PDA

View Full Version : (billing system for ratings fees and other comments sf CV proposed changes)



peter_parr
24-08-2009, 10:54 AM
It is simple.

If a club/state association does not get its event rated then its disadvantage its members.

Note the ACF admin fee for normal rated events is 30 cents per player per game. (prior to 2009 it was 25 cents per player per game.)



Note for one game of classical chess the ACF fee is 60c

Sep 2008 ACF rated 6994 classic and 4758 rapid games
Dec 2008 ACF rated 6013 classic and 2083 rapid games
Mar 2009 ACF rated 4517 classic and 2669 rapid games
Jun 2009 ACF rated 6570 classic and 2762 rapid games

Total last 12 months 24094 classic games and 12272 rapid games.

The results of all games are sent to the State Ratings Officers who check, verify and process all the data. The ACF co-ordinates the State ratings officers and produces the lists.

The ACF invoices each state according to the number of games from each state times the rating fee per player per game. 100% of all these fees go in the ACF bank account. Meanwhile the State Associations have to trace and invoice every club and organizer in their state to get their money back (given to ACF).

I fail to understand why State Associations agreed to this system. If a State Association is 100% efficient it will send out dozens of invoices but any unpaid are a financial loss to the State not the ACF. So most of the work for ratings is done by the States, the ACF is guaranteed to receive all the money from the State Associations who may/may not get their money back from sending out dozens of invoices.

If any organizer arranges numerous extra events every cent of the extra fees goes to ACF. In addition of course the ACF charges other fees for schools - the more teams, the more schools, then more for the ACF. I have suggested to Bill (no bills for Bill) and others that payment for rating events should be sent at the same time as when the results are submitted to avoid financial losses.

Most states are losing money every rating period in my opinion. Of course all these ratings fees are nearly all the income the ACF receives. Unlike the States who create their own income the ACF council itself does not run events (the States do) and its major expenditure is FIDE fees etc. As fees for every FIDE rated event, FM titles etc are not paid by ACF, no rent on premises etc the overheads are low.

The ACF has accumulated a considerable bank balance (every game by every player increases the balance) topped up each year. It is up to leading State Office-Bearers to amend ACF regulations as they see fit. A look at the ACF finances are essential and I would recommend (if the ACF does have very considerable funds - or is that info unavailable?) that in future periods 50% of rating fees goes to ACF and 50% to the State who organize the events and process the results. NSW is the largest State but the NSWCA executive is largely the ACF executive (why is that allowed?) so the initiative would need to come from other states.

The NSW Bridge Association publishes its minutes on its website I recommend ACF and states do the same.

We remain the only country in the World to use the Glicko rating system. FIDE is considering slight alterations to the Elo system but with good reason would never use a Glicko type system. It is in my opinion doing a lot of damage. If those supporters of Glicko are so convinced it is good why has a submission not been sent to FIDE? Hundreds of pages on chesschat but why not tell FIDE? The response would of course be "you can't be serious" - J.McE.

Finally it is good that Victoria is discussing these matters. It is important not to have on any council members who like to be on councils but in fact do very little or nothing. Chess administration needs more active people. When I first joined the NSWCA Council over 40 years ago there were much bigger meetings, more clubs, younger administrators including many strong players.

It is a FIDE requirement that all players must be members of their national federation for an event to be rated by FIDE. A membership scheme is recommended (essential).

On a brighter note the Australian Championships and supporting tournaments (Chess Discount Sales is a major sponsor) should be very good - near Sydney Harbour Bridge - 2-13 January 2010 - See you there.

Kevin Bonham
24-08-2009, 03:16 PM
I fail to understand why State Associations agreed to this system. If a State Association is 100% efficient it will send out dozens of invoices but any unpaid are a financial loss to the State not the ACF. So most of the work for ratings is done by the States, the ACF is guaranteed to receive all the money from the State Associations who may/may not get their money back from sending out dozens of invoices.

A State Association concerned about this could easily refuse to submit events from unreliable or untested organisers for rating until the organiser had paid the relevant ratings charges.


If any organizer arranges numerous extra events every cent of the extra fees goes to ACF. In addition of course the ACF charges other fees for schools - the more teams, the more schools, then more for the ACF.

This is no longer the case. The per-team levy has been abolished and replaced with a per-capita annual fee.


NSW is the largest State but the NSWCA executive is largely the ACF executive (why is that allowed?) so the initiative would need to come from other states.

The current ACF Executive contains three from NSW, one from Vic, one from ACT, one from Tas.

Furthermore such decisions as you suggest are not made at Exec level. The ACF Council has one member from each state and the ACT in addition to the above, and the National Conference has a population-based delegate system.


If those supporters of Glicko are so convinced it is good why has a submission not been sent to FIDE?

Because if FIDE want to adopt a more dynamic and predictively accurate system then they are quite capable of investigating options to do so without our assistance.

