Rating Systems - Page 8 - OzChess

**Z&MLoh** · 12-01-2009, 08:50 PM

This is the same data for NSW. Seems to me there is growth below 1300 and then pretty much flat for higher rating groups.

**MOZ** · 12-01-2009, 08:59 PM

Nice pics Mike.
Any theories on reasons for differences?

**Z&MLoh** · 12-01-2009, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

Nice pics Mike.
Any theories on reasons for differences?

No theories. Perhaps chess administrators can enlighten?

In Victoria's case why is 1600-1899 singled out? In NSW's case, why is there general stagnation or slight decline above 1300.

**Firegoat7** · 12-10-2009, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Z&MLoh

No theories. Perhaps chess administrators can enlighten?

In Victoria's case why is 1600-1899 singled out? In NSW's case, why is there general stagnation or slight decline above 1300.

Love the graphs!

I would postulate that Victorian chess scene is the most culturally vibrant in Australia. IMO, The key reason is that it has the two most active clubs in Australia, MCC and Box Hill.

Because these clubs meet more then one day a week they provide a culturally rich environment for serious players to improve rapidly. The strong players are active at these clubs, so people learn through osmosis. When chess players compete at these clubs the bars are a little higher then your normal one day a week type of club. I would also estimate that Ranges and Noble Park, because they also have multiple sessions, would also be starting to produce stronger players.

Without knowing for certain, I would think that your one day a week type of club struggles to generate the necessary competitive playing conditions for an active and competitive playing pool.

In NSW case, they have a reputation for producing very large numbers of juniors through their NSWJCL. But after these players reach a certain point the support system for their continued development as players falls away.

I would love to see a breakdown of graphs based on club membership. I would also like to see some information on player types. For example at MCC we have players who never play tournaments, but are very strong blitz players. These types of players play everyday and keep the once a week player more actively involved through blitz. I suspect that people who play at multiple clubs would also be stronger then your average player.

cheers,

**Z&MLoh** · 12-10-2009, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Love the graphs!

I would postulate that Victorian chess scene is the most culturally vibrant in Australia. IMO, The key reason is that it has the two most active clubs in Australia, MCC and Box Hill.

Because these clubs meet more then one day a week they provide a culturally rich environment for serious players to improve rapidly. The strong players are active at these clubs, so people learn through osmosis. When chess players compete at these clubs the bars are a little higher then your normal one day a week type of club. I would also estimate that Ranges and Noble Park, because they also have multiple sessions, would also be starting to produce stronger players.

Without knowing for certain, I would think that your one day a week type of club struggles to generate the necessary competitive playing conditions for an active and competitive playing pool.

In NSW case, they have a reputation for producing very large numbers of juniors through their NSWJCL. But after these players reach a certain point the support system for their continued development as players falls away.

I would love to see a breakdown of graphs based on club membership. I would also like to see some information on player types. For example at MCC we have players who never play tournaments, but are very strong blitz players. These types of players play everyday and keep the once a week player more actively involved through blitz. I suspect that people who play at multiple clubs would also be stronger then your average player.

cheers,

The graphs are based on published ACF data here. Unfortunately, the information to do the analysis you suggested above is not available publicly.

Your theory on NSWJCL is interesting. There is merit in your argument and I know there are others who share the same viewpoint.

Similarly, your theory on Victoria's case also has merit. In Zach's case, he went from:

school chess club to

interschool competition (via Chess Victoria-approved and Chess kids) to

chess clubs catering to rapid chess to

chess clubs catering to "normal" chess to

more serious comps like Victorian Open, Australian Juniors, etc.

In addition to your viewpoint, I would add that kids will continue to play if "foundation" events like school chess and interschool, etc. are accessible. When those structures are not there, my view is that there is a higher risk of kids dropping out. Therefore I subscribe to the view that there should be one body that looks after and encourages the whole gambit from school chess to serious competitions rather than slicing the "pyramid' into chunks and allocating different entities to look after each chunk.

