Rating Systems - Page 9 - OzChess

**santa** · 01-04-2010, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by MOZ

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.

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.

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

Take care, Moz, I said that even if chesskids were to affiliate, their tournaments would probably not be rated by the ACF. beause they don't meet the criteria for rating. Rate of play, for example.

When I was running junior chess, I would have liked a proper method of ranking players, but I had to settle for personal knowledge. Or a tournament format where it didn't matter.

**MOZ** · 01-04-2010, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by santa

Take care, Moz, I said that even if chesskids were to affiliate, their tournaments would probably not be rated by the ACF, because they don't meet the criteria for rating. Rate of play, for example.

...

There are plenty of ChessKids events that are suitable for ACF rapid rating. For example the long-running RJ Shield.

It makes sense for everyone to support the ACF rapid ratings system.
At the moment the Canterbury Juniors CC is gaining a marketing advantage from their support.

**santa** · 01-04-2010, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

There are plenty of ChessKids events that are suitable for ACF rapid rating. For example the long-running RJ Shield.

It makes sense for everyone to support the ACF rapid ratings system.
At the moment the Canterbury Juniors CC is gaining a marketing advantage from their support.

I'll take your word for the first part.

As to the second, it makes sense to use a ratings system that suits one's needs. I don't see why it necessarily makes sense to use the ACF system.

I'd love to see wht the ACF standard system has done to my imaginary rating, but I guess until March I will have to settle for someone's, Bill Cox's? website, which suggests it's gone from 1497 to 1297.

One year I came equal second in the Dandenong Club Championship, along with Jago and another, neither of whom I played. I'd have loved to see what that did to my rating! These days, the infrustructure is in place that it should be possible to have it rated within days of its completion and the results visible to all.

I'm sure kids are even more anxious than I, think just how excited the get at Xmas, birthdays and the like.

I don't know how the current ratings system, as implemented by the ACF, works, but if there's some online documentation I'd love to read it. I've searched, not found it.

**Just2Good** · 01-04-2010, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by santa

I don't see why it necessarily makes sense to use the ACF system.

I completely agree!

**ChessGuru** · 01-04-2010, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by santa

I don't know how the current ratings system, as implemented by the ACF, works, but if there's some online documentation I'd love to read it. I've searched, not found it.

Santa, we live in sad times ... the ACF rating system is completely governed by the whim of Bill Gletsos... no transparency.

the Ratings Officers may adjust the ACF ratings as they see fit

Taken from: http://www.auschess.org.au/constitut...ngs_By-Law.txt

My opinion about ratings is that it is less important to have them 'statistically accurate' and more important that they look pretty and keep players happy and playing more chess.

I know a lot of people disagree (you probably do too) but I think they're a marketing tool more than a 'performance measure'.

Why do people like internet chess so much? Because it is immediate and your rating changes the moment the game is over - not in 3 months time!

The ACF tries to have it both ways:
Ratings are supposed to be 'accurate' yet they don't believe in them enough to select the Olympiad team (or any other overseas representation) on ratings. Ratings are then "taken into consideration" by selectors...

**Bill Gletsos** · 01-04-2010, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by ChessGuru

Santa, we live in sad times ... the ACF rating system is completely governed by the whim of Bill Gletsos... no transparency.

It isnt governed by my whim at all. All changes that Graham Saint and I have made to the ACF rating system as the ACF Rating Officers were approved by the ACF Council.

Originally Posted by ChessGuru

the Ratings Officers may adjust the ACF ratings as they see fit

Taken from: http://www.auschess.org.au/constitut...ngs_By-Law.txt

Your use of selective quoting is a tactic to distort the meaning of the paragrah.
The actual paragraph is:

Without limiting the generality of by-law 4 (2), the Ratings Officers may adjust the ACF ratings as they see fit to try to bring the ACF ratings more in line with FIDE ratings, such an adjustment to be made, when determined necessary, before, or at the same time as, the publication of the first ACF rating list for each calendar year.

**Just2Good** · 01-04-2010, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

It isnt governed by my whim at all. All changes that Graham Saint and I have made to the ACF rating system as the ACF Rating Officers were approved by the ACF Council.

But you don't tell people what their RD is - that is not transparent or appropriate.

**Iconoclast** · 01-05-2010, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

It isnt governed by my whim at all ... [changes] were approved by the ACF Council.

"approved" = rubber stamped

Your use of selective quoting is a tactic to distort the meaning of the paragrah.
The actual paragraph is:

Without limiting the generality of by-law 4 (2), the Ratings Officers may adjust the ACF ratings as they see fit to try to bring the ACF ratings more in line with FIDE ratings, such an adjustment to be made, when determined necessary, before, or at the same time as, the publication of the first ACF rating list for each calendar year.

