Need For Objective Selection Criteria - OzChess

**The Seeing** · 12-30-2011, 09:51 PM

How could anyone possibly argue against transparent objective measurable selection criteria ??

Kevin Bonham
Indeed but no rating system is perfect and no rating system can always accurately rate players for whom there exists insufficient or changeable detail. A rating comes with an implied statistical +/- which can change depending on how active the player is and whether their form is or isn't stable. A given 2100 player isn't necessarily significantly weaker than a given 2150 player.

Chess Guru -
No you're right... the 2100 player will beat the 2150 player 43% of the time. That's what the ratings mean!

You could always add an RD criteria to the objective measure. Must have a !! rating if under 2105.

Kevin Bonham
Flexibility encourages players around the borderline to play more chess.

Chess Guru -I think setting rules which spell out what behaviours you want from someone and adhering to those rules is better. Say, we want you to be good enough (rating 2150+), almost good enough (define this clearly) AND be active (define this too).

Kevin Bonham
No, no offence to Karl, just offence to the selectors instead by suggesting we would take into account popularity-based irrelevances (that I'm not really all that tuned into anyway and I don't think the other two are either). The only part of that that's relevant is "very active". It's relevant because it gave us lots of data to look at, whereas a less active junior of the same level would probably have had no performances that demonstrated them to be potentially competitive.

Chess Guru -My point was that the selections process is inherently biased, selectors unconsciously influenced by external factors - and there is nothing you can do about it. That's human nature. There are plenty of psychological studies proving that ... the way people dress, their attractiveness, their race/color. It isn't that people are racist -- it's just human.

Kevin Bonham
Not convinced; they might get their 2250+ PR by picket-fencing (or nearly so) a rather weak field, or because their 2500-rated opponent lost the game by trying to enter his moves by mobile phone into Tornelo.

Chess Guru -OK, forget the detail for the moment - as the ACF you can choose the detail. The point is that it should be out of YOUR hands as a human and an OBJECTIVE measure.

Kevin Bonham
The track record of players picked under both subjective criteria is they do quite a bit better than rating, sometimes spectacularly so. Under your criteria Nakauchi would have been excluded in 2010; he scored 50% !

Chess Guru -You can't justify the selection process based on results of players who are "picked". There are always going to be good and bad results...Karl Z can equally score 50% or 0% in this event - neither would justify or otherwise the decision to include him.

Kevin Bonham
They would claim it anyway under your system; they would just transfer their paranoia solely to the Ratings Officer.

Chess Guru -But that's the Ratings Officer's job...to produce accurate ratings. It's a mathematical formula - numbers on a screen, no subjective input, everyone is treated equally.

**Firegoat7** · 12-31-2011, 12:38 AM

Hi,

Yes DC hits the nail on the head. At the end of the day the players need to know where they stand on a consistent basis.

Personally, I think the real issue is to address what the Australian championship is trying to achieve for Australian chess. At the moment they seem to be wanting players in the top 30 and half succeeding at achieving that goal. OBJECTIVELY, the ACF is getting about a 5/10 on performance.

**antichrist** · 01-02-2012, 11:56 AM

3201996 Beaumont, David 2051 7 1967 1

this is according to latest rating list provided by Shirty

**The Seeing** · 01-03-2012, 12:39 AM

Kevin Bonham
Perhaps those who think reinventing the wheel of Aus Champs selection to make it completely "objective" is a useful pursuit should then move on to telling cricket selectors how to pick the team based on purely statistical criteria, tennis organisers how to run major events without any wild card positions and even political parties how to preselect election candidates without voting on it. They might also like to come up with an objective statistical process for setting Reserve Bank interest rates (since someone used this as an example in an email to me).

ChessGuru
I'd be more inclined to compare chess (a well-measured, competitive, individual pursuit) to swimming, athletics, martial arts, squash, car-racing or other individual events - certainly politics, team sports and interest rates are not good models to copy. Nor are fixed-player knockout events (tennis), with objectives of attracting spectators and sponsors, allowing wild-card entries a real comparison. I'd be looking at Olympic selection procedures as an example (although maybe more so for Olympiad selection) ... perhaps those sports have closed National Championships we can compare with.
I'd be surprised if the 'norm' was a subjective selection process.

Who do you think is winning this debate .
Think about it .
Poll soon .

**antichrist** · 01-09-2012, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Hi,

Yes DC hits the nail on the head. At the end of the day the players need to know where they stand on a consistent basis.

Personally, I think the real issue is to address what the Australian championship is trying to achieve for Australian chess. At the moment they seem to be wanting players in the top 30 and half succeeding at achieving that goal. OBJECTIVELY, the ACF is getting about a 5/10 on performance.

Well FG the ball is in your court. There is a vacant position at ACF for selections director, vacated by KB, if you have any guts and integrity you grab the job and go your hardest at it.

If you don't you are all talk and no action.

the world awaits you.

