Reasons the rating formula ought to be released - OzChess

**Frightened Victorian!** · 03-13-2011, 11:28 PM

Surprise! Seems to be a lot easier to get the red one to go higher than the blue one if you're from NSW!

You know how they always say, "well, your FIDE is usually a hundred points or so higher than your ACF"... I think it's time to tack a little proviso on to that!

**Iconoclast** · 03-14-2011, 12:12 AM

While I sympathise with you about the opaque nature of the rating system, I cannot concur with you on the conclusion you have drawn. Your sample size is far too small - and dare I suggest, non-random - for any signal to be discerned.

Furthermore, if you are looking for a pattern, you are more likely to find it using a continuous independent variable.

**antichrist** · 03-16-2011, 07:01 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
On dark side of moon they allege with graphs to prove that NSW players get a better rating than Victorian players - is it true?

KB
That post is rubbish, even Sweeney (to his credit) pointed that out.

The poster is claiming that strong NSW players have a higher ACF rating compared to their FIDE than Victorians do. Of those players for whom figures are visible in the post, the average NSW example has an ACF 68 points higher than their FIDE but the average Victorian example has a FIDE 11 points higher than their ACF. That suggests a 79 point gap.

The problem is that the poster is using too small a sample (though parts of it seem to have been chopped by dodgy presentation) and also they seem to not be selecting their sample systematically.

Doing it properly by comparing the top 30 by ACF rating from each state (of those who have FIDE ratings) it turns out that the average gap drops from the 79 points in Frightened Victorian!'s sample to just 14 points.

Thus the ACF system thinks the top 30 NSW players are better than the top 30 Victorians by 53 points but the FIDE system thinks the NSW players are better by 39.

It's a trivial difference and is more likely to be just a result of the vagaries of the histories of different players in each group than anything systematic, let alone suspicious.
__________________
"

ChessGuru
What are we really talking about...
Can anyone give a specific number by which the ratings are more accurate under the shrouded-in-complexity Glicko 2.5 when compared to the more straightforward Elo?

Because if we're talking about a rating which is 5 points more accurate then I'm sure many a player would sacrifice the 5 points in exchange for clarity, predicability, transparency etc....After all the super accuracte ratings didn't exactly predict all that well the results of the recent Begonia Open.

:

**Firegoat7** · 03-16-2011, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by Bonbot from the official ACF forum

It's a trivial difference and is more likely to be just a result of the vagaries of the histories of different players in each group than anything systematic, let alone suspicious.

ACF-2411!! 0 VIC Johansen, Darryl K [GM]

Fide-2419 5.Johansen, Darryl K. [GM]

ACF-???? Wohl,Aleksander [IM]

Fide-2417 6.Wohl, Aleksandar H. [IM]

Originally Posted by DoubleRoo on his blog comments

David, that sounds like an introduction to a bloody good rant The Glicko system was introduced after I left but nevertheless my rating skyrocketed to 2582. Meanwhile Darryl's rating took a temporary dive . I don't remember to what but a friend at an intoxicated blitz session worked out that I would now need to score 90% against Darryl to keep my rating. We were all in tears laughing.

Get of your fat arse Bonham and stop defending the indefensible. Australian chess players are sick of the ACF living in a land of total denial.

**antichrist** · 03-16-2011, 10:41 PM

Well firegoat is just incoherently abusive as usual - too stupid to even find Alex Wohl's current ACF rating for himself. It is 2432 (not the 2582 of Wohl's anecdote) followed by a blank. If goatboy can't find it in one minute then I suggest he be careful with challenging tasks such as breathing; he might absorb oxygen and seriously injure himself.

doubleroo is Wohl and the anecdote he tells is amusing but would suggest that at some point his rating exceeded Johansen's by about 360 points. I doubt that is actually true.

Anecdotes (even true ones!) about issues from when Glicko-1 was first introduced are not relevant to assessing Glicko-2 now.

-----------------------------------

**Firegoat7** · 03-16-2011, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by Bonbot on Chesschat

Well firegoat is just incoherently abusive as usual - too stupid to even find Alex Wohl's current ACF rating for himself. It is 2432 (not the 2582 of Wohl's anecdote) followed by a blank. If goatboy can't find it in one minute then I suggest he be careful with challenging tasks such as breathing; he might absorb oxygen and seriously injure himself.

