Rating Systems - Page 2 - OzChess

**Z&MLoh** · 09-05-2009, 03:12 PM

Just did a quick analysis of the players that have on one occasion or another played at Box Hill Chess Club this year (but they may not be members). Tournaments include Autumn Cup, 2009 Club Championship, Autumn Swiss and Friday Grades Tournaments.

For the Sep 09 ratings, the statistics are: ratings of 39 players went up but 44 players went down. Overall, the "average" player went up by 20.3 points. Well done

. By the way, the average player rating of the players who has played this year at Box Hill is 1655.

Code:

			Jun-09	Sep-09	Change
Addamo, Michael		810	1144	334
Anguswamy, Manoj	828	865	37
Anguswamy, Nivedita	661	605	-56
Arulprakasam, Dinesh	304	304	0
Arulprakasam, Joash	806	756	-50
Bekker, Gary D		1637	1594	-43
Bergmanis, Olgerts	1556	1555	-1
Brennan, James		727	869	142
Brooks, Chris		1732	1732	0
Cannon, David		357	541	184
Cannon, Jim		1207	1187	-20
Chan, Michael		1778	1605	-173
Chan, Raymond		840	798	-42
Chen, Yue Yang			210	
Cheng, Bobby		2130	2163	33
Chin, David		658	592	-66
Chmiel, Rad		1732	1724	-8
Chow, Samuel		2329	2328	-1
Cook, Geoff L		1520	1509	-11
Croft, Roger		1531	1512	-19
Dalton, Laurie		1318	1320	2
Dalton, Samuel		1923	1958	35
Devarajh, Joshua	673	1013	340
Dilnutt, Charlotte	360	354	-6
Ding, Yilun			1848	
D'Onofrio, Rodolfo		1344	
Elbrish, Sam		1291	1250	-41
Fan, Enoch		898	850	-48
Feng, Thomas		1524	1542	18
Feng, Tim		1270	1261	-9
Fielder, Shaun		1086	1048	-38
Flude, David A		1648	1637	-11
Foo, Kit Ming		1028	1054	26
Gorka, Carl		2055	2055	0
Gray, Barry		1125	873	-252
Gu, Stephanie		303	495	192
Guo, Steven		468	616	148
Gurevich, Andrew	1214	1103	-111
Hacche, David J		2043	2061	18
Hamilton, Douglas G	2112	2065	-47
Hamilton, Liam		728	720	-8
Han, Max		100	100	0
Hartland, Gerrit	1409	1409	0
Hayman, Adam		1078	1327	249
Jiang, Jeffrey		639	665	26
Kempen, Leon		1917	1874	-43
Lacey, David		1756	1700	-56
Lai, Gene		1599	1538	-61
Lakshman, Vinay		1236	1281	45
Lawson, Shane		1637	1602	-35
Lemmel, Oliver		1051	980	-71
Liston, Howard		1801	1788	-13
Liu, Nicholas		1583	1706	123
Loh, Zachary		1068	1250	182
Lyons, Linden		1202	1116	-86
Matheson, Laurence	1989	2011	22
Narenthran, Janaki	320	433	113
Narenthran, Savithri	546	810	264
Narenthran, Tharmaratnam1701	1708	7
Neymanis, Eric		1054	1059	5
Ng, Ben			901	899	-2
Ng, Bryan			853	
Ng, Isaac		1669	1659	-10
Ng, Joshua		1321	1268	-53
Ni, John		833	924	91
Pecori, Rafael		201	100	-101
Podvorac, Zeljko	1584	1570	-14
Poh, Clement		381	567	186
Raine, Marcus		1939	1909	-30
Renzies, Elliott	1355	1353	-2
Rozenblat, Vanja	1455	1455	0
Russell, Luthien	1608	1598	-10
Sannidhanam, Anurag	1516	1468	-48
Saw, Geoffrey		2262	2262	0
Schon, Eugene		2136	2171	35
Schulzer, Peter		1650	1650	0
Sharman, Scot A		1631	1663	32
Smart, Hannah			315	
Tang, Jason		1838	1996	158
Tang, Jonathan		1291	1478	187
Tanner, Michael		1033	1070	37
Tionko, Efrain		1784	1731	-53
Tuncer, Deniz		1185	1239	54
Van Dijk, Devrim	1819	1819	0
Vijayakumar, Rengan	1705	1705	0
Vijayakumar, Rukman	2013	2012	-1
Wallis, Christopher	2159	2120	-39
Wallmueller, Joerg	1683	1702	19
Wallmueller, Peter	1201	1103	-98
Wong, Joseph		1091	1108	17
Xie, Victor		978	1089	111
Xue, Ollie			746	
Yu, Alec		1172	1125	-47
Yu, Allen		1111	1238	127
Yu, Sally		1715	1716	1
Yuan, Daniel		954	1009	55
Yuan, David		535	495	-40
Zelesco, Karl			487	
Zhao, Isaac		317	405	88