**Firegoat7** · 01-09-2012, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by antichrist

Well FG the ball is in your court. There is a vacant position at ACF for selections director, vacated by KB, if you have any guts and integrity you grab the job and go your hardest at it.

If you don't you are all talk and no action.

the world awaits you.

The ball is most definitely not in my court. I have no interest in doing a job that isn't even needed.

The wasteful idea that the ACF NEEDS to fill a position where a selector attempts to compare, subjectively, who is a better chess player compared to another chess player is a joke. This primitive idea is a waste of scant volunteer manpower resources. This insulting idea creates political animosity amongst chess players. This archaic idea ignores merit and triumphs selective favoritism.

The best action for maintaining integrity is to DEMAND different selection criteria, that is based on objective merit. If the ACF had any balls they would immediately seize this opportunity to restructure the process. If the ACF believed in themselves and was a proactive unit, it would move towards a rating or qualification based system.

If the ACF fills this position and keeps chasing its selection tail around in circles. Then the current ACF executive ought to resign en mass, because it shows they have no moral faith in both their own rating system, and or, a proactive position on developing an active open qualifying Australian Grand Prix circuit. Anything else is lip service to the development of this great game in Australia.

cheers,

**Firegoat7** · 01-09-2012, 02:36 PM

Hi,

1-Australian Champion auto Olympic qualification.

2- Have an Australian Olympic qualification tournament every year or two. Invite the ten best players on rating in the country. Play a round robin tournament. Give some Olympic spots to the highest finishers.

3- Base Olympic selection on rating

4- Have Olympic match play offs between nominated candidates for spots.

Meh, they will probably just appoint some wallies to make subjective lists as they usually do.

**antichrist** · 01-09-2012, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Hi,

1-Australian Champion auto Olympic qualification.

2- Have an Australian Olympic qualification tournament every year or two. Invite the ten best players on rating in the country. Play a round robin tournament. Give some Olympic spots to the highest finishers.

3- Base Olympic selection on rating

4- Have Olympic match play offs between nominated candidates for spots.

Meh, they will probably just appoint some wallies to make subjective lists as they usually do.

but this does not take into account one lucky comp for example (bods falling over etc) then that person not playing for donkeys to keep their artificially high rating for Olympiad selection. I agree with the round robin concept for ten top players, but then it has to be fitted into schedules with some based overseas

12-30-2011, 09:51 PM	#1 (permalink)
The Seeing Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 263	Need For Objective Selection Criteria How could anyone possibly argue against transparent objective measurable selection criteria ?? Kevin Bonham Indeed but no rating system is perfect and no rating system can always accurately rate players for whom there exists insufficient or changeable detail. A rating comes with an implied statistical +/- which can change depending on how active the player is and whether their form is or isn't stable. A given 2100 player isn't necessarily significantly weaker than a given 2150 player. Chess Guru - No you're right... the 2100 player will beat the 2150 player 43% of the time. That's what the ratings mean! You could always add an RD criteria to the objective measure. Must have a !! rating if under 2105. Kevin Bonham Flexibility encourages players around the borderline to play more chess. Chess Guru -I think setting rules which spell out what behaviours you want from someone and adhering to those rules is better. Say, we want you to be good enough (rating 2150+), almost good enough (define this clearly) AND be active (define this too). Kevin Bonham No, no offence to Karl, just offence to the selectors instead by suggesting we would take into account popularity-based irrelevances (that I'm not really all that tuned into anyway and I don't think the other two are either). The only part of that that's relevant is "very active". It's relevant because it gave us lots of data to look at, whereas a less active junior of the same level would probably have had no performances that demonstrated them to be potentially competitive. Chess Guru -My point was that the selections process is inherently biased, selectors unconsciously influenced by external factors - and there is nothing you can do about it. That's human nature. There are plenty of psychological studies proving that ... the way people dress, their attractiveness, their race/color. It isn't that people are racist -- it's just human. Kevin Bonham Not convinced; they might get their 2250+ PR by picket-fencing (or nearly so) a rather weak field, or because their 2500-rated opponent lost the game by trying to enter his moves by mobile phone into Tornelo. Chess Guru -OK, forget the detail for the moment - as the ACF you can choose the detail. The point is that it should be out of YOUR hands as a human and an OBJECTIVE measure. Kevin Bonham The track record of players picked under both subjective criteria is they do quite a bit better than rating, sometimes spectacularly so. Under your criteria Nakauchi would have been excluded in 2010; he scored 50% ! Chess Guru -You can't justify the selection process based on results of players who are "picked". There are always going to be good and bad results...Karl Z can equally score 50% or 0% in this event - neither would justify or otherwise the decision to include him. Kevin Bonham They would claim it anyway under your system; they would just transfer their paranoia solely to the Ratings Officer. Chess Guru -But that's the Ratings Officer's job...to produce accurate ratings. It's a mathematical formula - numbers on a screen, no subjective input, everyone is treated equally.