Mike

**MOZ** · 12-10-2009, 12:42 PM

I am enjoing the read between the lines from Mike and fg7 in this thread.
Quality ideas of yours guys.

**Lakshman** · 12-10-2009, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Z&MLoh

The graphs are based on published ACF data here. Unfortunately, the information to do the analysis you suggested above is not available publicly.

Your theory on NSWJCL is interesting. There is merit in your argument and I know there are others who share the same viewpoint.

Similarly, your theory on Victoria's case also has merit. In Zach's case, he went from:
school chess club to
interschool competition (via Chess Victoria-approved and Chess kids) to
chess clubs catering to rapid chess to
chess clubs catering to "normal" chess to
more serious comps like Victorian Open, Australian Juniors, etc.

Originally Posted by Z&MLoh

In addition to your viewpoint, I would add that kids will continue to play if "foundation" events like school chess and interschool, etc. are accessible. When those structures are not there, my view is that there is a higher risk of kids dropping out. Therefore I subscribe to the view that there should be one body that looks after and encourages the whole gambit from school chess to serious competitions rather than slicing the "pyramid' into chunks and allocating different entities to look after each chunk.

Mike

Very good point Mike. Well summarised &

**san4os** · 12-12-2009, 01:33 AM

Hi!

why do you need rating system?

_________________
Cigars online store

**santa** · 01-03-2010, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

As we know, the Glicko "?? ? ! !!" system for calculating a rating is vastly superior to the Elo, which doe not use/generate a reliability of each rating, and therefore is not a variable in its algorithm.

K serves that role in Elo systems, but its calculation is flawed. It has been set (downwards) based on factors such as players' age, number of games. There was no provision for increasing it when a player was inactive for a time, or when a player's rating changed dramatically - as might be expected if a player played in another federation for a year or so.

In the Shaun Press era (don't know whose decision it was), the particular tournanent was a factor - the Australian Championship counted double "because it's more important.

<searches>
I have here a ratings book from '86. It describes how ratings were calulated then, and relevant to my point is the calculation of K
30 for Australian Championship
33.5 for state championship
7.5 for non-Australian-championship junior events
15 for others.

By the mid 90s the calculation of K was omitted, I think it was a konstant 15 for all players.

The purpose of K is to flush old results out of the rating calculation, rhe reasoning is that results from three years ago are less relevant than those in the past six months. Higher values of K eliminate old results more quickly, but produce more volatile ratings.

**santa** · 01-03-2010, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by shaun

In the comments section to this post on my blog, there is a very nice post on Glicko and the issues some people are having with it.

I don't know the details of Katrina's spat, but I am very curious about what will happen to my "rating."

I played in my first tournament in about 15 years last month. First, the DOP dragged out a rating for me, 1497.

I didn't think I was ever a 1500 player, I thought my peak was about 1400.

First round I got David Ellis, a 1900+ player and who writes the local chess column.

I actually didn't do too badly in that game, with the black pieces. I lost on time (the time control is shorter than I played before, and the extre 10sec/move fairly meaningless), but depite David's Q sac (which I saw and calculated) our post mortem didn't persuade me I was losing on the board, and having Q+R aimed at the opponent's king is always nice.

Second round, a 1700+ player.
Third round, a 1700 player with a black face and an evil grin
Fourth round, an unrated who beat the 1700 player and beat or drew with another 1700+ player.
Fifth round. Bye.
Final round, a 1450 or so player who, 15 years ago, I'd have had about 50% chance of beating.

I am very interested to see what the ACF makes of those results.

My own view is that after some time (three years, five years or even two years), ratings of those who have not played should be removed and, if they return, they are treated as unrated players.

And, in a case like this, all the player's games would be disregarded for ratings purposes. All you can say from this is that I was out of my depth.

**santa** · 01-03-2010, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Back to ratings >>>

One important capability of a predictive model, is that it predicts. That is, it generates NOT what is the position NOW, but what it will be in the FUTURE. Currently, there is no rating system (AFAIK - except for mine) that is a predictive model and accounts for dynamic elements.

Ask me why "dynamic elements" are.