**MOZ** · 09-05-2009, 05:51 PM

^

I could not resist my own metric calculation from your figures Mike.
I excluded all those not previously rated, and then averaged all the changes, of those left, to come out with an average rating increase of 19.3.
It sort of looks as a Club we gained 1762 points to our pool (=19.3*91).
So, who did we gain from?

justaknight · 09-05-2009, 08:30 PM

Excellent statistical data and discussion, but it really makes me see red!!!

how dare I be a negative (-3) to the Club's output! I promise I will come back

!!!

**Z&MLoh** · 09-05-2009, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by justaknight

Excellent statistical data and discussion, but it really makes me see red!!! how dare I be a negative (-3) to the Club's output! I promise I will come back !!!

As the adage goes, "You get what you measure". Watch out guys (read J u n i o r s), JAK is on the prowl!

Mike

**MOZ** · 09-05-2009, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by Z&MLoh

As the adage goes, "You get what you measure". Watch out guys (read J u n i o r s), JAK is on the prowl!

Mike

I thought the adage was "If you can measure it you can improve it".
Let us hope that JAK can get up to scratch.

MOZ*

**Z&MLoh** · 09-05-2009, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

I thought the adage was "If you can measure it you can improve it".

MOZ*

Perhaps it's a modern interpretation but I've seen this usually associated with Quality improvement (6 sigma), business key performance indicators and balanced scorecard.

**Z&MLoh** · 09-06-2009, 01:04 PM

Code:

Sep 09 rating	Average change
> 2000	 	2.00 
1600-2000	-2.71 
1200-1600	25.09 
800-1200	34.17 
Under 800	39.29

I reckon the 800-1200 group is the group making the greatest improvement and the 1600-2000 group feeling the heat. Any thoughts, Moz?

M

**Il cavaliere inesistente** · 09-06-2009, 01:49 PM

It is difficult for low rated players not to improve Some have nonexistent ratings Karl Zelesco and Ollie Xu for example. There are a 1000 points for starters. Feel sorry for Joash who in my view is an improver and seems to have gone backwards

**Just2Good** · 09-06-2009, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by Il cavaliere inesistente

It is difficult for low rated players not to improve Some have nonexistent ratings Karl Zelesco and Ollie Xu for example. There are a 1000 points for starters. Feel sorry for Joash who in my view is an improver and seems to have gone backwards

A rating is just a number on a piece of paper. Do you think they had ratings when we were imprisoned in the camps of Western Siberia during the 1950's?

No, obviously not!

And yet the chess we played was simply astounding, of the highest calibre you could ever want to see!

**LMatheson** · 09-06-2009, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by Z&MLoh

Code:
Sep 09 rating	Average change
> 2000	 	2.00 
1600-2000	-2.71 
1200-1600	25.09 
800-1200	34.17 
Under 800	39.29
I reckon the 800-1200 group is the group making the greatest improvement and the 1600-2000 group feeling the heat. Any thoughts, Moz?

M

Well done mike for all of the analysis!

PS: I must have countered the rest of box hill! my rating was in the 1600-2000 range and it went up 22!

**MOZ** · 09-06-2009, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by Z&MLoh

Code:
Sep 09 rating	Average change
> 2000	 	2.00 
1600-2000	-2.71 
1200-1600	25.09 
800-1200	34.17 
Under 800	39.29
I reckon the 800-1200 group is the group making the greatest improvement and the 1600-2000 group feeling the heat. Any thoughts, Moz?

M

I had not looked at it in the micro view you took Mike.
At the macro level I am still trying to come to grips with the nett addition to our pool (even ignoring the previous unrateds).
Just who is it gave our pool this huge increase (nett)?

**Z&MLoh** · 09-06-2009, 10:38 PM

Interesting question but this is not a "closed system" around Box Hill Chess Club. If there was only the one Box Hill Chess Club in the world and the players in the club only played in Box Hill Chess Club and the rating system only apply to those players and games played in Box Hill Chess Club then a zero sum game would apply. But in this case, there are players who are members of other clubs as well so if they've gained points through other competitions, it would show up in my analysis. I think that is what has happened unless I've misunderstood your question which is entirely possible as you have a knack for cryptic questions and one-liners {not that there's anything wrong with that}.

