PDA

View Full Version : 2011 Chess Victoria AGM and ratings motion



Kerry Stead
07-11-2011, 05:12 PM
The Notice of Meeting, Agenda & Proposed fees & charges for 2012 were sent to clubs by email this afternoon.

The meeting is to be held at 4:30pm on Sunday December 4 at Melbourne Chess Club.

Full details should be on the Chess Victoria website shortly.

Bonneville
09-11-2011, 09:08 AM
The Notice of Meeting, Agenda & Proposed fees & charges for 2012 were sent to clubs by email this afternoon.

The meeting is to be held at 4:30pm on Sunday December 4 at Melbourne Chess Club.

Full details should be on the Chess Victoria website shortly.

Are there any big ticket issues?

Kerry Stead
09-11-2011, 10:49 AM
There's 4 motions on notice, which revolve around the schools competition & the rating system ... I assume that's what you're referring to rather than the excitement of the election of officebearers, confirmation of previous minutes & other 'standard proceedures' of AGMs.

Bonneville
09-11-2011, 01:32 PM
There's 4 motions on notice, which revolve around the schools competition & the rating system ... I assume that's what you're referring to rather than the excitement of the election of officebearers, confirmation of previous minutes & other 'standard proceedures' of AGMs.

Yes. That was it. :)

Kevin Bonham
09-11-2011, 10:27 PM
More info on the rating system motion might well interest a broader audience, if there is anyone who is able to say anything about it publicly. (I appreciate it might be in confidence; of so ignore this post.)

Kerry Stead
09-11-2011, 11:04 PM
More info on the rating system motion might well interest a broader audience, if there is anyone who is able to say anything about it publicly. (I appreciate it might be in confidence; of so ignore this post.)

The motions concerning the rating system are as follows:

a. David Cordover – Frankston Chess Club
"That CV move a motion at the ACF National Conference as follows: 'That the ACF Ratings officer make the Rating Differential (RD) data used in the calculation of ACF Ratings public.'"
b. David Cordover – Frankston Chess Club
"That CV move a motion at the ACF National Conference as follows: 'That the ACF Ratings officer provide all historical tournament data that he has available to Tornelo for purposes of displaying player and tournament results history on the AusChess.Tornelo.com website.'"

Kevin Bonham
09-11-2011, 11:22 PM
The motions concerning the rating system are as follows:

a. David Cordover – Frankston Chess Club
"That CV move a motion at the ACF National Conference as follows: 'That the ACF Ratings officer make the Rating Differential (RD) data used in the calculation of ACF Ratings public.'"
b. David Cordover – Frankston Chess Club
"That CV move a motion at the ACF National Conference as follows: 'That the ACF Ratings officer provide all historical tournament data that he has available to Tornelo for purposes of displaying player and tournament results history on the AusChess.Tornelo.com website.'"

Thanks very much Kerry. Even if these motions are passed by the CV AGM and the suggested motions subsequently moved by the CV Delegates to the 2012 National Conference they will achieve nothing (and indeed be ruled out of order) as they will be unconstitutional (see 10 g of http://www.auschess.org.au/constitution/ACF_Constitution_post_6.1.05.txt) in the form stated. The Conference could instead move to recommend along the lines suggested, but if that passed then the decision would be made by the Council.

Paul Cavezza
11-11-2011, 04:54 AM
It is great to see Victorians taking action to get something all chess players want from the ACF- a transparent rating system. The ACF exists to serve the players and not to benefit individuals who want their rating system kept a secret.

Unfortunately one gets the impression that the ACF won't act on what the players want. Kevin, could you please explain what is unconstitutional about the proposals and what wording would be acceptable?

Cheers,
Paul

Denis_Jessop
11-11-2011, 07:28 PM
It is great to see Victorians taking action to get something all chess players want from the ACF- a transparent rating system. The ACF exists to serve the players and not to benefit individuals who want their rating system kept a secret.

Unfortunately one gets the impression that the ACF won't act on what the players want. Kevin, could you please explain what is unconstitutional about the proposals and what wording would be acceptable?

Cheers,
Paul

The proposals are not unconstitutional per se. Rather they could not be put to the forthcoming ACF National Conference because the time for for giving notice of motions for the Conference has expired. That time is prescribed in the Constitution and, in that sense, they are unconstitutional. The motions could be put to the meeting as recommendations for the Council to consider but that is all.

As for the players wanting the information that is the subject the motions, I see no mass clamour for it. Indeed probably 99%+ of rated players couldn't care less. Also the ACF receives no benefit from non-disclosure as you suggest so that aspect of your response is baseless. On the other hand David Cordover would like it for his own rating system but that is no ground for the ACF to release it.

DJ

Grant Szuveges
11-11-2011, 09:49 PM
As for the players wanting the information that is the subject the motions, I see no mass clamour for it. Indeed probably 99%+ of rated players couldn't care less. Also the ACF receives no benefit from non-disclosure as you suggest so that aspect of your response is baseless. On the other hand David Cordover would like it for his own rating system but that is no ground for the ACF to release it.

DJ

Dennis, I can only speak for Victorian players here and only for MCC players in an official capacity, but my experience can be summed up as follows:

In the time that I have been MCC president (3 years), I have spoken to at least 70 different Victorian rated chess players about the ACF rating system. Of the 70 or so, approximately 5 or 6 have said that they are happy with the system - which leaves approx 65 of 70 who are to varying degrees unhappy with it.