All a ratings system measures is past performances. Where ratings are calculated four times a year, the results are likely to be six weeks and more older, especially when tournaments span ratings periods.

They attempt to predict the future, but predictions for an individual are highly suspect. They can only work for statistically-significant populations.

**santa** · 01-03-2010, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

T

However this para. from the most recent newsletter is certainly foreign to the health of the state and national chess associations.

Chess Kids will be introducing a rating system for junior
players in 2009. Every player who plays in a tournament
will have their own chess rating. After playing your first
tournament you will be given a rating based on your
performance.

Close readers of Ozchess will know that I have campaigned long against the fragmentary practice in NSW where a junior rating system is maintained outside the the official national system managed so accurately by Bill Gletsos.

MOZ*

I don'r have an opinion on the current ratings system yet, I've not seen it in operation. I do note, however, that not everyone agrees with your contention as to its accuracy.

A valid concern that I agree with is that its details are not published, and some people would argue that is enough reason to not trust it.

If Chesskids wants ratings, probably it has to do it itself. Essentially, it's a private, unaffiliated concern with no official standing with CV or the ACF. Probably, it could affiliate as a club, but even then the only events ratable would be those that conform with ACF requirements.

When I ran chess clubs for kids, that was none did.

**santa** · 01-03-2010, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by san4os

Hi!

why do you need rating system?

A ratings system measures how well people play. People who play better chess have higher ratings.

People like to improve, at anything, and an increase in their ratings shows them that they are improving.

Also, ratings are used to order players in chess tournaments, when deciding who plays whom.

In swiss tournaments, players are listed, strongest to weakest, and for the first round, the list is separated in the middle.

The top player on the first list plays the top player on the second, and so on down the list. If there's an odd number, the weakest player gets a bye (and a point).

Second and later rounds are similar, but players are matched based on scores, colour balance and whether they've already played each other.

**MOZ** · 01-03-2010, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by santa

I don't have an opinion on the current ratings system yet, I've not seen it in operation.

I do note, however, that not everyone agrees with your contention as to its accuracy.

And from what I have seen on the relevant thread on chesschat, not one grizzle has stood up to close scrutiny. My contention that the management of the system is accurate has not been challenged, and I would further contend that the ACF formulae are better than other offerings.

A valid concern that I agree with is that its details are not published, and some people would argue that is enough reason to not trust it.

If Chesskids wants ratings, probably it has to do it itself.

Chesskids has adopted a product-definition for their ratings to be

available for the first tournament played by a newcomer
and, updated immediately after each tournament.

Neither of these conditions are met by the ACF rapid-ratings system, so probably it (ChessKids) has to expend the maintenance effort itself.

Essentially, it's a private, unaffiliated concern with no official standing with CV or the ACF. Probably, it could affiliate as a club, but even then the only events ratable would be those that conform with ACF requirements.

This is just wrong.
Plenty of unaffiliated events can be rated.

When I ran chess clubs for kids, that was none did.

I repeat my earlier para.
"Close readers of Ozchess will know that I have campaigned long against the fragmentary practice in NSW where a junior rating system is maintained outside the the official national system managed so accurately by Bill Gletsos."

Essentially the argument is truly about revenue-capture, or product-definition, but that has not stopped the intellectually dishonest practice of blaming inaccuracy or transparency.

**santa** · 01-04-2010, 02:31 AM

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

My ACF was around the 1800 mark under the ELO system for a number of years before the 150 point uplift in April 2000 under ELO took it to 1950.
.

Ah, that explains lots....

eg why my socalled rating is even more bogus than I thought. It's my my impending senility after all.

eg Why so many peoples'ratings are higher than I recalled. They haven't actually improved all that much, there ratings have been pumped up.

12-01-2009, 08:59 PM	#107 (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	Nice pics Mike. Any theories on reasons for differences? __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

12-01-2009, 09:25 PM	#108 (permalink)
Z&MLoh Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Melbourne Posts: 286	Originally Posted by MOZ Nice pics Mike. Any theories on reasons for differences? No theories. Perhaps chess administrators can enlighten? In Victoria's case why is 1600-1899 singled out? In NSW's case, why is there general stagnation or slight decline above 1300.