M

**MOZ** · 09-06-2009, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by Z&MLoh

Interesting question but this is not a "closed system" around Box Hill Chess Club. If there was only the one Box Hill Chess Club in the world and the players in the club only played in Box Hill Chess Club and the rating system only apply to those players and games played in Box Hill Chess Club then a zero sum game would apply. But in this case, there are players who are members of other clubs as well so if they've gained points through other competitions, it would show up in my analysis. I think that is what has happened unless I've misunderstood your question which is entirely possible as you have a knack for cryptic questions and one-liners {not that there's anything wrong with that}.

M

Well, no, it is not a closed system, I appreciate that. And I had the same discussion with Laurie this afternoon as we mentally ticked off all the events that our folk visit
begonia
geelong
vic juniors
vic open
zonal
ergas/elite
mcc
npcc
croydon
et al
But, to be honest, it is hard to see these as the source of such a large gain for our pool.

The question still intrigues me. Who lost these points?
Let me phrase it differently lest et tu think I am cryptic
"Name the three biggest donors to the BHCC pool" .

regards
MOZ*

**Bill Gletsos** · 09-06-2009, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by Z&MLoh

If there was only the one Box Hill Chess Club in the world and the players in the club only played in Box Hill Chess Club and the rating system only apply to those players and games played in Box Hill Chess Club then a zero sum game would apply.

Glicko is not zero sum as rating changes vary for each player based on their RD. So for a single game one player could gain 20 points and his opponent lose 10. The net gain of 10 points is not from any player, but from the system itself.

**MOZ** · 09-06-2009, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

Glicko is not zero sum as rating changes vary for each player based on their RD.

Thank you for your input Bill, it is appreciated and more than likely correct, and is not challenged.
But, it nibbles around the edge of the question.

Let me say again.
Did the BHCC pool (excluding newly rateds) really gain so many points? And if so, who lost them.

Ahh. I see you added to your post.

09-05-2009, 05:51 PM	#17 (permalink)
MOZ Volunteer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters. Posts: 3,541	^ I could not resist my own metric calculation from your figures Mike. I excluded all those not previously rated, and then averaged all the changes, of those left, to come out with an average rating increase of 19.3. It sort of looks as a Club we gained 1762 points to our pool (=19.391). So, who did we gain from? __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole* game. Last edited by MOZ : 09-09-2009 at 03:58 PM

09-05-2009, 10:02 PM	#19 (permalink)
Z&MLoh Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Melbourne Posts: 286	Originally Posted by justaknight Excellent statistical data and discussion, but it really makes me see red!!! how dare I be a negative (-3) to the Club's output! I promise I will come back !!! As the adage goes, "You get what you measure". Watch out guys (read J u n i o r s), JAK is on the prowl! Mike

09-05-2009, 10:17 PM	#20 (permalink)
MOZ Volunteer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters. Posts: 3,541	Originally Posted by Z&MLoh As the adage goes, "You get what you measure". Watch out guys (read J u n i o r s), JAK is on the prowl! Mike I thought the adage was "If you can measure it you can improve it". Let us hope that JAK can get up to scratch. MOZ* __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

09-05-2009, 10:27 PM	#21 (permalink)
Z&MLoh Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Melbourne Posts: 286	Originally Posted by MOZ I thought the adage was "If you can measure it you can improve it". MOZ* Perhaps it's a modern interpretation but I've seen this usually associated with Quality improvement (6 sigma), business key performance indicators and balanced scorecard.

09-06-2009, 01:04 PM	#22 (permalink)
Z&MLoh Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Melbourne Posts: 286	Code: Sep 09 rating Average change > 2000 2.00 1600-2000 -2.71 1200-1600 25.09 800-1200 34.17 Under 800 39.29 I reckon the 800-1200 group is the group making the greatest improvement and the 1600-2000 group feeling the heat. Any thoughts, Moz? M

09-05-2009, 08:30 PM	#18 (permalink)
justaknight Suspended Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 282	Excellent statistical data and discussion, but it really makes me see red!!! how dare I be a negative (-3) to the Club's output! I promise I will come back !!!