How do we define "in line with."

FIDE has a rating floor but we do not. FIDE moves slowly, ours has ADHD.

Everyone wants Elo style transparency that YOU refuse to provide.
Everyone wants immediate (weekly) updates which YOU are unwilling to provide.
Everyone wants graphical historical records and YOU are too frightened to provide so a commercial party now does it.

YOU are the obstacle to using ratings to go grow chess. Just jump before you are pushed. Being demoted at the NSWCA AGM is only a first gentle prod.

**Just2Good** · 01-05-2010, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Everyone wants Elo style transparency that YOU refuse to provide.
Everyone wants immediate (weekly) updates which YOU are unwilling to provide.
Everyone wants graphical historical records and YOU are too frightened to provide so a commercial party now does it.

This is why he was replaced as President of the New South Wales Chess Association.

Its why John Howard was replaced at the last election. Basically, people being out of touch with the views held by the majority of members. Hopefully Peter Parr will replace him on the ACF as well.

**santa** · 01-05-2010, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

It isnt governed by my whim at all. All changes that Graham Saint and I have made to the ACF rating system as the ACF Rating Officers were approved by the ACF Council.
Your use of selective quoting is a tactic to distort the meaning of the paragrah.
The actual paragraph is:

Where is the documentation. As far as I can see the ACF gave you carte blanch to do as you like,

http://www.auschess.org.au/constitut...ngs_By-Law.txt

(2) The Ratings Officers may implement the Glicko 2 system in the manner they
deem most appropriate.

**Just2Good** · 01-05-2010, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by santa

Where is the documentation. As far as I can see the ACF gave you carte blanch to do as you like,

http://www.auschess.org.au/constitut...ngs_By-Law.txt

He runs the ACF with his little buddies Jessop and Kevin Bonham.

This little trifecta will someday hopefully realize they are holding chess back in Australia, and move aside for the good of the game and the good of the nation.

**Z&MLoh** · 03-13-2010, 08:32 PM

I reckon there is an upward trend (or level) on most categories except (1600-1899) and (1900-2199) ratings group.

**MOZ** · 03-13-2010, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by Z&MLoh

I reckon there is an upward trend (or level) on most categories except (1600-1899) and (1900-2199) ratings group.

First, thank you for the work done to create this ratings analysis.

The underlying population is changing over time.

Some players drop off the active playing list.
Some players join the active playing list
Some players improve their chess playing skill.

I would speculate the third category are taking rating points from the two rating cohorts that seem to be on a down-ward trend.

**Z&MLoh** · 03-14-2010, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

First, thank you for the work done to create this ratings analysis.

The underlying population is changing over time.
Some players drop off the active playing list.

Some players join the active playing list

Some players improve their chess playing skill.

I would speculate the third category are taking rating points from the two rating cohorts that seem to be on a down-ward trend.

Moz,
I tested your theory above and you are right ... of course.

Using March 09 data as the basis for comparison,

Code:

1600-1899 group

	Players		Players in Mar-09	Players not in Mar-09
Mar-09	  49		
Sep-09	  59			23			36
Mar-10	  43			20			23

Code:

1300-1599 group

	Players		Players in Mar-09	Players not in Mar-09
Mar-09	  43		
Sep-09	  77			25			52
Mar-10	  68			20			48

**MOZ** · 03-15-2010, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Z&MLoh

Moz,
I tested your theory above and you are right ... of course.

Using March 09 data as the basis for comparison,
Code:
1600-1899 group

	Players		Players in Mar-09	Players not in Mar-09
Mar-09	  49		
Sep-09	  59			23			36
Mar-10	  43			20			23
Code:

1300-1599 group Players Players in Mar-09 Players not in Mar-09 Mar-09 43 Sep-09 77 25 52 Mar-10 68 20 48

Mike

No need to run up the flag of

I was simply reflecting on the effect on statistics of the entry of micro-juniors such as 1st on the leader board here > Chess Chat - Australia's Premier Chess Forum - View Single Post - ACF March 2010 Ratings
But I could equally have been thinking of the second-place-getter.

You know change is in the air when Bob Bergamanis says of KZ...he knew deeper of the theory against the Marshall gambit than I did; Or when Mr Podvorac says "how can I see into his eyes to judge what he is thinking when his head doesn't show over the table-ledge."

Mike they are not the only 'hunters of the hunted'. I can name 3 from the nascent Sunday coaching group who are about to give us a new 'phantasmagoria'.

regards
MOZ*

01-04-2010, 02:46 AM	#121 (permalink)
santa Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Meadow Springs wa Posts: 63 FICS Handle: johncs	Originally Posted by MOZ 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. 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. This is just wrong. Plenty of unaffiliated events can be rated. Take care, Moz, I said that even if chesskids were to affiliate, their tournaments would probably not be rated by the ACF. beause they don't meet the criteria for rating. Rate of play, for example. When I was running junior chess, I would have liked a proper method of ranking players, but I had to settle for personal knowledge. Or a tournament format where it didn't matter.