12-10-2009, 11:54 AM	#109 (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 Z&MLoh No theories. Perhaps chess administrators can enlighten? In Victoria's case why is 1600-1899 singled out? In NSW's case, why is there general stagnation or slight decline above 1300. Love the graphs! I would postulate that Victorian chess scene is the most culturally vibrant in Australia. IMO, The key reason is that it has the two most active clubs in Australia, MCC and Box Hill. Because these clubs meet more then one day a week they provide a culturally rich environment for serious players to improve rapidly. The strong players are active at these clubs, so people learn through osmosis. When chess players compete at these clubs the bars are a little higher then your normal one day a week type of club. I would also estimate that Ranges and Noble Park, because they also have multiple sessions, would also be starting to produce stronger players. Without knowing for certain, I would think that your one day a week type of club struggles to generate the necessary competitive playing conditions for an active and competitive playing pool. In NSW case, they have a reputation for producing very large numbers of juniors through their NSWJCL. But after these players reach a certain point the support system for their continued development as players falls away. I would love to see a breakdown of graphs based on club membership. I would also like to see some information on player types. For example at MCC we have players who never play tournaments, but are very strong blitz players. These types of players play everyday and keep the once a week player more actively involved through blitz. I suspect that people who play at multiple clubs would also be stronger then your average player. 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

12-10-2009, 12:37 PM	#110 (permalink)
Z&MLoh Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Melbourne Posts: 286	Originally Posted by Firegoat7 Love the graphs! I would postulate that Victorian chess scene is the most culturally vibrant in Australia. IMO, The key reason is that it has the two most active clubs in Australia, MCC and Box Hill. Because these clubs meet more then one day a week they provide a culturally rich environment for serious players to improve rapidly. The strong players are active at these clubs, so people learn through osmosis. When chess players compete at these clubs the bars are a little higher then your normal one day a week type of club. I would also estimate that Ranges and Noble Park, because they also have multiple sessions, would also be starting to produce stronger players. Without knowing for certain, I would think that your one day a week type of club struggles to generate the necessary competitive playing conditions for an active and competitive playing pool. In NSW case, they have a reputation for producing very large numbers of juniors through their NSWJCL. But after these players reach a certain point the support system for their continued development as players falls away. I would love to see a breakdown of graphs based on club membership. I would also like to see some information on player types. For example at MCC we have players who never play tournaments, but are very strong blitz players. These types of players play everyday and keep the once a week player more actively involved through blitz. I suspect that people who play at multiple clubs would also be stronger then your average player. cheers, The graphs are based on published ACF data here. Unfortunately, the information to do the analysis you suggested above is not available publicly. Your theory on NSWJCL is interesting. There is merit in your argument and I know there are others who share the same viewpoint. Similarly, your theory on Victoria's case also has merit. In Zach's case, he went from: school chess club to interschool competition (via Chess Victoria-approved and Chess kids) to chess clubs catering to rapid chess to chess clubs catering to "normal" chess to more serious comps like Victorian Open, Australian Juniors, etc. In addition to your viewpoint, I would add that kids will continue to play if "foundation" events like school chess and interschool, etc. are accessible. When those structures are not there, my view is that there is a higher risk of kids dropping out. Therefore I subscribe to the view that there should be one body that looks after and encourages the whole gambit from school chess to serious competitions rather than slicing the "pyramid' into chunks and allocating different entities to look after each chunk. Mike

12-10-2009, 12:42 PM	#111 (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 am enjoing the read between the lines from Mike and fg7 in this thread. Quality ideas of yours guys. __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

