikari Director Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 100	Originally Posted by MOZ I think we might just use this thread, and see if (Egor in particular) can explain why NSWJCL dont seem to use the official ACF rapid-ratings system. Is this a vote of no-confidence in the official system? Also, eventually, some ACF officer may want to address the trial that cost them $2500 but seemed to achieve little; but I think they are trying to bury that. tks MOZ When the ACF trialled having no ratings fees on the ACF rapid ratings only QLD took advantage of this to rate a large number of tournaments, thus it was discontinued and QLD events have gone back to submitting junior events only to QLD Junior ratings. Why NSW did not support the ACF rapid ratings system is a mystery to me. As I understand it, Chess Victoria had a large rapid rating fee that nullified any cost-saving measures brought about by the ACF fees being lifted. All it seems to say is that no state outside of QLD supported the system and if another trial were to be reintroduced in the future it would require more support from most states.

09-25-2007, 04:55 PM	#8 (permalink)
MOZ Figurehead absolute. Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Marginalised in a sad corner of cyberspace. Cul8r Posts: 2,210	Originally Posted by Gendo Ikari When the ACF trialled having no ratings fees on the ACF rapid ratings only QLD took advantage of this to rate a large number of tournaments, thus it was discontinued and QLD events have gone back to submitting junior events only to QLD Junior ratings. Why NSW did not support the ACF rapid ratings system is a mystery to me. As I understand it, Chess Victoria had a large rapid rating fee that nullified any cost-saving measures brought about by the ACF fees being lifted. All it seems to say is that no state outside of QLD supported the system and if another trial were to be reintroduced in the future it would require more support from most states. hi Gendo I invite you to examine this link and you will see that Chess Victoria handsomely supports the rapid-rating service provided by the ACF. If you agree that this is a reasonable view of the data then we could move to the next question...why such a small use of the service made by NSW and QLD. regards MOZ If link above does not work, try, http://www.auschess.org.au/ratings/sep07/raptour.txt Last edited by MOZ : 09-26-2007 at 04:45 PM

09-25-2007, 05:26 PM	#9 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 4,041 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	What was in it for the ACF? Originally Posted by MOZ Also, eventually, some ACF officer may want to address the trial that cost them $2500 but seemed to achieve little; but I think they are trying to bury that. I have been told that the idea originated with Graeme Gardiner. That's alright by me as I understand Graeme's business is heavily dependent upon chess juniors and by cutting the rating fee he could hold more rapid tournaments which were particularly popular with juniors, thus cutting an additional business expense. So I can see why he was a proponent of it. What I can't understand is what was in it for the ACF or why they decided to proceed with it. I have also been told that it was put to a vote which narrowly passed to trial it for a year. __________________ . "Men at some time are masters of their fate. The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars, but in ourselves..." ~ Cassius ~

09-26-2007, 10:52 AM	#10 (permalink)
Gendo Ikari Director Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 100	Originally Posted by MOZ hi Gendo I invite you to examine this link and you will see that Chess Victoria handsomely supports the rapid-rating service provided by the ACF. If you agree that this is a reasonable view of the data then we could move to the next question...why such a small use of the service made by NSW and QLD. regards MOZ Yes I see Victoria have submitted quite a few events lately. I don't think the submissions were nearly as prevalent last year. As for QLD this year, I believe the primary organiser of junior tournaments saw no reason to incur further cost when events could be submitted for junior rating rather than to a national system not supported by NSW (and seemingly only recently by VIC).

09-26-2007, 04:33 PM	#11 (permalink)
Spiny Norman Suspended Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 224	Gendo, as I believe I mused in another place and at another time, I perceived a major problem with the trial from a VIC perspective to be: 1) that the ACF reduced its fees, but it took VIC some considerable time after that (my recollection is around 8 or 10 months?) before it adjusted its fees downwards 2) that by the time more tournaments were ready to start coming in from VIC, the ACF was already abandoning its experiment, meaning that CV were left high-n-dry charging a lower fee to VIC clubs, but then getting hit again with higher fees by the ACF Perhaps someone in VIC might move a motion at a forthcoming AGM to give the CV Executive the power to increase/decrease published fees in line with and proportionally with increases in their costs (e.g. ACF costs charged to CV). Its ridiculous that CV can set a fee around NOV at their AGM, the ACF can increase costs to CV, but CV is unable to respond (increase or decrease) until the next AGM, unless a special general meeting is called? It ought to be as simple as sending a letter to the club presidents to say "such-and-such is now costing us more, so from X-date the rating fee will be $Y, and if you're unhappy you can have it addressed at the next AGM". MOZ, incidentally, your link should have been: http://www.auschess.org.au/ratings/sep07/raptour.txt Last edited by Spiny Norman : 09-27-2007 at 08:02 AM

