Appointing the TORNELO as the Rating Officier? - Page 2 - OzChess

**Scott Colliver** · 03-27-2011, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by Kings of chess

For Scott as a Player, he is not interested in the graphical details, but if his arbitrage information would appear on the TORNELO; tournaments, title, expertise, public reference than he would be interested in the TORNELO.

I would? That is news to me.
Scott

**Just2Good** · 03-27-2011, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Scott Colliver

I would? That is news to me.
Scott

I think he meant that his post was for you. Try reading the post again ignoring the first two words, and the he in the post is supposed to be a generic male chess player.

**Amir Karibasic** · 03-27-2011, 05:24 PM

Code:

Originally Posted by Kings of chess  
For Scott as a Player, he is not interested in the graphical details, but if his arbitrage
 information would appear on the TORNELO; tournaments, title, expertise, public reference
 than he would be interested in the TORNELO.

Originally Posted by Scott Colliver

I would? That is news to me.
Scott

(I'm not 100% but my memory is usualy OK):
You have stated that an ACF rating display is enough for you,
so this was the point of my previous post!

OK, looks like I'll have to explain it in more detail, for example:
You are at the moment , let's say an IA Arbiter and the TORNELO would show:

1.Name and photo: Scott .....
2. Arbiter Title
3. The Touranements you have aribtered and your activity
4. Organiser graphic reference (recommended or highly recommended)
5. Public graphic Reference (recommended or highly recommend)
6. Expertise from being an arbiter ( live games, photos, reports, live blog etc.)
7. Perhaps your minimum fees or conditions

8. Contact Details

I think with these arbitery details you would be interested in supporting the Tornelo?

**Scott Colliver** · 03-27-2011, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Amir Karibasic

Code:
Originally Posted by Kings of chess  
For Scott as a Player, he is not interested in the graphical details, but if his arbitrage
 information would appear on the TORNELO; tournaments, title, expertise, public reference
 than he would be interested in the TORNELO.
(I'm not 100% but my memory is usualy OK):
You have stated that an ACF rating display is enough for you,
so this was the point of my previous post!

OK, looks like I'll have to explain it in more detail, for example:
You are at the moment , let's say an IA Arbiter and the TORNELO would show:

1.Name and photo: Scott .....
2. Arbiter Title
3. The Touranements you have aribtered and your activity
4. Organiser graphic reference (recommended or highly recommended)
5. Public graphic Reference (recommended or highly recommend)
6. Expertise from being an arbiter ( live games, photos, reports, live blog etc.)
7. Perhaps your minimum fees or conditions
8. Contact Details

I think with these arbitery details you would be interested in supporting the Tornelo?

I understood your first post completely - I just don't understand why you think this would interest me.
Scott

**Amir Karibasic** · 03-27-2011, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Scott Colliver

I would? That is news to me.
Scott

Originally Posted by Scott Colliver

I understood your first post completely - I just don't understand why you think this would interest me.
Scott

Sorry, your ambitions are way different then I thought.

**Scott Colliver** · 03-27-2011, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by Amir Karibasic

Sorry, your ambitions are way different then I thought.

If you are talking about me doing arbiting, I am doing a bit, but I am not suddenly going change my opinion on Tornelo because it might be able to on there that I am an arbiter. Tornelo is about alot more than me and if it has a future it needs to be examined properly not just promoted out of self interest.
Scott

**Igor Goldenberg** · 03-28-2011, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by Kings of chess

Why can we not use the TORNELO for rating purposes?

AFAIK ACF uses some variation of Glicko and Tornelo uses ELO (in it's current FIDE form).

**Igor Goldenberg** · 03-28-2011, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by ChessGuru

Like Word and MYOB? Or G-mail? Or like SM5? Unless the ACF wants to spend a couple hundred grand developing software - which they won't really "control" anyway, because any changes would cost bucks.

I don't think it's a matter of proprietary software, it's a matter of where data and software reside - on your desktop/laptop or on remote server which is outside of your control.

**Just2Good** · 03-29-2011, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Scott Colliver

Tornelo is about alot more than me and if it has a future it needs to be examined properly not just promoted out of self interest.

Examined properly by whom?

The ACF has shown no willingness to evaluate it objectively or fairly. The rating system they use is much more secretive and less transparent, and some might say that that is the way they like it.

Originally Posted by Igor Goldenberg

I don't think it's a matter of proprietary software, it's a matter of where data and software reside - on your desktop/laptop or on remote server which is outside of your control.

I do not believe it is just a matter of software. It is a collision of two different rating systems. One, which is controlled by a single individual, and the other which is transparent, easy to understand, and overwhelmingly in the best interests of Australian chess players.