Yada yada standard bully blustering from chesschat resident idiot denialist.
Should I defend myself against yet another false flag? Nope...but I will add, not being active in Australia makes Alexs rating unpublishable on the March list. Which proves a point made by Mr Wohl which will be much to subtle for the brain waves of Chesschats resident aspy to comprehend.

Originally Posted by Bonbot on Chesschat

doubleroo is Wohl and the anecdote he tells is amusing but would suggest that at some point his rating exceeded Johansen's by about 360 points. I doubt that is actually true.

Anecdotes (even true ones!) about issues from when Glicko-1 was first introduced are not relevant to assessing Glicko-2 now.

Doubleroos rants make interesting reading. He makes the salient point that accurate up to date web information is the responsibility of the ACF on its own homepage.Check it out on his blog. Still Chesschats resident idiot denialist ,Kevin "bonbot" Bonham, would prefer to trawl the internet, responding to every criticism of the ACF like it was a personal attack, instead of fixing the problems that he and the other clowns create in the first place. Keep burying your head in the sand Bonbot! Keep doing nothing important! You deserve another medal.

**Firegoat7** · 03-17-2011, 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by Bonbot on chesschat

The only thing in his latest frothing that's worth responding to is this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by firegoat7
Nope...but I will add, not being active in Australia makes Alexs rating unpublishable on the March list.

firegoat is completely wrong again. Alex Wohl has played games rated by the ACF within the last two years and therefore appears on the main list of active Australian players. Indeed his rating (having a blank after it) is more reliable than many ? and ??s that appear on the list.

Typical Boham denial.
The rule now is that Alex Wohl is no longer considered a "Top Player" because of some arbitrary ACF created conditional rule. But if you look in the active player list he is arbitrary regarded as an active player because of some arbitrary created conditional rule made up by the ACF.

Is anybody following this picture of denial yet?

Therefore I am wrong, Bonham is right, the ACF is a circus, I am right and Bonham is a deluded fool living in a binary world of make believe self denial.

Conclusion: everybody is right to laugh at the circus, they are so funnnnyyy!

cheers,

03-13-2011, 11:28 PM	#1 (permalink)
Frightened Victorian! Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 1	Reasons the rating formula ought to be released Surprise! Seems to be a lot easier to get the red one to go higher than the blue one if you're from NSW! You know how they always say, "well, your FIDE is usually a hundred points or so higher than your ACF"... I think it's time to tack a little proviso on to that!

03-14-2011, 12:12 AM	#2 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	While I sympathise with you about the opaque nature of the rating system, I cannot concur with you on the conclusion you have drawn. Your sample size is far too small - and dare I suggest, non-random - for any signal to be discerned. Furthermore, if you are looking for a pattern, you are more likely to find it using a continuous independent variable. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

03-16-2011, 07:01 PM	#3 (permalink)
antichrist Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Byron Bay, NSW Posts: 2,821	from Bright Side of MOon Quote: Originally Posted by antichrist On dark side of moon they allege with graphs to prove that NSW players get a better rating than Victorian players - is it true? KB That post is rubbish, even Sweeney (to his credit) pointed that out. The poster is claiming that strong NSW players have a higher ACF rating compared to their FIDE than Victorians do. Of those players for whom figures are visible in the post, the average NSW example has an ACF 68 points higher than their FIDE but the average Victorian example has a FIDE 11 points higher than their ACF. That suggests a 79 point gap. The problem is that the poster is using too small a sample (though parts of it seem to have been chopped by dodgy presentation) and also they seem to not be selecting their sample systematically. Doing it properly by comparing the top 30 by ACF rating from each state (of those who have FIDE ratings) it turns out that the average gap drops from the 79 points in Frightened Victorian!'s sample to just 14 points. Thus the ACF system thinks the top 30 NSW players are better than the top 30 Victorians by 53 points but the FIDE system thinks the NSW players are better by 39. It's a trivial difference and is more likely to be just a result of the vagaries of the histories of different players in each group than anything systematic, let alone suspicious. __________________ " ChessGuru What are we really talking about... Can anyone give a specific number by which the ratings are more accurate under the shrouded-in-complexity Glicko 2.5 when compared to the more straightforward Elo? Because if we're talking about a rating which is 5 points more accurate then I'm sure many a player would sacrifice the 5 points in exchange for clarity, predicability, transparency etc....After all the super accuracte ratings didn't exactly predict all that well the results of the recent Begonia Open. :

