Free Ratings Points Bonanza - OzChess

**Iconoclast** · 03-08-2011, 11:24 PM

Tonight at my local chess club, the lads were agarst at the free ratings points that some players have been awarded for not playing any games.

...[crickets chirping]...

No explanations from Bill Gletsos, the Rating Points Fairy?

**Firegoat7** · 03-08-2011, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Tonight at my local chess club, the lads were agarst at the free ratings points that some players have been awarded for not playing any games.

...[crickets chirping]...

No explanations from Bill Gletsos, the Rating Points Fairy?

Yes what a bunch of clowns.
The clowns claimed the Glicko would stop this.....
The clowns claimed this was a problem with the Fide system...
The clowns say we don't manipulate ratings...
The clowns say Box Hills allegro ratings are 300 points below ACF and accurate
The clowns are still running the circus.

**Just2Good** · 03-09-2011, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Tonight at my local chess club, the lads were agarst at the free ratings points that some players have been awarded for not playing any games.

...[crickets chirping]...

No explanations from Bill Gletsos, the Rating Points Fairy?

Just tell them that ACF Ratings Officer Bill Gletsos says that its necessary, and for them not to complain about it or else!

**Iconoclast** · 03-09-2011, 07:30 PM

Has anyone heard or seen anything official or unofficial regarding the odd rating changes?

**Just2Good** · 03-09-2011, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Has anyone heard or seen anything official or unofficial regarding the odd rating changes?

No.

As per normal it is all cloak and dagger.

**antichrist** · 03-09-2011, 10:31 PM

isn't it going to be 80 points adjustment? I will get reference

Billg from ACF march ratings thread
Hence your March 2011 rating is 120 above your recalculated December 2010 ratings.
__________________
. AC
Some are even more than this I think.

**antichrist** · 03-10-2011, 04:29 AM

Bill Gletsos: well AC you could point out to those fools Iconoclast and Just2good that the rating change was mentioned in the ACF newsletter
------------------------------------

AC
and apparently it has nothing to do with post 46 about Alexrules01, and my ratings have not gone up at all so I aint happy

**antichrist** · 03-10-2011, 05:03 AM

KB's original post censored out by AC

Macavity

[color="Red"]I think this is the first mention of this facet of the rerun I have read. What about the earlier 150 uplift? was that outside the scope of this rerun? How or why was this decision to remove the 70 points arrived at? would this not penalize players who were active at that time versus players who's data is based solely on rating lists since the 70 point uplift? Have there been any other changes during this particular rerun other than the use of altered algorithms and the removal of the previous 70 points?

I would appreciate a reply on this matter, from Bill or Kevin, or anyone else authorized to respond; by this I mean I am very much interested in this concrete instance, not hypotheses about how such adjustments work.

Thanking you for your reply in advance,

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

KB's reasoning is in shoutbox of this site

**ChessGuru** · 03-10-2011, 08:55 AM

If you look at Tornelo ratings for Victoria (the Master file) it looks like it's possible that he's taken points from history to add to present-day players. A lot of inactive players have dropped - but active players are almost all increasing...

On a personal note I think it's revolting that the ratings methodology is a Gletsos secret - there need to be checks and balances.

**ChessGuru** · 03-10-2011, 09:04 AM

At least Bill is still going up:

Australian Chess Ratings

**Firegoat7** · 03-10-2011, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by ChessGuru

On a personal note I think it's revolting that the ratings methodology is a Gletsos secret - there need to be checks and balances.

Well said! In a liberal democratic society, public accountability allows for this to occur. It seems the ACF models itself as a medieval fiefdom ruled over by robber Barons. How else can the Australian rating system and election less bulletin boards like Chesschat be explained?

It is not good enough that this is allowed to happen.

**Firegoat7** · 03-10-2011, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by ChessGuru

At least Bill is still going up:

Australian Chess Ratings

Gletsos' personal rating has been pointed out many times over the years during different rating periods. In fact a few of us have even claimed that there is a N.S.W versus Victoria bias. It is simply ridiculous that Gletsos is not answerable to these claims because the ratings are a 'secret".