Of those who are unhappy with it, some say that they would be happy with it if the RD and other info was released, whereas others at the other end of the scale simply think that the system and its administrator is dodgy and deliberately trying to keep Victorian ratings low. And there are a whole host of people with views somewhere in between these extremes.

But these 70 people (including the ones who think the system is fine) all agree on one thing - that the system should be transparent. And in this case, that means releasing the RDs publically.

My personal opinion is this: I think that Bill Gletzos is doing a good job and I have every confidence that he is not doing anything wrong with the ratings. I dont think there is anything dodgy going on and I think that the system is good enough. He has explained the inner workings of it and why things are as they are and I am confident that it is a good enough system. (no system can be perfect) That said, as a matter of principle, I would like to see the RDs released because it is transparent and thus would end all of the speculation.

I don't represent all Victorian chess players, but of the ones I have spoken to about it, the general consensus is that they would like the system to be transparent.

Dennis, from my experience the 99% of chessplayers not caring isnt right.

As for the ACF receiving no benefit from non-disclosure, I am confident that the ACF would benefit more from disclosure as the transparency would give the ACF added legitimacy in the eyes of players and added confidence in the eyes of players. The ACF would also receive far less criticism and that is a positive as it puts less pressure on administrators.

I think that the ACF has everything to gain and nothing to lose by releasing the RDs publically.

Grant Szuveges, Melbourne Chess Club President

Paul Cavezza
12-11-2011, 01:09 AM
Thanks for your explanation Dennis.

I never claimed the ACF got something from non-disclosure, just that they seem to place the will/project of one man over the wishes of the chess public. I don't doubt that he has a right to keep his work private, but I also know that doing so creates a feeling of doubt about the past, present and future of ACF ratings and that that is one of the main reasons Victorian players see them as illegitimate and a wasted expense. It also holds back a great initiative in tornelo- say what you will about David Cordover but in the time I have known him he has donated 50+ chairs, plus boards, books etc. to the MCC, and he's made a great proposal to invest in the Vic Champs I think it was. My overall feeling is that holding back the rating formula serves Bill Gletzos much more than it serves Australian chess.

Paul

Paul Cavezza
12-11-2011, 02:06 AM
On the other hand, I understand that the ACF do not want some clowns taking the rating formula and creating an alternate federation. From what Grant has explained to me, Glicko seems a very good system. Is it not possible to patent it? Or to simply release an online calculator that will give the same results the ratings officer gets without actually releasing the how and why?

whatteaux
12-11-2011, 10:47 AM
Knowing the rating system's algorithms and the players' RD values won't help anyone calculate Glicko ratings. You'd also need to know, among other difficult-to-know things, all of the results from all of the tournaments submitted for rating in the current rating period (in order to know all the results of all your opponents - and their opponents, etc). It's not just a matter of comparing one's expected results with one's actual results multiplied by some factor of opponents' ratings and reliability factors; there's way more to it than that.

So the ACF publishing its algorithms and factors such as reliability indicators (which ARE indicatively published, sort of, in the '?' & '!' bizzos) would be of questionable benefit. (But I can't with equal sincerity say it wouldn't be interesting to see!)

Garvinator
12-11-2011, 10:59 AM
And even if you did have all that information, it would still not really be possible to calculate some ratings because for players whose rating is going to change a lot in a rating period, an intermediate rating is used. Without knowing what that rating is, it is nigh on impossible to calculate a players new rating.

I think this idea will just lead to more trouble and complaints than there already is. It will just change the nature of the complaints, not reduce them.

Paul Cavezza
12-11-2011, 12:02 PM
Garvinator/Whatteaux,

surely it is possible to release an online calculator/template the same as the ratings officer uses? I don't believe he has to input the entire history of chess every time he updates a players rating. Glicko would require a template with age, current rating, !!/??/!? for you and your opponents etc etc- if there is a will there is a way. Patent it, release an online or non-downloadable template whatever.

Garvinator
12-11-2011, 12:50 PM
Garvinator/Whatteaux,

surely it is possible to release an online calculator/template the same as the ratings officer uses? I don't believe he has to input the entire history of chess every time he updates a players rating. Glicko would require a template with age, current rating, !!/??/!? for you and your opponents etc etc- if there is a will there is a way. Patent it, release an online or non-downloadable template whatever.
There already is: http://www.bjcox.com/modules.php?name=Glicko_Calc

ER
12-11-2011, 01:23 PM
Statistics is an advanced and difficult form of Mathematics.

People like myself with a better than average pass in year 12 Maths, (and that was ages ago) would have no chance understanding the complexities (I am talking about computational complexities here) of a functional rating system.

That's regardless the willingness of the teacher to teach and the student to study!

Understanding (or thinking that one is able to understand) humanities is a different story.

RDs to my (humble) understanding have a variable and a not a constant value. The very much depend upon other things (as very succinctly pointed out by Wattaux) the frequency of one's rated games accompanied by an expectation value!

This expectation value as in regards to a player's RD cannot be a large number or % if the player has a long history of games and performs frequently.

The expectation value of a player who has just started could be represented by a larger number or %.

A good key of approaching the calculation of your individual RD is in my opinion the performance rating given in many of final standings after the end of tournaments.