**Amir Karibasic** · 03-29-2011, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by Scott Colliver

If you are talking about me doing arbiting, I am doing a bit, but I am not suddenly going change my opinion on Tornelo because it might be able to on there that I am an arbiter. Tornelo is about alot more than me and if it has a future it needs to be examined properly not just promoted out of self interest.
Scott

Along with this, I would like to add that TORNELO does not contain a list of arbiters (in Australia), however if included, would alter the program in a much more positive manner.
A Chess Guru asked us for feedback, therefore I am giving this suggestion (as stated above).

My statement wasn't directed towards you (exactly), however towards all viewing OzChess members.

**Kerry Stead** · 03-30-2011, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Just2Good

The ACF has shown no willingness to evaluate it objectively or fairly. The rating system they use is much more secretive and less transparent, and some might say that that is the way they like it.

I think this primarily comes down to the way the system was introduced ... or more to the point, how it was presented online.
Yes, there are historical differences between Cordover & the ACF, however the methods used in its initial presentation (website suggesting it was the ACF rating system, etc) have meant that some of the better features of the system, such as the presentation & graphing of historical ratings, as well as the ability to upload games live, seems to have been ignored.
Perhaps things might have been different if David wasn't quite so 'enthusiastic' in his claims, although it was obvious at Ballarat that there were issues with the pairing module in the system.

**Iconoclast** · 03-30-2011, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Kerry Stead

Yes, there are historical differences between Cordover & the ACF, however the methods used in its initial presentation (website suggesting it was the ACF rating system, etc) have meant that some of the better features of the system, such as the presentation & graphing of historical ratings, as well as the ability to upload games live, seems to have been ignored.

What a bunch of petty egotistical clowns the ACF must be. They would reject a cure for cancer if it came in a coke bottle. Gutless ACF officials go hidey hidey at Chess Chat, slag off their opposition without out right of reply and wonder why everyone hates their guts.

I keep saying the ACF is a corpse, yet we keep seeing it move and kill stuff. Maybe it is a ZOMBIE chess federation. (How do you kill a zombie?)

03-27-2011, 04:27 PM	#16 (permalink)
Scott Colliver Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 88	Originally Posted by Kings of chess For Scott as a Player, he is not interested in the graphical details, but if his arbitrage information would appear on the TORNELO; tournaments, title, expertise, public reference than he would be interested in the TORNELO. I would? That is news to me. Scott

03-27-2011, 04:32 PM	#17 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Scott Colliver I would? That is news to me. Scott I think he meant that his post was for you. Try reading the post again ignoring the first two words, and the he in the post is supposed to be a generic male chess player. __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

03-27-2011, 05:24 PM	#18 (permalink)
Amir Karibasic Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Gold Coast Posts: 194	Code: Originally Posted by Kings of chess For Scott as a Player, he is not interested in the graphical details, but if his arbitrage information would appear on the TORNELO; tournaments, title, expertise, public reference than he would be interested in the TORNELO. Originally Posted by Scott Colliver I would? That is news to me. Scott (I'm not 100% but my memory is usualy OK): You have stated that an ACF rating display is enough for you, so this was the point of my previous post! OK, looks like I'll have to explain it in more detail, for example: You are at the moment , let's say an IA Arbiter and the TORNELO would show: 1.Name and photo: Scott ..... 2. Arbiter Title 3. The Touranements you have aribtered and your activity 4. Organiser graphic reference (recommended or highly recommended) 5. Public graphic Reference (recommended or highly recommend) 6. Expertise from being an arbiter ( live games, photos, reports, live blog etc.) 7. Perhaps your minimum fees or conditions 8. Contact Details I think with these arbitery details you would be interested in supporting the Tornelo? __________________ . Visit my chess shop!

03-27-2011, 05:41 PM	#19 (permalink)
Scott Colliver Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 88	Originally Posted by Amir Karibasic Code: Originally Posted by Kings of chess For Scott as a Player, he is not interested in the graphical details, but if his arbitrage information would appear on the TORNELO; tournaments, title, expertise, public reference than he would be interested in the TORNELO. (I'm not 100% but my memory is usualy OK): You have stated that an ACF rating display is enough for you, so this was the point of my previous post! OK, looks like I'll have to explain it in more detail, for example: You are at the moment , let's say an IA Arbiter and the TORNELO would show: 1.Name and photo: Scott ..... 2. Arbiter Title 3. The Touranements you have aribtered and your activity 4. Organiser graphic reference (recommended or highly recommended) 5. Public graphic Reference (recommended or highly recommend) 6. Expertise from being an arbiter ( live games, photos, reports, live blog etc.) 7. Perhaps your minimum fees or conditions 8. Contact Details I think with these arbitery details you would be interested in supporting the Tornelo? I understood your first post completely - I just don't understand why you think this would interest me. Scott

03-27-2011, 05:57 PM	#20 (permalink)
Amir Karibasic Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Gold Coast Posts: 194	Originally Posted by Scott Colliver I would? That is news to me. Scott Originally Posted by Scott Colliver I understood your first post completely - I just don't understand why you think this would interest me. Scott Sorry, your ambitions are way different then I thought. __________________ . Visit my chess shop!