12-10-2009, 01:31 PM	#112 (permalink)
Lakshman Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Melbourne Posts: 329	Originally Posted by Z&MLoh The graphs are based on published ACF data here. Unfortunately, the information to do the analysis you suggested above is not available publicly. Your theory on NSWJCL is interesting. There is merit in your argument and I know there are others who share the same viewpoint. Similarly, your theory on Victoria's case also has merit. In Zach's case, he went from: school chess club to interschool competition (via Chess Victoria-approved and Chess kids) to chess clubs catering to rapid chess to chess clubs catering to "normal" chess to more serious comps like Victorian Open, Australian Juniors, etc. Originally Posted by Z&MLoh In addition to your viewpoint, I would add that kids will continue to play if "foundation" events like school chess and interschool, etc. are accessible. When those structures are not there, my view is that there is a higher risk of kids dropping out. Therefore I subscribe to the view that there should be one body that looks after and encourages the whole gambit from school chess to serious competitions rather than slicing the "pyramid' into chunks and allocating different entities to look after each chunk. Mike Very good point Mike. Well summarised & __________________ God is Great

12-12-2009, 01:33 AM	#113 (permalink)
san4os Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1	Hi! why do you need rating system? _________________ Cigars online store

01-03-2010, 01:25 PM	#114 (permalink)
santa Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Meadow Springs wa Posts: 64 FICS Handle: johncs	Originally Posted by Iconoclast As we know, the Glicko "?? ? ! !!" system for calculating a rating is vastly superior to the Elo, which doe not use/generate a reliability of each rating, and therefore is not a variable in its algorithm. K serves that role in Elo systems, but its calculation is flawed. It has been set (downwards) based on factors such as players' age, number of games. There was no provision for increasing it when a player was inactive for a time, or when a player's rating changed dramatically - as might be expected if a player played in another federation for a year or so. In the Shaun Press era (don't know whose decision it was), the particular tournanent was a factor - the Australian Championship counted double "because it's more important. <searches> I have here a ratings book from '86. It describes how ratings were calulated then, and relevant to my point is the calculation of K 30 for Australian Championship 33.5 for state championship 7.5 for non-Australian-championship junior events 15 for others. By the mid 90s the calculation of K was omitted, I think it was a konstant 15 for all players. The purpose of K is to flush old results out of the rating calculation, rhe reasoning is that results from three years ago are less relevant than those in the past six months. Higher values of K eliminate old results more quickly, but produce more volatile ratings.

01-03-2010, 01:58 PM	#115 (permalink)
santa Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Meadow Springs wa Posts: 64 FICS Handle: johncs	Originally Posted by shaun In the comments section to this post on my blog, there is a very nice post on Glicko and the issues some people are having with it. I don't know the details of Katrina's spat, but I am very curious about what will happen to my "rating." I played in my first tournament in about 15 years last month. First, the DOP dragged out a rating for me, 1497. I didn't think I was ever a 1500 player, I thought my peak was about 1400. First round I got David Ellis, a 1900+ player and who writes the local chess column. I actually didn't do too badly in that game, with the black pieces. I lost on time (the time control is shorter than I played before, and the extre 10sec/move fairly meaningless), but depite David's Q sac (which I saw and calculated) our post mortem didn't persuade me I was losing on the board, and having Q+R aimed at the opponent's king is always nice. Second round, a 1700+ player. Third round, a 1700 player with a black face and an evil grin Fourth round, an unrated who beat the 1700 player and beat or drew with another 1700+ player. Fifth round. Bye. Final round, a 1450 or so player who, 15 years ago, I'd have had about 50% chance of beating. I am very interested to see what the ACF makes of those results. My own view is that after some time (three years, five years or even two years), ratings of those who have not played should be removed and, if they return, they are treated as unrated players. And, in a case like this, all the player's games would be disregarded for ratings purposes. All you can say from this is that I was out of my depth.

01-03-2010, 02:03 PM	#116 (permalink)
santa Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Meadow Springs wa Posts: 64 FICS Handle: johncs	Originally Posted by Iconoclast Back to ratings >>> One important capability of a predictive model, is that it predicts. That is, it generates NOT what is the position NOW, but what it will be in the FUTURE. Currently, there is no rating system (AFAIK - except for mine) that is a predictive model and accounts for dynamic elements. Ask me why "dynamic elements" are. All a ratings system measures is past performances. Where ratings are calculated four times a year, the results are likely to be six weeks and more older, especially when tournaments span ratings periods. They attempt to predict the future, but predictions for an individual are highly suspect. They can only work for statistically-significant populations.