Then establish your own formulae and do your comparisons with your past performances.

Use Barry's calcuator to find the differences, cross your Ts and dot your Is as Grant says and put your fingers do the walking!

If not ALL clubs publish such results online, bad luck go find them!

What David Cordover really wants isn't the transparency, or the democratic functioning of ACF or an ideal future chess world full of angels singing freedom anthems.

What David Cordover really wants is the successful expansion of his business (with Tornelo as his tour de force toy) and good on him! :clap:

What David Cordover really wants is the free use of the Rating Officers info gathering network established by ACF.

If you realistically believe that ACF will succumb to that you are dreaming!

Take as an example Grant's MAD (MCC Allegro Diplomacy) Rating System. Which in my opinion is as fair, comprehensible and inclusive as it can be. Grant sometimes has trouble keeping it updated, however, because the person (s) responsible for gathering and posting results doesn't do it for a, b, or c valid reasons!
And we are talking about one weekly tournament here!

Imagine poor David trying to keep his Tornelo ratings updated when he has to deal with (start counting and when you reach a number let me know) so many tournaments on a national basis.

A good approach for David would be to find representatives allover the States and get the information first hand for the updating of his Tornelo!

Otherwise, he would have to keep on :wall: for years to come if he tries to convince, not so much Gletsos mind you, but his own (very formidable) competition in Melbourne which fortunately or unfortunately have the nos. in the State decision making procedures.

He shouldn't be discouraged, however, since he has two factors working for him.

1) a very strong, dedicated, flexible and popular team on his side and

2) some very powerful, enthusiastic and young alies who can call a spade a bloody shovel and do not hide behind convoluted (but usually misspelled :P ) apocrypha in order to avoid confrontation.

Coming back to ratings and rating systems. In my next visit to the US, apart my meeting with Dr Frank Brady who has his own worries as President of Marshall Chess Club in NYC these days, I will try to travel across the Hudson for a meeting with Prof M.E. Glickman at Boston Uni and show him a collection of Australian Chess Fora threads with references to his name! Maybe he can provide a solution! ;)

Grant Szuveges
12-11-2011, 07:31 PM
And even if you did have all that information, it would still not really be possible to calculate some ratings because for players whose rating is going to change a lot in a rating period, an intermediate rating is used. Without knowing what that rating is, it is nigh on impossible to calculate a players new rating.

I think this idea will just lead to more trouble and complaints than there already is. It will just change the nature of the complaints, not reduce them.

Today whilst discussing this issue at MCC, I heard from a very reliable source that Ascaro Pecori has somehow or another worked out how to calculate the ratings to within 2 points of what Bill Gletzos' system does. And apparently he has been able to do it and has been doing it for ages!

I dont know whether the formula has been leaked or if Ascaro somehow just worked it out or what - or even if this is true or not - but my source is an extremely reliable one (a close mutual friend of both myself and Ascaro).

So what this means (if this is correct) is that the system is accessible to the public anyway! What this also means is that there is no need to decide in a CV meeting whether or not CV asks the ACF for it - just go and get it from Ascaro Pecori - if he is willing to divulge it, it is there for the taking!

Once again, this is only what I heard today - Im not sure how true this is, but I heard if from an extremely reliable source!

Grant Szuveges
12-11-2011, 07:35 PM
Take as an example Grant's MAD (MCC Allegro Diplomacy) Rating System. Which in my opinion is as fair, comprehensible and inclusive as it can be.



Just to clarify, my allegro system and the diplomacy system are two different things:

My allegro (or MAD) system is an ELO based system which I tweaked to use for the MCC Saturday Allegros. (I also use it for the CJCC Rookies Cups).

The diplomacy system is the rating system used in the board game "diplomacy"s competitions. It is a system whereby players never ever lose rating points - but find it much harder to gain points as their ratings increase. In my opinion, it is better than any system used in chess (including ELO, Glicko and even my own system for MCC Allegros and CJCC Rookies Cups).

Rincewind
12-11-2011, 08:16 PM
Today whilst discussing this issue at MCC, I heard from a very reliable source that Ascaro Pecori has somehow or another worked out how to calculate the ratings to within 2 points of what Bill Gletzos' system does. And apparently he has been able to do it and has been doing it for ages!

I dont know whether the formula has been leaked or if Ascaro somehow just worked it out or what - or even if this is true or not - but my source is an extremely reliable one (a close mutual friend of both myself and Ascaro).

So what this means (if this is correct) is that the system is accessible to the public anyway! What this also means is that there is no need to decide in a CV meeting whether or not CV asks the ACF for it - just go and get it from Ascaro Pecori - if he is willing to divulge it, it is there for the taking!

Once again, this is only what I heard today - Im not sure how true this is, but I heard if from an extremely reliable source!

The formula has always been available. (At least since the ACF has been using it) because it has been released by its inventor.

You can read all about it here... http://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko2.pdf

Grant Szuveges
12-11-2011, 08:25 PM
The formula has always been available. (At least since the ACF has been using it) because it has been released by its inventor.

You can read all about it here... http://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko2.pdf

If this is the case, then why are people saying that the system is not transparent? Its no use having part of a system transparent and not other parts - thats like having half the parts of a car - a car wont go anywhere with half of its parts missing.

In other words, the glicko system formula has always been available - but not the variation used for ACF ratings.