01-04-2010, 10:28 AM	#122 (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: 3,495	Originally Posted by santa Take care, Moz, I said that even if chesskids were to affiliate, their tournaments would probably not be rated by the ACF, because they don't meet the criteria for rating. Rate of play, for example. ... There are plenty of ChessKids events that are suitable for ACF rapid rating. For example the long-running RJ Shield. It makes sense for everyone to support the ACF rapid ratings system. At the moment the Canterbury Juniors CC is gaining a marketing advantage from their support. __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

01-04-2010, 01:34 PM	#123 (permalink)
santa Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Meadow Springs wa Posts: 63 FICS Handle: johncs	Originally Posted by MOZ There are plenty of ChessKids events that are suitable for ACF rapid rating. For example the long-running RJ Shield. It makes sense for everyone to support the ACF rapid ratings system. At the moment the Canterbury Juniors CC is gaining a marketing advantage from their support. I'll take your word for the first part. As to the second, it makes sense to use a ratings system that suits one's needs. I don't see why it necessarily makes sense to use the ACF system. I'd love to see wht the ACF standard system has done to my imaginary rating, but I guess until March I will have to settle for someone's, Bill Cox's? website, which suggests it's gone from 1497 to 1297. One year I came equal second in the Dandenong Club Championship, along with Jago and another, neither of whom I played. I'd have loved to see what that did to my rating! These days, the infrustructure is in place that it should be possible to have it rated within days of its completion and the results visible to all. I'm sure kids are even more anxious than I, think just how excited the get at Xmas, birthdays and the like. I don't know how the current ratings system, as implemented by the ACF, works, but if there's some online documentation I'd love to read it. I've searched, not found it.

01-04-2010, 02:05 PM	#124 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by santa I don't see why it necessarily makes sense to use the ACF system. I completely agree! __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

01-04-2010, 03:49 PM	#125 (permalink)
ChessGuru Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Melbourne Posts: 232	Originally Posted by santa I don't know how the current ratings system, as implemented by the ACF, works, but if there's some online documentation I'd love to read it. I've searched, not found it. Santa, we live in sad times ... the ACF rating system is completely governed by the whim of Bill Gletsos... no transparency. the Ratings Officers may adjust the ACF ratings as they see fit Taken from: http://www.auschess.org.au/constitut...ngs_By-Law.txt My opinion about ratings is that it is less important to have them 'statistically accurate' and more important that they look pretty and keep players happy and playing more chess. I know a lot of people disagree (you probably do too) but I think they're a marketing tool more than a 'performance measure'. Why do people like internet chess so much? Because it is immediate and your rating changes the moment the game is over - not in 3 months time! The ACF tries to have it both ways: Ratings are supposed to be 'accurate' yet they don't believe in them enough to select the Olympiad team (or any other overseas representation) on ratings. Ratings are then "taken into consideration" by selectors...

01-04-2010, 07:28 PM	#126 (permalink)
Bill Gletsos Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 653	Originally Posted by ChessGuru Santa, we live in sad times ... the ACF rating system is completely governed by the whim of Bill Gletsos... no transparency. It isnt governed by my whim at all. All changes that Graham Saint and I have made to the ACF rating system as the ACF Rating Officers were approved by the ACF Council. Originally Posted by ChessGuru the Ratings Officers may adjust the ACF ratings as they see fit Taken from: http://www.auschess.org.au/constitut...ngs_By-Law.txt Your use of selective quoting is a tactic to distort the meaning of the paragrah. The actual paragraph is: Without limiting the generality of by-law 4 (2), the Ratings Officers may adjust the ACF ratings as they see fit to try to bring the ACF ratings more in line with FIDE ratings, such an adjustment to be made, when determined necessary, before, or at the same time as, the publication of the first ACF rating list for each calendar year.