It should also be pointed out for public record, that the ACF has a recorded history, dating back to the 1970s, where ACF rating officers had ratings that over represented their personal playing strength.

cheers,

**Just2Good** · 03-10-2011, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Just2Good

No.

As per normal it is all cloak and dagger.

Amazing! This little post of mine got them all worked up on the other forum where multiple posts have been made claiming I am clueless.

I didn't know calling the shambles that is the ACF rating system a cloak and dagger affair would elicit such strong condemnation from the ACF's two vice presidents.

And I wasn't even trying!

**Iconoclast** · 03-10-2011, 05:37 PM

Who said:

I don't mind the idea of a committee of mathematically minded people and interested leading players reviewing the ratings system, except that if they were actually holding the Ratings Officers accountable by having the power to alter the system that would be a disaster.

I think it would be very good in public relations terms to have a summary paper on the ACF ratings page that explained in relatively simple language how the ACF system worked and what sort of things it took into account, without necessarily including all the smallest details.

In the Sonas rating system contests currently in progress, two error-assessment methods, root mean square error and binomial deviance, have been used. The Ratings Officers are using both of these to compare systems.

1. What is the point in having reviewers without power?
2. Why NOT have the algorithms published for those who are interested? Something to hide?
3. Neither RMS nor binomial deviance techniques are curve-linear. If you assume temporal stability of variables in a dynamic system, you are a dinosaur.

**rendalyn** · 10-13-2011, 12:27 PM

good job in this forum..

03-08-2011, 11:24 PM	#1 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Free Ratings Points Bonanza Tonight at my local chess club, the lads were agarst at the free ratings points that some players have been awarded for not playing any games. ...[crickets chirping]... No explanations from Bill Gletsos, the Rating Points Fairy? __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

03-08-2011, 11:39 PM	#2 (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: 2,044 ICC Handle: guest	Originally Posted by Iconoclast Tonight at my local chess club, the lads were agarst at the free ratings points that some players have been awarded for not playing any games. ...[crickets chirping]... No explanations from Bill Gletsos, the Rating Points Fairy? Yes what a bunch of clowns. The clowns claimed the Glicko would stop this..... The clowns claimed this was a problem with the Fide system... The clowns say we don't manipulate ratings... The clowns say Box Hills allegro ratings are 300 points below ACF and accurate The clowns are still running the circus. __________________ "...What I meant? Dear Mr Ian Rout (ACF news publisher) could you please put Ozchessforum in the next news letter! There is no reason to hide this forum from the Australian chess public. What they meant? Sorry, No english!- Amir Karibasic

03-09-2011, 05:27 PM	#3 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Iconoclast Tonight at my local chess club, the lads were agarst at the free ratings points that some players have been awarded for not playing any games. ...[crickets chirping]... No explanations from Bill Gletsos, the Rating Points Fairy? Just tell them that ACF Ratings Officer Bill Gletsos says that its necessary, and for them not to complain about it or else! __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

03-09-2011, 07:30 PM	#4 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Has anyone heard or seen anything official or unofficial regarding the odd rating changes? __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

03-09-2011, 08:00 PM	#5 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Iconoclast Has anyone heard or seen anything official or unofficial regarding the odd rating changes? No. As per normal it is all cloak and dagger. __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

03-09-2011, 10:31 PM	#6 (permalink)
antichrist Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Byron Bay, NSW Posts: 2,821	isn't it going to be 80 points adjustment? I will get reference Billg from ACF march ratings thread Hence your March 2011 rating is 120 above your recalculated December 2010 ratings. __________________ . AC Some are even more than this I think.

03-10-2011, 04:29 AM	#7 (permalink)
antichrist Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Byron Bay, NSW Posts: 2,821	Bill from CC shoutbox Bill Gletsos: well AC you could point out to those fools Iconoclast and Just2good that the rating change was mentioned in the ACF newsletter ------------------------------------ AC and apparently it has nothing to do with post 46 about Alexrules01, and my ratings have not gone up at all so I aint happy