Hobbes
12-11-2011, 10:17 PM
Shouldn't there be a motion at the Victorian AGM opposing the use of Mathematics to come up with ratings?

Victorians are clever enough not to be tricked by people claiming to prove things by using Maths, Victorians just 'know' when a rating is right or wrong. Studies show that 95% of Victorians think they are underrated. Using Maths is just a trick to keep Victorians underrated.

It would be great to see Victorians taking action if such a motion was passed. There is precedence for this, Governments have ruled on the value of Pi.

Patrick Byrom
12-11-2011, 11:15 PM
If this is the case, then why are people saying that the system is not transparent? Its no use having part of a system transparent and not other parts - thats like having half the parts of a car - a car wont go anywhere with half of its parts missing.

In other words, the glicko system formula has always been available - but not the variation used for ACF ratings.

What would you do with the RDs if they were released?

It should be possible to determine fairly accurate RDs from the publicly available data, simply by starting with the ones estimated from the 'punctuation' in the rating list, and refining them using the Glicko formula.

But the approximate RDs give reasonably accurate ratings for active players; it's the inactive players whose ratings are difficult to determine.

Even if the ACF released every ounce of data and all the source code, I agree with Hobbes - a lot of players would still not accept that their rating is correct. The aim of the BEST project was to achieve total transparency with regard to global temperatures, but I don't think their results (showing warming consistent with the IPCC models) have changed the minds of too many 'sceptics'.

Paul Cavezza
12-11-2011, 11:35 PM
Chess players don't need the algorithm, they don't need to understand how or why it works. They just need to be able to reproduce results. BG does not re-enact the entire history of chess every time he updates ratings, i'm sure he puts it into a template. Surely, leaving maths aside, we who have worked out how to use toasters and microwave ovens, are capable of using a template.

Rincewind
12-11-2011, 11:49 PM
Chess players don't need the algorithm, they don't need to understand how or why it works. They just need to be able to reproduce results. BG does not re-enact the entire history of chess every time he updates ratings, i'm sure he puts it into a template. Surely, leaving maths aside, we who have worked out how to use toasters and microwave ovens, are capable of using a template.

The problem with the analogy is that for greater predictivity, the ACF system generates an intermediate rating each rating period. To reproduce that you need all the games you played in the rating period, as well as all the games that all of your opponents played during the period as well. Lets say that on average you play up to 10 games and each of your opponents also play 10 games. You will need up to enter the results of up to 100 games into the "template" to predict your rating adjustment ahead of time. Of course if you are do all of this ahead of time then any future game your opponents play in the same period will also affect your rating change, even if you play no further rated games.

Grant Szuveges
13-11-2011, 12:12 AM
Shouldn't there be a motion at the Victorian AGM opposing the use of Mathematics to come up with ratings?

Victorians are clever enough not to be tricked by people claiming to prove things by using Maths, Victorians just 'know' when a rating is right or wrong. Studies show that 95% of Victorians think they are underrated. Using Maths is just a trick to keep Victorians underrated.

It would be great to see Victorians taking action if such a motion was passed. There is precedence for this, Governments have ruled on the value of Pi.

I posted this as part of a larger post on the other forum - I think it sums this whole issue up nicely...

I would hardly call this issue the most important issue facing Australian chess in any case. If this is the biggest problem that Australian chess has, then Australian chess is in great shape. The basic reality is that chess is not going to fall apart because one rating system is used instead of another system. The reality is that people play chess first and foremost because they like playing chess. Of the 40 or so players playing in the City Of Melbourne Open, or the 173 kids playing in the Australian Junior Championship, how many of them are playing because of the rating system? The vast majority are playing because they want to play chess and love the game....

Here is a scenario - for anyone reading this:

You turn up to a 7 round weekender and in the first round, you play someone higher rated then you and they offer you are draw after 3 moves. Do you take the draw? Im guessing that at least 50% of players would - because of the free rating points. Then in round 2, you are playing another higher rated player and after 3 moves, they also offer you a draw - would you take that? Again, I am guessing that over 50% of players would. But then in round 3, you are once again playing a higher rated player and he also offers a draw after 3 moves. Would you take that draw? By doing so, it would mean that you have played 9 moves accross 3 "games of chess". The same thing happens then in rounds 4, 5, 6 and 7 - all against higher rated players. At some point you will say to yourself "what am I doing here? I am here to play chess - not to increase my rating. And at some stage you will not accept the draw offers - you will play chess instead. For some people this will happen in round 3, for others it will be round 4, but at some point most players will actually forget about the rating points and decide that they are there to play chess.... Ratings are one thing - but when you look at it this way, are they really that important? Do they really mean that much???

For everyone reading this, when would you (honestly) stop accepting the draws and start playing chess? Or is rating really that important to you?

Paul Cavezza
13-11-2011, 01:14 AM
The problem with the analogy is that for greater predictivity, the ACF system generates an intermediate rating each rating period. To reproduce that you need all the games you played in the rating period, as well as all the games that all of your opponents played during the period as well. Lets say that on average you play up to 10 games and each of your opponents also play 10 games. You will need up to enter the results of up to 100 games into the "template" to predict your rating adjustment ahead of time. Of course if you are do all of this ahead of time then any future game your opponents play in the same period will also affect your rating change, even if you play no further rated games.