01-04-2010, 08:04 PM	#127 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos It isnt governed by my whim at all. All changes that Graham Saint and I have made to the ACF rating system as the ACF Rating Officers were approved by the ACF Council. But you don't tell people what their RD is - that is not transparent or appropriate. __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

01-05-2010, 09:54 AM	#128 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos It isnt governed by my whim at all ... [changes] were approved by the ACF Council. "approved" = rubber stamped Your use of selective quoting is a tactic to distort the meaning of the paragrah. The actual paragraph is: Without limiting the generality of by-law 4 (2), the Ratings Officers may adjust the ACF ratings as they see fit to try to bring the ACF ratings more in line with FIDE ratings, such an adjustment to be made, when determined necessary, before, or at the same time as, the publication of the first ACF rating list for each calendar year. How do we define "in line with." FIDE has a rating floor but we do not. FIDE moves slowly, ours has ADHD. Everyone wants Elo style transparency that YOU refuse to provide. Everyone wants immediate (weekly) updates which YOU are unwilling to provide. Everyone wants graphical historical records and YOU are too frightened to provide so a commercial party now does it. YOU are the obstacle to using ratings to go grow chess. Just jump before you are pushed. Being demoted at the NSWCA AGM is only a first gentle prod. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals. Last edited by Iconoclast : 01-05-2010 at 09:56 AM Reason: quote tag fix

01-05-2010, 02:30 PM	#129 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Iconoclast Everyone wants Elo style transparency that YOU refuse to provide. Everyone wants immediate (weekly) updates which YOU are unwilling to provide. Everyone wants graphical historical records and YOU are too frightened to provide so a commercial party now does it. This is why he was replaced as President of the New South Wales Chess Association. Its why John Howard was replaced at the last election. Basically, people being out of touch with the views held by the majority of members. Hopefully Peter Parr will replace him on the ACF as well. __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

01-05-2010, 08:35 PM	#130 (permalink)
santa Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Meadow Springs wa Posts: 63 FICS Handle: johncs	Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos It isnt governed by my whim at all. All changes that Graham Saint and I have made to the ACF rating system as the ACF Rating Officers were approved by the ACF Council. Your use of selective quoting is a tactic to distort the meaning of the paragrah. The actual paragraph is: Where is the documentation. As far as I can see the ACF gave you carte blanch to do as you like, http://www.auschess.org.au/constitut...ngs_By-Law.txt (2) The Ratings Officers may implement the Glicko 2 system in the manner they deem most appropriate.

01-05-2010, 09:28 PM	#131 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Bill's mates! Originally Posted by santa Where is the documentation. As far as I can see the ACF gave you carte blanch to do as you like, http://www.auschess.org.au/constitut...ngs_By-Law.txt He runs the ACF with his little buddies Jessop and Kevin Bonham. This little trifecta will someday hopefully realize they are holding chess back in Australia, and move aside for the good of the game and the good of the nation. __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

03-13-2010, 09:01 PM	#133 (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: 3,495	Originally Posted by Z&MLoh I reckon there is an upward trend (or level) on most categories except (1600-1899) and (1900-2199) ratings group. First, thank you for the work done to create this ratings analysis. The underlying population is changing over time. Some players drop off the active playing list. Some players join the active playing list Some players improve their chess playing skill. I would speculate the third category are taking rating points from the two rating cohorts that seem to be on a down-ward trend. __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

03-14-2010, 08:47 PM	#134 (permalink)
Z&MLoh Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Melbourne Posts: 279	Originally Posted by MOZ First, thank you for the work done to create this ratings analysis. The underlying population is changing over time. Some players drop off the active playing list. Some players join the active playing list Some players improve their chess playing skill. I would speculate the third category are taking rating points from the two rating cohorts that seem to be on a down-ward trend. Moz, I tested your theory above and you are right ... of course. Using March 09 data as the basis for comparison, Code: 1600-1899 group Players Players in Mar-09 Players not in Mar-09 Mar-09 49 Sep-09 59 23 36 Mar-10 43 20 23 Code: 1300-1599 group Players Players in Mar-09 Players not in Mar-09 Mar-09 43 Sep-09 77 25 52 Mar-10 68 20 48 Last edited by Z&MLoh : 03-14-2010 at 09:49 PM

03-15-2010, 01:06 PM	#135 (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: 3,495	Originally Posted by Z&MLoh Moz, I tested your theory above and you are right ... of course. Using March 09 data as the basis for comparison, Code: 1600-1899 group Players Players in Mar-09 Players not in Mar-09 Mar-09 49 Sep-09 59 23 36 Mar-10 43 20 23 Code: 1300-1599 group Players Players in Mar-09 Players not in Mar-09 Mar-09 43 Sep-09 77 25 52 Mar-10 68 20 48 Mike No need to run up the flag of I was simply reflecting on the effect on statistics of the entry of micro-juniors such as 1st on the leader board here > Chess Chat - Australia's Premier Chess Forum - View Single Post - ACF March 2010 Ratings But I could equally have been thinking of the second-place-getter. You know change is in the air when Bob Bergamanis says of KZ...he knew deeper of the theory against the Marshall gambit than I did; Or when Mr Podvorac says "how can I see into his eyes to judge what he is thinking when his head doesn't show over the table-ledge." Mike they are not the only 'hunters of the hunted'. I can name 3 from the nascent Sunday coaching group who are about to give us a new 'phantasmagoria'. regards MOZ* __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

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