09-06-2009, 01:49 PM	#23 (permalink)
Il cavaliere inesistente Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 196	rating improvers It is difficult for low rated players not to improve Some have nonexistent ratings Karl Zelesco and Ollie Xu for example. There are a 1000 points for starters. Feel sorry for Joash who in my view is an improver and seems to have gone backwards

09-06-2009, 07:37 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 Il cavaliere inesistente It is difficult for low rated players not to improve Some have nonexistent ratings Karl Zelesco and Ollie Xu for example. There are a 1000 points for starters. Feel sorry for Joash who in my view is an improver and seems to have gone backwards A rating is just a number on a piece of paper. Do you think they had ratings when we were imprisoned in the camps of Western Siberia during the 1950's? No, obviously not! And yet the chess we played was simply astounding, of the highest calibre you could ever want to see! __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

09-06-2009, 08:51 PM	#25 (permalink)
LMatheson Siberian Chess Cub Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	Originally Posted by Z&MLoh Code: Sep 09 rating Average change > 2000 2.00 1600-2000 -2.71 1200-1600 25.09 800-1200 34.17 Under 800 39.29 I reckon the 800-1200 group is the group making the greatest improvement and the 1600-2000 group feeling the heat. Any thoughts, Moz? M Well done mike for all of the analysis! PS: I must have countered the rest of box hill! my rating was in the 1600-2000 range and it went up 22!

09-06-2009, 09:07 PM	#26 (permalink)
MOZ Volunteer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters. Posts: 3,541	Originally Posted by Z&MLoh Code: Sep 09 rating Average change > 2000 2.00 1600-2000 -2.71 1200-1600 25.09 800-1200 34.17 Under 800 39.29 I reckon the 800-1200 group is the group making the greatest improvement and the 1600-2000 group feeling the heat. Any thoughts, Moz? M I had not looked at it in the micro view you took Mike. At the macro level I am still trying to come to grips with the nett addition to our pool (even ignoring the previous unrateds). Just who is it gave our pool this huge increase (nett)? __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

09-06-2009, 10:38 PM	#27 (permalink)
Z&MLoh Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Melbourne Posts: 286	Interesting question but this is not a "closed system" around Box Hill Chess Club. If there was only the one Box Hill Chess Club in the world and the players in the club only played in Box Hill Chess Club and the rating system only apply to those players and games played in Box Hill Chess Club then a zero sum game would apply. But in this case, there are players who are members of other clubs as well so if they've gained points through other competitions, it would show up in my analysis. I think that is what has happened unless I've misunderstood your question which is entirely possible as you have a knack for cryptic questions and one-liners {not that there's anything wrong with that}. M

09-06-2009, 10:52 PM	#28 (permalink)
MOZ Volunteer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters. Posts: 3,541	Originally Posted by Z&MLoh Interesting question but this is not a "closed system" around Box Hill Chess Club. If there was only the one Box Hill Chess Club in the world and the players in the club only played in Box Hill Chess Club and the rating system only apply to those players and games played in Box Hill Chess Club then a zero sum game would apply. But in this case, there are players who are members of other clubs as well so if they've gained points through other competitions, it would show up in my analysis. I think that is what has happened unless I've misunderstood your question which is entirely possible as you have a knack for cryptic questions and one-liners {not that there's anything wrong with that}. M Well, no, it is not a closed system, I appreciate that. And I had the same discussion with Laurie this afternoon as we mentally ticked off all the events that our folk visit begonia geelong vic juniors vic open zonal ergas/elite mcc npcc croydon et al But, to be honest, it is hard to see these as the source of such a large gain for our pool. The question still intrigues me. Who lost these points? Let me phrase it differently lest et tu think I am cryptic "Name the three biggest donors to the BHCC pool" . regards MOZ* __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

09-06-2009, 11:01 PM	#29 (permalink)
Bill Gletsos Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 653	Originally Posted by Z&MLoh If there was only the one Box Hill Chess Club in the world and the players in the club only played in Box Hill Chess Club and the rating system only apply to those players and games played in Box Hill Chess Club then a zero sum game would apply. Glicko is not zero sum as rating changes vary for each player based on their RD. So for a single game one player could gain 20 points and his opponent lose 10. The net gain of 10 points is not from any player, but from the system itself.

09-06-2009, 11:05 PM	#30 (permalink)
MOZ Volunteer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters. Posts: 3,541	Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos Glicko is not zero sum as rating changes vary for each player based on their RD. Thank you for your input Bill, it is appreciated and more than likely correct, and is not challenged. But, it nibbles around the edge of the question. Let me say again. Did the BHCC pool (excluding newly rateds) really gain so many points? And if so, who lost them. Ahh. I see you added to your post. __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

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