03-10-2011, 05:03 AM	#8 (permalink)
antichrist Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Byron Bay, NSW Posts: 2,821	macavity from bright side march ratings thread KB's original post censored out by AC Macavity [color="Red"]I think this is the first mention of this facet of the rerun I have read. What about the earlier 150 uplift? was that outside the scope of this rerun? How or why was this decision to remove the 70 points arrived at? would this not penalize players who were active at that time versus players who's data is based solely on rating lists since the 70 point uplift? Have there been any other changes during this particular rerun other than the use of altered algorithms and the removal of the previous 70 points? I would appreciate a reply on this matter, from Bill or Kevin, or anyone else authorized to respond; by this I mean I am very much interested in this concrete instance, not hypotheses about how such adjustments work. Thanking you for your reply in advance, Take care and God Bless, Macavity KB's reasoning is in shoutbox of this site Last edited by antichrist : 03-10-2011 at 10:28 AM

03-10-2011, 08:55 AM	#9 (permalink)
ChessGuru Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Melbourne Posts: 232	If you look at Tornelo ratings for Victoria (the Master file) it looks like it's possible that he's taken points from history to add to present-day players. A lot of inactive players have dropped - but active players are almost all increasing... On a personal note I think it's revolting that the ratings methodology is a Gletsos secret - there need to be checks and balances.

03-10-2011, 09:04 AM	#10 (permalink)
ChessGuru Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Melbourne Posts: 232	At least Bill is still going up: Australian Chess Ratings

03-10-2011, 12:37 PM	#11 (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: 2,044 ICC Handle: guest	Originally Posted by ChessGuru On a personal note I think it's revolting that the ratings methodology is a Gletsos secret - there need to be checks and balances. Well said! In a liberal democratic society, public accountability allows for this to occur. It seems the ACF models itself as a medieval fiefdom ruled over by robber Barons. How else can the Australian rating system and election less bulletin boards like Chesschat be explained? It is not good enough that this is allowed to happen. __________________ "...What I meant? Dear Mr Ian Rout (ACF news publisher) could you please put Ozchessforum in the next news letter! There is no reason to hide this forum from the Australian chess public. What they meant? Sorry, No english!- Amir Karibasic

03-10-2011, 12:44 PM	#12 (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: 2,044 ICC Handle: guest	Originally Posted by ChessGuru At least Bill is still going up: Australian Chess Ratings Gletsos' personal rating has been pointed out many times over the years during different rating periods. In fact a few of us have even claimed that there is a N.S.W versus Victoria bias. It is simply ridiculous that Gletsos is not answerable to these claims because the ratings are a 'secret". It should also be pointed out for public record, that the ACF has a recorded history, dating back to the 1970s, where ACF rating officers had ratings that over represented their personal playing strength. cheers, __________________ "...What I meant? Dear Mr Ian Rout (ACF news publisher) could you please put Ozchessforum in the next news letter! There is no reason to hide this forum from the Australian chess public. What they meant? Sorry, No english!- Amir Karibasic

03-10-2011, 02:45 PM	#13 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	KB and BG All Upset With Me, For Off The Cuff Remark :) Originally Posted by Just2Good No. As per normal it is all cloak and dagger. Amazing! This little post of mine got them all worked up on the other forum where multiple posts have been made claiming I am clueless. I didn't know calling the shambles that is the ACF rating system a cloak and dagger affair would elicit such strong condemnation from the ACF's two vice presidents. And I wasn't even trying! __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

03-10-2011, 05:37 PM	#14 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Who said: I don't mind the idea of a committee of mathematically minded people and interested leading players reviewing the ratings system, except that if they were actually holding the Ratings Officers accountable by having the power to alter the system that would be a disaster. I think it would be very good in public relations terms to have a summary paper on the ACF ratings page that explained in relatively simple language how the ACF system worked and what sort of things it took into account, without necessarily including all the smallest details. In the Sonas rating system contests currently in progress, two error-assessment methods, root mean square error and binomial deviance, have been used. The Ratings Officers are using both of these to compare systems. 1. What is the point in having reviewers without power? 2. Why NOT have the algorithms published for those who are interested? Something to hide? 3. Neither RMS nor binomial deviance techniques are curve-linear. If you assume temporal stability of variables in a dynamic system, you are a dinosaur. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

10-13-2011, 12:27 PM	#15 (permalink)
rendalyn Banned Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 1	good job in this forum..

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