ChessGuru
24-08-2009, 09:07 PM
Because if FIDE want to adopt a more dynamic and predictively accurate system then they are quite capable of investigating options to do so without our assistance.

If the ratings are so accurate why doesn't the ACF use them for anything?

1. Olympiad has selections
2. World Junior/junior events have selections
3. Players can get into Aus Champs by application if their rating isn't high enough

etc....

Clearly the ACF doesn't believe the ratings are accurate....

Denis_Jessop
24-08-2009, 09:26 PM
If the ratings are so accurate why doesn't the ACF use them for anything?

1. Olympiad has selections
2. World Junior/junior events have selections
3. Players can get into Aus Champs by application if their rating isn't high enough

etc....

Clearly the ACF doesn't believe the ratings are accurate....


This just nonsense. ACF selections take into account things additional to ratings. The ACF has never asserted that its ratings are "so accurate" that all other criteria are irrelevant. If you knew more about the ACF and its activities you wouldn't say such silly things. Your point 3 isn't either accurate or relevant to your argument such as it is.

DJ

ChessGuru
24-08-2009, 09:34 PM
This just nonsense. ACF selections take into account things additional to ratings. The ACF has never asserted that its ratings are "so accurate" that all other criteria are irrelevant. If you knew more about the ACF and its activities you wouldn't say such silly things. Your point 3 isn't either accurate or relevant to your argument such as it is.

OK, good to hear that you admit that the rating system isn't "so accurate".

If it isn't so accurate then perhaps the PURPOSE for ratings is something other than perfect accuracy..... eg:
- encourage participation
- engage players

And if so, then perhaps a non-Gliko system would be a more effective way of achieving your REAL GOALS? I'd think things like:
- Speed
- Transparency/trust
- visibility
- promotion

...would be important than spending so much time getting 'a more dynamic and predictively accurate system'?

Also - with regards Peter's comments, would you say that the ACF was a GOVERNMENT or do you feel that you have an obligation to provide certain SERVICES and value for money to your 'customers'?

Because as Peter points out...almost all the ACF fees are collected by the states for the ACF (taking the commercial risk) and we really don't seem to get that much for them.

I am sure that at least one state next year will be asking some tricky questions of the ACF. :)

Denis_Jessop
24-08-2009, 10:18 PM
OK, good to hear that you admit that the rating system isn't "so accurate".

If it isn't so accurate then perhaps the PURPOSE for ratings is something other than perfect accuracy..... eg:
- encourage participation
- engage players

And if so, then perhaps a non-Gliko system would be a more effective way of achieving your REAL GOALS? I'd think things like:
- Speed
- Transparency/trust
- visibility
- promotion

...would be important than spending so much time getting 'a more dynamic and predictively accurate system'?

Also - with regards Peter's comments, would you say that the ACF was a GOVERNMENT or do you feel that you have an obligation to provide certain SERVICES and value for money to your 'customers'?

Because as Peter points out...almost all the ACF fees are collected by the states for the ACF (taking the commercial risk) and we really don't seem to get that much for them.

I am sure that at least one state next year will be asking some tricky questions of the ACF. :)

Please stop being disingenuously dense :P

DJ

Kevin Bonham
25-08-2009, 01:04 AM
Clearly the ACF doesn't believe the ratings are accurate....

The ACF doesn't believe they are perfect, but that is quite a different thing.

Many selectors use ratings information extensively in making their decisions. But if you have a system that inflexibly uses ratings and nothing but ratings then that encourages players to deliberately rort their ratings upwards in order to get selected. There have been some abject disasters with this in the USA.

When players get in to the Aus Champs by selection if their rating isn't high enough, this is typically because they have recently proven they can perform at that rating level. Their rating indicates doubt that their play is at that level but their recent performances show that it may be, so they get the benefit of that doubt.

We use an average of ACF and FIDE ratings to do selections where there is not enough time to assemble a selection panel. (One reason an average is used rather than just ACF rating is that there are some "Australian" players who play mainly overseas.)

ChessGuru
25-08-2009, 08:31 AM
The ACF doesn't believe they are perfect, but that is quite a different thing.

Good. This is my point. If we accept that they aren't perfect we can spend less time worrying about accuracy and more on the OUTCOME we are hoping ratings will generate. Ratings are a means to an end...as long as they are a reasonable approximation of players' strength then that's fine.

Kevin Bonham
26-08-2009, 12:55 AM
Good. This is my point. If we accept that they aren't perfect we can spend less time worrying about accuracy and more on the OUTCOME we are hoping ratings will generate. Ratings are a means to an end...as long as they are a reasonable approximation of players' strength then that's fine.

There are some desired outcomes of a rating system that are most effectively met if the system is as accurate as possible, and that are definitely compromised if a rating system is simplified in pursuit of other objectives. Selections data and ratings prizes are a couple of examples of this.

You mentioned trust. If a system severely underrates juniors while severely overrating seniors and players who are not very active, then it won't be trusted (except to be wrong). All rating systems struggle with these issues to some degree, but ELO systems are generally much worse than Glicko.