Hi there,
I understand the intermediate ratings used, I just think that by now the administrator has a simple system to update the ratings with. Could it be uploaded to a web-page from where it can't be downloaded/studied? I don't know. Even if players have to enter the results of the entire rating period, it would be transparent, few would bother to do it but it would be there as an option.

Max Illingworth
13-11-2011, 10:41 AM
I posted this as part of a larger post on the other forum - I think it sums this whole issue up nicely...

Here is a scenario - for anyone reading this:

You turn up to a 7 round weekender and in the first round, you play someone higher rated then you and they offer you are draw after 3 moves. Do you take the draw? Im guessing that at least 50% of players would - because of the free rating points. Then in round 2, you are playing another higher rated player and after 3 moves, they also offer you a draw - would you take that? Again, I am guessing that over 50% of players would. But then in round 3, you are once again playing a higher rated player and he also offers a draw after 3 moves. Would you take that draw? By doing so, it would mean that you have played 9 moves accross 3 "games of chess". The same thing happens then in rounds 4, 5, 6 and 7 - all against higher rated players. At some point you will say to yourself "what am I doing here? I am here to play chess - not to increase my rating. And at some stage you will not accept the draw offers - you will play chess instead. For some people this will happen in round 3, for others it will be round 4, but at some point most players will actually forget about the rating points and decide that they are there to play chess.... Ratings are one thing - but when you look at it this way, are they really that important? Do they really mean that much???

For everyone reading this, when would you (honestly) stop accepting the draws and start playing chess? Or is rating really that important to you?

Round 1.

Rincewind
13-11-2011, 10:46 AM
I understand the intermediate ratings used, I just think that by now the administrator has a simple system to update the ratings with. Could it be uploaded to a web-page from where it can't be downloaded/studied? I don't know. Even if players have to enter the results of the entire rating period, it would be transparent, few would bother to do it but it would be there as an option.

Are you talking about before or after the official ACF ratings are published.

Before the published date then the value/accuracy is questionable since games in the future could change your rating even if you are not involved in them.

After the fact, I would like to see such a system which shows for every player all their results for the previous period and how much each game contributed to their rating adjustment. However we are a volunteer organisation and so the budget for such development would have to be underwritten by a benefactor or taken on by a conscientious and suitably skilled volunteer.

Perhaps someone should start a fund where all these disgruntled players can chip in to fund such a development. I'm sure if they all chucked in an average of $100 that would raise $6,500 which could be used to fund a small amount of web development.

Watto
13-11-2011, 10:56 AM
Round 1.
Yep, round 1 for me too if the draw offer was after 3 moves. I think that would be the case for lots of players, strong and weak.

Denis_Jessop
13-11-2011, 12:19 PM
Shouldn't there be a motion at the Victorian AGM opposing the use of Mathematics to come up with ratings?

Victorians are clever enough not to be tricked by people claiming to prove things by using Maths, Victorians just 'know' when a rating is right or wrong. Studies show that 95% of Victorians think they are underrated. Using Maths is just a trick to keep Victorians underrated.

It would be great to see Victorians taking action if such a motion was passed. There is precedence for this, Governments have ruled on the value of Pi.

Not only that but they also "know" when the Swiss pairings are right or wrong irrespective of the use of a pairing program and the rules. This intuitive approach to ratings and pairings could add a whole new dimension to the game. :doh: :hmm: :eek:

DJ

Patrick Byrom
13-11-2011, 02:28 PM
Are you talking about before or after the official ACF ratings are published.

Before the published date then the value/accuracy is questionable since games in the future could change your rating even if you are not involved in them.

After the fact, I would like to see such a system which shows for every player all their results for the previous period and how much each game contributed to their rating adjustment. However we are a volunteer organisation and so the budget for such development would have to be underwritten by a benefactor or taken on by a conscientious and suitably skilled volunteer.

Perhaps someone should start a fund where all these disgruntled players can chip in to fund such a development. I'm sure if they all chucked in an average of $100 that would raise $6,500 which could be used to fund a small amount of web development.

Qld players can see their estimated rating changes for each tournament in this period on the CAQ website(http://www.caq.org.au/htm/Rating_Changes.htm).

whatteaux
13-11-2011, 04:58 PM
BG does not re-enact the entire history of chess every time he updates ratings, i'm sure he puts it into a template.

The system can't calculate an individual's rating in isolation. It can only calculate all players' ratings, using all of the past quarter's results, at the same time. It takes about 4 minutes.

So BG does re-enact the last quarter and, if corrections from previous quarters are needed, them too, each time. Earlier this year when the rating algorithms were adjusted, the system re-ran about 10 years or so of results.

There is no easy-peasy ratings "template", except in our dreams.

EDIT: fat-finger (and fat head) syndrome: 45 minutes --> 4 minutes. Sorry about that.

Kevin Bonham
13-11-2011, 10:40 PM
In the time that I have been MCC president (3 years), I have spoken to at least 70 different Victorian rated chess players about the ACF rating system. Of the 70 or so, approximately 5 or 6 have said that they are happy with the system - which leaves approx 65 of 70 who are to varying degrees unhappy with it.

Are we supposed to believe that out of 70 players zero had a more or less equivocal view, and zero who you discussed the system with refrained from expressing a view at all? It is just not credible to me that chess community opinion on the merits of a rating system could be divided so universally into "happy" and "to varying degrees unhappy". At least, not unless you take the unwarranted step of proclaiming everyone who has any issue (however small) with the system as "unhappy".