12-31-2011, 12:38 AM	#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	Hi, Yes DC hits the nail on the head. At the end of the day the players need to know where they stand on a consistent basis. Personally, I think the real issue is to address what the Australian championship is trying to achieve for Australian chess. At the moment they seem to be wanting players in the top 30 and half succeeding at achieving that goal. OBJECTIVELY, the ACF is getting about a 5/10 on performance. __________________ "...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

01-02-2012, 11:56 AM	#3 (permalink)
antichrist Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Byron Bay, NSW Posts: 2,821	FG 2051 fida 3201996 Beaumont, David 2051 7 1967 1 this is according to latest rating list provided by Shirty

01-09-2012, 11:41 AM	#5 (permalink)
antichrist Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Byron Bay, NSW Posts: 2,821	FG a non-performer Originally Posted by Firegoat7 Hi, Yes DC hits the nail on the head. At the end of the day the players need to know where they stand on a consistent basis. Personally, I think the real issue is to address what the Australian championship is trying to achieve for Australian chess. At the moment they seem to be wanting players in the top 30 and half succeeding at achieving that goal. OBJECTIVELY, the ACF is getting about a 5/10 on performance. Well FG the ball is in your court. There is a vacant position at ACF for selections director, vacated by KB, if you have any guts and integrity you grab the job and go your hardest at it. If you don't you are all talk and no action. the world awaits you.

01-09-2012, 02:25 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	why waste your time digging and filling up holes? Originally Posted by antichrist Well FG the ball is in your court. There is a vacant position at ACF for selections director, vacated by KB, if you have any guts and integrity you grab the job and go your hardest at it. If you don't you are all talk and no action. the world awaits you. The ball is most definitely not in my court. I have no interest in doing a job that isn't even needed. The wasteful idea that the ACF NEEDS to fill a position where a selector attempts to compare, subjectively, who is a better chess player compared to another chess player is a joke. This primitive idea is a waste of scant volunteer manpower resources. This insulting idea creates political animosity amongst chess players. This archaic idea ignores merit and triumphs selective favoritism. The best action for maintaining integrity is to DEMAND different selection criteria, that is based on objective merit. If the ACF had any balls they would immediately seize this opportunity to restructure the process. If the ACF believed in themselves and was a proactive unit, it would move towards a rating or qualification based system. If the ACF fills this position and keeps chasing its selection tail around in circles. Then the current ACF executive ought to resign en mass, because it shows they have no moral faith in both their own rating system, and or, a proactive position on developing an active open qualifying Australian Grand Prix circuit. Anything else is lip service to the development of this great game in Australia. 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

01-03-2012, 12:39 AM	#4 (permalink)
The Seeing Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 263	Kevin Bonham Perhaps those who think reinventing the wheel of Aus Champs selection to make it completely "objective" is a useful pursuit should then move on to telling cricket selectors how to pick the team based on purely statistical criteria, tennis organisers how to run major events without any wild card positions and even political parties how to preselect election candidates without voting on it. They might also like to come up with an objective statistical process for setting Reserve Bank interest rates (since someone used this as an example in an email to me). ChessGuru I'd be more inclined to compare chess (a well-measured, competitive, individual pursuit) to swimming, athletics, martial arts, squash, car-racing or other individual events - certainly politics, team sports and interest rates are not good models to copy. Nor are fixed-player knockout events (tennis), with objectives of attracting spectators and sponsors, allowing wild-card entries a real comparison. I'd be looking at Olympic selection procedures as an example (although maybe more so for Olympiad selection) ... perhaps those sports have closed National Championships we can compare with. I'd be surprised if the 'norm' was a subjective selection process. Who do you think is winning this debate . Think about it . Poll soon .

01-09-2012, 02:36 PM	#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	So called Radical ideas that save time. Hi, 1-Australian Champion auto Olympic qualification. 2- Have an Australian Olympic qualification tournament every year or two. Invite the ten best players on rating in the country. Play a round robin tournament. Give some Olympic spots to the highest finishers. 3- Base Olympic selection on rating 4- Have Olympic match play offs between nominated candidates for spots. Meh, they will probably just appoint some wallies to make subjective lists as they usually do. __________________ "...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

01-09-2012, 06:27 PM	#8 (permalink)
antichrist Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Byron Bay, NSW Posts: 2,821	Originally Posted by Firegoat7 Hi, 1-Australian Champion auto Olympic qualification. 2- Have an Australian Olympic qualification tournament every year or two. Invite the ten best players on rating in the country. Play a round robin tournament. Give some Olympic spots to the highest finishers. 3- Base Olympic selection on rating 4- Have Olympic match play offs between nominated candidates for spots. Meh, they will probably just appoint some wallies to make subjective lists as they usually do. but this does not take into account one lucky comp for example (bods falling over etc) then that person not playing for donkeys to keep their artificially high rating for Olympiad selection. I agree with the round robin concept for ten top players, but then it has to be fitted into schedules with some based overseas

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