Bill Gletsos
31-08-2009, 12:16 PM
Note for one game of classical chess the ACF fee is 60c

Sep 2008 ACF rated 6994 classic and 4758 rapid games
Dec 2008 ACF rated 6013 classic and 2083 rapid games
Mar 2009 ACF rated 4517 classic and 2669 rapid games
Jun 2009 ACF rated 6570 classic and 2762 rapid games

Total last 12 months 24094 classic games and 12272 rapid games.

The results of all games are sent to the State Ratings Officers who check, verify and process all the data.The process is a lot different from when you were last an active player in the late 90's with results being manually entered via a DOS program and the resultant files being submitted to the National Ratings Officer.

As for them checking, verifying and processing all the data, I seriously doubt they verify the results of each and every game or even verify that the id numbers assigned match the actual player.

After all virtually all events State Rating Officers receive are Swiss Perfect files direct from the organiser. As such events that imported the players from the ACF master file only require the State Rating Officer to allocate id numbers for any new players.
For SP files that were not imported then they do have to add id numbers for existing as well as new players ND there may even be some events that are not submitted as Swiss Perfect files at all and they have to enter the results into Swiss Perfect directly but these situations are generally the exception rather than the rule.

The ACF co-ordinates the State ratings officers and produces the lists.The ACF National Rationg Officers do far more than just co-ordinate and produce the lists. The checking that id numbers match the correct players, that no results are missing and other checks are all done by the National Rating Officers, not the State Rating Officers.

The ACF invoices each state according to the number of games from each state times the rating fee per player per game. 100% of all these fees go in the ACF bank account. Meanwhile the State Associations have to trace and invoice every club and organizer in their state to get their money back (given to ACF).Of course the ACF invoices the States as
it is the States Associations that authorise the rating of events within their State Boundaries.

I fail to understand why State Associations agreed to this system.Because the states get to use it as a revenue source if they so desire.

If a State Association is 100% efficient it will send out dozens of invoices but any unpaid are a financial loss to the State not the ACF. So most of the work for ratings is done by the States, the ACF is guaranteed to receive all the money from the State Associations who may/may not get their money back from sending out dozens of invoices.Actually many states are charging fees for the rating of events over and above the fee charged by the ACF.

If any organizer arranges numerous extra events every cent of the extra fees goes to ACF.Actually in many states it means more money goes to the State Association as they charge rating fees over and above the ACF fee.

In addition of course the ACF charges other fees for schools - the more teams, the more schools, then more for the ACF. I have suggested to Bill (no bills for Bill) and others that payment for rating events should be sent at the same time as when the results are submitted to avoid financial losses.How states handle the billing is up to the States. If they choose to submit events for rating and collect the fees later then that is up to the State Associations.
Even FIDE do not bill before rating FIDE rated events.

Most states are losing money every rating period in my opinion. Of course all these ratings fees are nearly all the income the ACF receives. Unlike the States who create their own income the ACF council itself does not run events (the States do) and its major expenditure is FIDE fees etc. As fees for every FIDE rated event, FM titles etc are not paid by ACF, no rent on premises etc the overheads are low.

The ACF has accumulated a considerable bank balance (every game by every player increases the balance) topped up each year. It is up to leading State Office-Bearers to amend ACF regulations as they see fit. A look at the ACF finances are essential and I would recommend (if the ACF does have very considerable funds - or is that info unavailable?) that in future periods 50% of rating fees goes to ACF and 50% to the State who organize the events and process the results.Many states are already getting revenue from rating fees over and above the ACF fee. As such there is no reason why they should be getting 50% of the ACF admin fee.

We remain the only country in the World to use the Glicko rating system. FIDE is considering slight alterations to the Elo system but with good reason would never use a Glicko type system. It is in my opinion doing a lot of damage. If those supporters of Glicko are so convinced it is good why has a submission not been sent to FIDE? Hundreds of pages on chesschat but why not tell FIDE? The response would of course be "you can't be serious" - J.McE.FIDE are not really interested in a rating system with greater predictive accuracy, because if they were they would have changed their system years ago. What FIDE wants is to have a system that individuals can easily check their ratings. The FIDE system is woefully inadequate for handling pleysr covering the rating range of 1200-2700+.

It is a FIDE requirement that all players must be members of their national federation for an event to be rated by FIDE. A membership scheme is recommended (essential).You have made this claim before but it is false.

No doubt you are referring to the regulation that used to exist that noted that a player had to be a member of their national federation to appear on the FIDE rating list. (In the most recent version of the FIDE rating regulations on the FIDE website there is no longer such a requirement.)

Of course FIDE understood that you can have a Federation without direct membership, as FIDE itself is made up of national federations and not individual members.
As such all that was required was for a National Federation to endorse/approve their players inclusion on the list. Of course if a federation was temporarily or permanetly excluded from membership then their players did not appear on the FIDE rating list.