Also, were these discussions neutral, eg did you just ask people "what do you think of the rating system?" out of the blue, or are these claimed views the product of discussions where you too expressed some kind of view, perhaps even a clear or strong one?


whereas others at the other end of the scale simply think that the system and its administrator is dodgy and deliberately trying to keep Victorian ratings low.

And apart from the obvious case (David Beaumont), how many people have you heard this gibberish from?


That said, as a matter of principle, I would like to see the RDs released because it is transparent and thus would end all of the speculation.

As others have pointed out the release of all the RDs is not a sufficient criterion for full transparency, and full transparency is not a sufficient criterion for ending of the speculation.


As for the ACF receiving no benefit from non-disclosure, I am confident that the ACF would benefit more from disclosure as the transparency would give the ACF added legitimacy in the eyes of players and added confidence in the eyes of players. The ACF would also receive far less criticism and that is a positive as it puts less pressure on administrators.

The ACF currently receives negligible criticism directly about ratings and this has been the case for many years. No reasonable disclosure action the ACF would take would much affect the level of criticism it receives about ratings since the more strident public criticism comes largely from (i) Elo supporters who will not be happy til they get that system or something like it back, although it is mathematically inferior (ii) habitual complainants whose whinging about the ACF is a movable feast of opportunistic griping (iii) inactive players who believe their ratings should reflect past glories (and the size of their egos) rather than current playing strength


I think that the ACF has everything to gain and nothing to lose by releasing the RDs publically.

I think the ACF has nothing to gain from releasing the RDs but I am not opposed to it. I am opposed to any action that would allow piggybackers to plagiarise our system for commercial gain.

Yes it's all very well to mention copyright but owning same is one thing and enforcing it another. It is not in the ACF's interests to potentially have to go to court to protect its rights - successfully or otherwise.

Grant Szuveges
13-11-2011, 11:34 PM
Are we supposed to believe that out of 70 players zero had a more or less equivocal view, and zero who you discussed the system with refrained from expressing a view at all? It is just not credible to me that chess community opinion on the merits of a rating system could be divided so universally into "happy" and "to varying degrees unhappy". At least, not unless you take the unwarranted step of proclaiming everyone who has any issue (however small) with the system as "unhappy".

Also, were these discussions neutral, eg did you just ask people "what do you think of the rating system?" out of the blue, or are these claimed views the product of discussions where you too expressed some kind of view, perhaps even a clear or strong one?



And apart from the obvious case (David Beaumont), how many people have you heard this gibberish from?





Kevin

You dont have to believe me that Ive spoken to 70 players about this issue - Im just reporting what 70 players have told me. Personally I dont have an issue with the ACF rating system - Im just saying that this is what people think. Do with it what you will.

The way that these discussions have taken place has generally been people approaching me about the issue wanting to discuss it and hearing my opinion. Inevitably, other people are around and they also join the discussion and often there are up to 10 people discussing the issue in the same conversation. And there is often "hey John, what do you think about this?" and then John gives his opinion also... etc... Occassionally I have asked people what they think of the rating system, but only people whose opinions I highly respect and certainly not people who are also raving on about this (as I know their opinions anyway).

Of the 70 people, less than 5 were happy with the system. Of the rest, some were very unhappy, some think it is completely corrupt, some think that it would be ok if it was made public but not while it is a secret, others dont care a lot but they would prefer the ELO system and others dont like it but dont know of any other alternative that they would like either. I havnt included in this group of 70 people anyone who is indifferent about it. I have spoken to people who are indifferent about it but there are not too many of them. Im not saying that I agree with any of these 70 people or that any of them are right - Im just saying that this is what a chunk of the Victorian chess playing public think of the rating system. As the MCC president, I represent 160 Victorian chess players - so my voice means something I wouldve thought - if only an avenue for my clubs members to get their voice heard. Of that 70 though, not all of them are MCC members.

Of the people who think that the system and its administrator are dodgy and deliberately trying to keep Victorian ratings low, at least 10 people in that 70 have this opinion. I dont agree with them, but there are at least 10 of them out there. Obviously I am not going to publically say who they are - but you would be surprised by some of the names on that list of 10. Some are highly respected in Australian chess. Ironically, Im not sure that David Beaumont actually thinks that - but as we all know he certainly doesnt like the system.

Kevin Bonham
13-11-2011, 11:49 PM
Kevin

You dont have to believe me that Ive spoken to 70 players about this issue

I do believe that. I just find it surprising that such a high proportion hold views that could be classed as "unhappy". Unless this is some primal Vic/NSW thing where some people feel compelled to bag out the ratings officer just because he's from the wrong side of the border. Because there is no other state where there is any sign of this level of complaint, and no evidence that Vic has any special issues.


Inevitably, other people are around and they also join the discussion and often there are up to 10 people discussing the issue in the same conversation.

Aaaah, that sounds like an impromptu focus group. I've always had a low opinion of those as a research method. :lol:

Thanks for the info.

Paul Cavezza
14-11-2011, 12:11 AM
What a silly sight the anti-victorianism in this thread is. You have a legitimate problem and a lot of people either choose the 'finger-in-the-ears-lalalala' defence (kevin), or the 'you are knobs so your opinion is invalid' defence (hobbes etc).