03-16-2011, 09:42 PM	#4 (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 Bonbot from the official ACF forum It's a trivial difference and is more likely to be just a result of the vagaries of the histories of different players in each group than anything systematic, let alone suspicious. ACF-2411!! 0 VIC Johansen, Darryl K [GM] Fide-2419 5.Johansen, Darryl K. [GM] ACF-???? Wohl,Aleksander [IM] Fide-2417 6.Wohl, Aleksandar H. [IM] Originally Posted by DoubleRoo on his blog comments David, that sounds like an introduction to a bloody good rant The Glicko system was introduced after I left but nevertheless my rating skyrocketed to 2582. Meanwhile Darryl's rating took a temporary dive . I don't remember to what but a friend at an intoxicated blitz session worked out that I would now need to score 90% against Darryl to keep my rating. We were all in tears laughing. Get of your fat arse Bonham and stop defending the indefensible. Australian chess players are sick of the ACF living in a land of total denial. __________________ "...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

03-16-2011, 10:41 PM	#5 (permalink)
antichrist Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Byron Bay, NSW Posts: 2,821	KB from Bright side of moon Well firegoat is just incoherently abusive as usual - too stupid to even find Alex Wohl's current ACF rating for himself. It is 2432 (not the 2582 of Wohl's anecdote) followed by a blank. If goatboy can't find it in one minute then I suggest he be careful with challenging tasks such as breathing; he might absorb oxygen and seriously injure himself. doubleroo is Wohl and the anecdote he tells is amusing but would suggest that at some point his rating exceeded Johansen's by about 360 points. I doubt that is actually true. Anecdotes (even true ones!) about issues from when Glicko-1 was first introduced are not relevant to assessing Glicko-2 now. -----------------------------------

03-16-2011, 10:44 PM	#6 (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 Bonbot on Chesschat Well firegoat is just incoherently abusive as usual - too stupid to even find Alex Wohl's current ACF rating for himself. It is 2432 (not the 2582 of Wohl's anecdote) followed by a blank. If goatboy can't find it in one minute then I suggest he be careful with challenging tasks such as breathing; he might absorb oxygen and seriously injure himself. Yada yada standard bully blustering from chesschat resident idiot denialist. Should I defend myself against yet another false flag? Nope...but I will add, not being active in Australia makes Alexs rating unpublishable on the March list. Which proves a point made by Mr Wohl which will be much to subtle for the brain waves of Chesschats resident aspy to comprehend. Originally Posted by Bonbot on Chesschat doubleroo is Wohl and the anecdote he tells is amusing but would suggest that at some point his rating exceeded Johansen's by about 360 points. I doubt that is actually true. Anecdotes (even true ones!) about issues from when Glicko-1 was first introduced are not relevant to assessing Glicko-2 now. Doubleroos rants make interesting reading. He makes the salient point that accurate up to date web information is the responsibility of the ACF on its own homepage.Check it out on his blog. Still Chesschats resident idiot denialist ,Kevin "bonbot" Bonham, would prefer to trawl the internet, responding to every criticism of the ACF like it was a personal attack, instead of fixing the problems that he and the other clowns create in the first place. Keep burying your head in the sand Bonbot! Keep doing nothing important! You deserve another medal. __________________ "...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

03-17-2011, 12:23 AM	#7 (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 Bonbot on chesschat The only thing in his latest frothing that's worth responding to is this: Quote: Originally Posted by firegoat7 Nope...but I will add, not being active in Australia makes Alexs rating unpublishable on the March list. firegoat is completely wrong again. Alex Wohl has played games rated by the ACF within the last two years and therefore appears on the main list of active Australian players. Indeed his rating (having a blank after it) is more reliable than many ? and ??s that appear on the list. Typical Boham denial. The rule now is that Alex Wohl is no longer considered a "Top Player" because of some arbitrary ACF created conditional rule. But if you look in the active player list he is arbitrary regarded as an active player because of some arbitrary created conditional rule made up by the ACF. Is anybody following this picture of denial yet? Therefore I am wrong, Bonham is right, the ACF is a circus, I am right and Bonham is a deluded fool living in a binary world of make believe self denial. Conclusion: everybody is right to laugh at the circus, they are so funnnnyyy! 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

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