01-03-2010, 02:11 PM	#117 (permalink)
santa Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Meadow Springs wa Posts: 64 FICS Handle: johncs	Originally Posted by MOZ T However this para. from the most recent newsletter is certainly foreign to the health of the state and national chess associations. Chess Kids will be introducing a rating system for junior players in 2009. Every player who plays in a tournament will have their own chess rating. After playing your first tournament you will be given a rating based on your performance. Close readers of Ozchess will know that I have campaigned long against the fragmentary practice in NSW where a junior rating system is maintained outside the the official national system managed so accurately by Bill Gletsos. MOZ* I don'r have an opinion on the current ratings system yet, I've not seen it in operation. I do note, however, that not everyone agrees with your contention as to its accuracy. A valid concern that I agree with is that its details are not published, and some people would argue that is enough reason to not trust it. If Chesskids wants ratings, probably it has to do it itself. Essentially, it's a private, unaffiliated concern with no official standing with CV or the ACF. Probably, it could affiliate as a club, but even then the only events ratable would be those that conform with ACF requirements. When I ran chess clubs for kids, that was none did.

01-03-2010, 02:29 PM	#118 (permalink)
santa Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Meadow Springs wa Posts: 64 FICS Handle: johncs	Originally Posted by san4os Hi! why do you need rating system? A ratings system measures how well people play. People who play better chess have higher ratings. People like to improve, at anything, and an increase in their ratings shows them that they are improving. Also, ratings are used to order players in chess tournaments, when deciding who plays whom. In swiss tournaments, players are listed, strongest to weakest, and for the first round, the list is separated in the middle. The top player on the first list plays the top player on the second, and so on down the list. If there's an odd number, the weakest player gets a bye (and a point). Second and later rounds are similar, but players are matched based on scores, colour balance and whether they've already played each other.

01-03-2010, 03:29 PM	#119 (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	The ACF ratings system is OK. And that is official. Originally Posted by santa I don't have an opinion on the current ratings system yet, I've not seen it in operation. I do note, however, that not everyone agrees with your contention as to its accuracy. And from what I have seen on the relevant thread on chesschat, not one grizzle has stood up to close scrutiny. My contention that the management of the system is accurate has not been challenged, and I would further contend that the ACF formulae are better than other offerings. A valid concern that I agree with is that its details are not published, and some people would argue that is enough reason to not trust it. If Chesskids wants ratings, probably it has to do it itself. Chesskids has adopted a product-definition for their ratings to be available for the first tournament played by a newcomer and, updated immediately after each tournament. Neither of these conditions are met by the ACF rapid-ratings system, so probably it (ChessKids) has to expend the maintenance effort itself. Essentially, it's a private, unaffiliated concern with no official standing with CV or the ACF. Probably, it could affiliate as a club, but even then the only events ratable would be those that conform with ACF requirements. This is just wrong. Plenty of unaffiliated events can be rated. When I ran chess clubs for kids, that was none did. I repeat my earlier para. "Close readers of Ozchess will know that I have campaigned long against the fragmentary practice in NSW where a junior rating system is maintained outside the the official national system managed so accurately by Bill Gletsos." Essentially the argument is truly about revenue-capture, or product-definition, but that has not stopped the intellectually dishonest practice of blaming inaccuracy or transparency. __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

01-04-2010, 02:31 AM	#120 (permalink)
santa Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Meadow Springs wa Posts: 64 FICS Handle: johncs	Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos My ACF was around the 1800 mark under the ELO system for a number of years before the 150 point uplift in April 2000 under ELO took it to 1950. . Ah, that explains lots.... eg why my socalled rating is even more bogus than I thought. It's my my impending senility after all. eg Why so many peoples'ratings are higher than I recalled. They haven't actually improved all that much, there ratings have been pumped up.

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