Like Grant said- do with it what you will. One day you will have to deal with it in one way or another.

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2011, 12:25 AM
What a silly sight the anti-victorianism in this thread is.

There isn't any anti-Victorianism. There's a suggestion that some of the complaints might be prompted by anti-NSWism. :D


You have a legitimate problem and a lot of people either choose the 'finger-in-the-ears-lalalala' defence (kevin),

You might claim it's legitimate but you're not addressing the evidence that releasing the RDs will, as a matter of objective fact (not opinion) fall way short of delivering complete transparency. It's an illegitimate solution to an overhyped "problem".

Furthermore, paranoia from people who think the system is being fiddled to harm a state is not only not legitimate - it is not even sane.

Hobbes
14-11-2011, 12:28 AM
What a silly sight the anti-victorianism in this thread is. You have a legitimate problem and a lot of people either choose the 'finger-in-the-ears-lalalala' defence (kevin), or the 'you are knobs so your opinion is invalid' defence (hobbes etc).

Like Grant said- do with it what you will, one day you will have to deal with it in one way or another.

I didn't realise I was adopting a defence, I thought I was mildly parodying some of the sillier posts I have ever read. I can't tell you why your rating is so low, obviously you know much better than I do whether you are working on your game. Anyway, don't worry too much about me, if you are able to extract some pride from fellow Victorians raising motions about the rating system at their AGM, go for it, be proud!

Paul Cavezza
14-11-2011, 01:11 AM
hobbes, I couldn't care less about my rating. I don't play chess for the points. and Kevin, there is no anti-NSWism, people just take issue with the current setup. Anyway, this has gone off topic. "anti VIC/NSW" or "Victorians are wankers" is not a very rational way of discussing an issue. I'm still not sure I believe that 'transparency is impossible', but there might be legitimate reasons for not disclosing.

I don't really understand all the underlying business/power-struggle undercurrents related to the question of releasing the rating formula, and I think that is the key issue at the heart of all this and what we are discussing is just a facade.

Just patent the bloody thing and let's get on with it!

P

Garvinator
14-11-2011, 01:32 AM
and I think that is the key issue at the heart of all this and what we are discussing is just a facade.The key issue originally was that the motions CV wants to put up will only be considered as recommendations to the ACF council because they have not met the deadline as per ACF constitutional rules for forcing the ACF to actually do something.

Grant Szuveges
14-11-2011, 01:43 AM
Unless this is some primal Vic/NSW thing where some people feel compelled to bag out the ratings officer just because he's from the wrong side of the border.


I think its fair to say that there is certainly a bit of that - not sure how much though. Some certainly believe that Victoria is being discriminated against though.

Regardless of that though I do think that whether they are right or wrong, the 70 people do genuinely believe what they are saying.

Grant Szuveges
14-11-2011, 01:50 AM
There isn't any anti-Victorianism. There's a suggestion that some of the complaints might be prompted by anti-NSWism. :D


I dont think that there is anything that is "anti-NSW" as such - it is more that a lot of Victorians think that there is an "anti-Victorian" push.

Bare it in mind though, that the people who view this as a state vs state issue are not in the majority. They exist as part of the 70 people, but most of the 70 people dont like the system because they dont like the system - not because it is run by someone in NSW.

One thing that I am fairly sure that most Victorians want though (regardless of their other opinions on this) is transparancy. Even the people who are happy with the system still want transparancy if it is possible. And there are a lot who would be ok with the system if the transparancy was there. I think that Paul (Pablito) fits into this catagory.

Grant Szuveges
14-11-2011, 01:59 AM
The more I think about this, the more I think that Victorians dont even necessarily want answers. They simply want to be listened to, and have it acknowledged that their questions and opinions are legitimate and important enough for the ACF to consider seriously.

I dont think that there are too many Victorian chess players who share the views of who interstaters consider "Victoria's official spokespeople" (CV, Cordover, people in the shoutbox on the other forum, maybe even BHCC or MCC, maybe even me). Its hard to know...

But what I do know is that Victorians want to be listened to and (rightly or wrongly) they generally dont feel like they are being listened to at the moment.

Garvinator
14-11-2011, 02:30 AM
But what I do know is that Victorians want to be listened to and (rightly or wrongly) they generally dont feel like they are being listened to at the moment.It is not just Victorians who feel that way ;)

Paul Cavezza
14-11-2011, 02:32 AM
Grant, I think the amount of Victorians who think they're discriminated against because of their state is 1. Only 1 person I've ever talked to, and even he didn't think vic ratings had been dropped but cited a controversial boost for a NSW player. So disagree with you totally on that.

People don't care too much about their rating but at the same time don't like that the conditions for corruption over important issues such as selection criteria for tournaments exist. They don't see why on principle the ACF should be the plaything of one guy advancing a rating formula, and that we have to pay rating fees for it while our requests are ignored. They wonder who the ACF (and moreso the VCF) serve. There is a definite climate, and you can tell from the amount of hydras here, that people are reticent to criticise the ACF because of the lack of transparency and potential for corruption that exists. They are quite cynical about the ACF doing certain things to keep a strangle-hold on power, and that that is often placed ahead of what is good for chess. I could go on.