03-27-2011, 11:52 PM	#21 (permalink)
Scott Colliver Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 88	Originally Posted by Amir Karibasic Sorry, your ambitions are way different then I thought. If you are talking about me doing arbiting, I am doing a bit, but I am not suddenly going change my opinion on Tornelo because it might be able to on there that I am an arbiter. Tornelo is about alot more than me and if it has a future it needs to be examined properly not just promoted out of self interest. Scott

03-28-2011, 04:58 PM	#22 (permalink)
Igor Goldenberg Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Melbourne Posts: 331	Originally Posted by Kings of chess Why can we not use the TORNELO for rating purposes? AFAIK ACF uses some variation of Glicko and Tornelo uses ELO (in it's current FIDE form). __________________ For private coaching email IgorGoldenberg@bluebottle.com Computer tells you what to play, a good coach explains why. The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. H. L. Mencken

03-28-2011, 05:02 PM	#23 (permalink)
Igor Goldenberg Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Melbourne Posts: 331	Originally Posted by ChessGuru Like Word and MYOB? Or G-mail? Or like SM5? Unless the ACF wants to spend a couple hundred grand developing software - which they won't really "control" anyway, because any changes would cost bucks. I don't think it's a matter of proprietary software, it's a matter of where data and software reside - on your desktop/laptop or on remote server which is outside of your control. __________________ For private coaching email IgorGoldenberg@bluebottle.com Computer tells you what to play, a good coach explains why. The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. H. L. Mencken

03-29-2011, 12:48 PM	#24 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Scott Colliver Tornelo is about alot more than me and if it has a future it needs to be examined properly not just promoted out of self interest. Examined properly by whom? The ACF has shown no willingness to evaluate it objectively or fairly. The rating system they use is much more secretive and less transparent, and some might say that that is the way they like it. Originally Posted by Igor Goldenberg I don't think it's a matter of proprietary software, it's a matter of where data and software reside - on your desktop/laptop or on remote server which is outside of your control. I do not believe it is just a matter of software. It is a collision of two different rating systems. One, which is controlled by a single individual, and the other which is transparent, easy to understand, and overwhelmingly in the best interests of Australian chess players. __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

03-29-2011, 09:24 PM	#25 (permalink)
Amir Karibasic Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Gold Coast Posts: 194	Originally Posted by Scott Colliver If you are talking about me doing arbiting, I am doing a bit, but I am not suddenly going change my opinion on Tornelo because it might be able to on there that I am an arbiter. Tornelo is about alot more than me and if it has a future it needs to be examined properly not just promoted out of self interest. Scott Along with this, I would like to add that TORNELO does not contain a list of arbiters (in Australia), however if included, would alter the program in a much more positive manner. A Chess Guru asked us for feedback, therefore I am giving this suggestion (as stated above). My statement wasn't directed towards you (exactly), however towards all viewing OzChess members. __________________ . Visit my chess shop!

03-30-2011, 11:59 AM	#26 (permalink)
Kerry Stead Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 67	Originally Posted by Just2Good The ACF has shown no willingness to evaluate it objectively or fairly. The rating system they use is much more secretive and less transparent, and some might say that that is the way they like it. I think this primarily comes down to the way the system was introduced ... or more to the point, how it was presented online. Yes, there are historical differences between Cordover & the ACF, however the methods used in its initial presentation (website suggesting it was the ACF rating system, etc) have meant that some of the better features of the system, such as the presentation & graphing of historical ratings, as well as the ability to upload games live, seems to have been ignored. Perhaps things might have been different if David wasn't quite so 'enthusiastic' in his claims, although it was obvious at Ballarat that there were issues with the pairing module in the system.

03-30-2011, 03:13 PM	#27 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by Kerry Stead Yes, there are historical differences between Cordover & the ACF, however the methods used in its initial presentation (website suggesting it was the ACF rating system, etc) have meant that some of the better features of the system, such as the presentation & graphing of historical ratings, as well as the ability to upload games live, seems to have been ignored. What a bunch of petty egotistical clowns the ACF must be. They would reject a cure for cancer if it came in a coke bottle. Gutless ACF officials go hidey hidey at Chess Chat, slag off their opposition without out right of reply and wonder why everyone hates their guts. I keep saying the ACF is a corpse, yet we keep seeing it move and kill stuff. Maybe it is a ZOMBIE chess federation. (How do you kill a zombie?) __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

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