09-26-2007, 04:44 PM	#12 (permalink)
MOZ Figurehead absolute. Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Marginalised in a sad corner of cyberspace. Cul8r Posts: 2,210	Originally Posted by frosty .... MOZ, incidentally, your link should have been: http://www.auschess.org.au/ratings/sep07/raptour.txt The original link worked for me Steve, But I will go back and add yours as an edit addition. tks T

09-26-2007, 07:07 PM	#13 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 4,041 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by frosty Gendo, as I believe I mused in another place and at another time, I perceived a major problem with the trial from a VIC perspective to be: 1) that the ACF reduced its fees, but it took VIC some considerable time after that (my recollection is around 8 or 10 months?) before it adjusted its fees downards 2) that by the time more tournaments were ready to start coming in from VIC, the ACF was already abandoning its experiment, meaning that CV were left high-n-dry charging a lower fee to VIC clubs, but then getting hit again with higher fees by the ACF Perhaps someone in VIC might move a motion at a forthcoming AGM to give the CV Executive the power to increase/decrease published fees in line with and proportionally with increases in their costs (e.g. ACF costs charged to CV). Its ridiculous that CV can set a fee around NOV at their AGM, the ACF can increase costs to CV, but CV is unable to respond (increase or decrease) until the next AGM, unless a special general meeting is called? It ought to be as simple as sending a letter to the club presidents to say "such-and-such is now costing us more, so from X-date the rating fee will be $Y, and if you're unhappy you can have it addressed at the next AGM". MOZ, incidentally, your link should have been: http://www.auschess.org.au/ratings/sep07/raptour.txt Hi Frosty I am not sure exactly what you are saying. Are you saying that because Chess Victoria was slow to pass on the reduced rating fee that the trial period of one year that the ACF put in place should have been extended for Victoria? AO __________________ . "Men at some time are masters of their fate. The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars, but in ourselves..." ~ Cassius ~

09-26-2007, 07:35 PM	#14 (permalink)
MOZ Figurehead absolute. Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Marginalised in a sad corner of cyberspace. Cul8r Posts: 2,210	Originally Posted by frosty Gendo, as I believe I mused in another place and at another time, I perceived a major problem with the trial from a VIC perspective to be: 1) that the ACF reduced its fees, but it took VIC some considerable time after that (my recollection is around 8 or 10 months?) before it adjusted its fees downards 2) that by the time more tournaments were ready to start coming in from VIC, the ACF was already abandoning its experiment, meaning that CV were left high-n-dry charging a lower fee to VIC clubs, but then getting hit again with higher fees by the ACF Perhaps someone in VIC might move a motion at a forthcoming AGM to give the CV Executive the power to increase/decrease published fees in line with and proportionally with increases in their costs (e.g. ACF costs charged to CV). Its ridiculous that CV can set a fee around NOV at their AGM, the ACF can increase costs to CV, but CV is unable to respond (increase or decrease) until the next AGM, unless a special general meeting is called? It ought to be as simple as sending a letter to the club presidents to say "such-and-such is now costing us more, so from X-date the rating fee will be $Y, and if you're unhappy you can have it addressed at the next AGM". MOZ, incidentally, your link should have been: http://www.auschess.org.au/ratings/sep07/raptour.txt hi Frosty Your suggestion perhaps does not pass the 'perspective test'. Victoria is already a most significant user of the ACF rapid ratings service. < I invite you to contrast the high number of rated games in Victoria, with the dearth in NSW, QLD, WA, TAS>. (Together with the ACT) it would be fair to say Victoria and ACT are the main supporters of the service. There is no evidence that even more VIC events would be rapid-rated if the very small ACF charge had been 'factored-out' of the CV charge. Your suggestion is a finesse that is not top of the priorities for an under-resourced volunteer admin. That is not to say you don't have supporters. On chesschat, both Malcolm Pyke and Bill Gletsos put forward the same debating point. regards MOZ

09-26-2007, 07:38 PM	#15 (permalink)
MOZ Figurehead absolute. Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Marginalised in a sad corner of cyberspace. Cul8r Posts: 2,210	Originally Posted by Gendo Ikari Yes I see Victoria have submitted quite a few events lately. I don't think the submissions were nearly as prevalent last year. As for QLD this year, I believe the primary organiser of junior tournaments saw no reason to incur further cost when events could be submitted for junior rating rather than to a national system not supported by NSW (and seemingly only recently by VIC). I have been reporting similar data on the ACCF forum since the trial-start was mooted. I can confirm that VIC and ACT have been the consistent significant users of the official ACF rapid-ratings service. I can confirm that there was a short-term blip from QLD.

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