What I would say is, the only person I have ever heard anything positive from about the ACF, is Grant. I would place every other player I've spoken to somewhere between 'doubtful about the intentions of', to complete distrust. There simply must be a better way to address this sentiment, otherwise you are on a collision course with a person like David C and you'll have a whole lot of people putting wind in his sails. Which can only be a good thing.

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2011, 03:04 AM
I don't play chess for the points. and Kevin, there is no anti-NSWism, people just take issue with the current setup.

Then if there is no state-based nonsense why do some people, according to Grant, believe the Ratings Officers are "deliberately trying to keep Victorian ratings low"?


I'm still not sure I believe that 'transparency is impossible', but there might be legitimate reasons for not disclosing.

The primary issue here isn't whether transparency is "impossible", it's that it's a lot more difficult than some make out and that releasing the RDs will not accomplish it. So why do people make that specific demand?

Paul Cavezza
14-11-2011, 03:13 AM
Then if there is no state-based nonsense why do some people, according to Grant, believe the Ratings Officers are "deliberately trying to keep Victorian ratings low"?

Well, I think that is a very minute part. In my experience one person among 50+. You choose to focus on that part of it which isn't addressing the reality of the issue.


The primary issue here isn't whether transparency is "impossible", it's that it's a lot more difficult than some make out and that releasing the RDs will not accomplish it. So why do people make that specific demand?

Because it's important, because it creates a huge distrust for the ACF, because it's setting you on a collision course, because it's holding back business ventures that can bring money into Australian chess via Cordover (some of which yes would go into his pocket). etc etc etc

Rhubarb
14-11-2011, 06:24 AM
The more I think about this, the more I think that Victorians dont even necessarily want answers. They simply want to be listened to, and have it acknowledged that their questions and opinions are legitimate and important enough for the ACF to consider seriously.

I dont think that there are too many Victorian chess players who share the views of who interstaters consider "Victoria's official spokespeople" (CV, Cordover, people in the shoutbox on the other forum, maybe even BHCC or MCC, maybe even me). Its hard to know...

But what I do know is that Victorians want to be listened to and (rightly or wrongly) they generally dont feel like they are being listened to at the moment.
Yes, I think that more Victorians should make their viewpoints heard on the online forums. It's quite disgraceful how little we hear from Victoria.

Basil
14-11-2011, 08:19 AM
Just passing through and haven't read in depth, but if the dissatisfaction with the ACF rating is very heavily spiked in VIC only, then it appears prima facie, that the issue is with the Vics rather than the system.

Carry on! (being pointyheads)

Vlad
14-11-2011, 08:39 AM
Grant, I think the amount of Victorians who think they're discriminated against because of their state is 1. Only 1 person I've ever talked to, and even he didn't think vic ratings had been dropped but cited a controversial boost for a NSW player. So disagree with you totally on that.


They are still talking about Max's rating going to 2300 a few years ago? Even after he has got that grandmaster norm in Europe?

I think it is all clearly Bill's fault. He must have paid the european organizers to hide the fact that he boosted Max's rating a few years ago.

Grant Szuveges
14-11-2011, 08:50 AM
Yes, I think that more Victorians should make their viewpoints heard on the online forums. It's quite disgraceful how little we hear from Victoria.

I think that part of the problem here is that most of the Victorians that do post on the forums tend to be fairly extreme sorts of people and there is probably a perception in the other states that we Victorians are always fighting with eachother over various things. By looking at the forums, one would be forgiven if they were to believe that all Victorians were either:

1. anti CV
2. anti Cordover
3. anti MCC
4. anti BHCC
5. anti ACF

The reality however is actually quite different for the rank and file general Victorian chess playing population. While there is a bit of this sort of sentiment, the truth is as follows: Cordover is actually quite popular in Melbourne, MCC and BHCC have a lot more people who like them than dislike them (although you wouldnt know it reading these forums), anti ACF sentiment isnt rife at all, but there is dissatisfaction about the rating system. A lot of Victorian chess players dont like CV, but then they are not offering alternatives.

If you speak to "moderates" in Victorian chess such as myself, Kai Tan, Peter Tsai etc, the situation is actually a bit different to what interstaters see on the chess forums.

What Im starting to realise (rather quickly) is that this is not about the RD with the ratings. It is about something bigger - Im not exactly sure what, but Im rapidly getting an idea. Give me some time to get back to you (everyone reading this) and I will have a better idea soon enough.

Paul Cavezza
14-11-2011, 08:52 AM
"they" being one person

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2011, 10:02 AM
The key issue originally was that the motions CV wants to put up will only be considered as recommendations to the ACF council because they have not met the deadline as per ACF constitutional rules for forcing the ACF to actually do something.

Actually they are not even motions CV wants to put up at this stage. They are motions David Cordover (Frankston Chess Club) wants CV to put up.


Well, I think that is a very minute part. In my experience one person among 50+.

So why does Grant think this perception is so widespread when you don't? And how is the ACF supposed to respond to claims about chess-community perceptions on the issue when those wanting it to do so can't even agree on what those perceptions actually are?


You choose to focus on that part of it which isn't addressing the reality of the issue.

What reality? Would that be the one in which releasing the RDs makes the system transparent, nothing adverse happens and all the whingers shut up and ride off into the sunset? Because that's obviously the biggest fairy story of all. And you're the one who jumped in with a rather silly post accusing all and sundry of "anti-Victorianism"; you shouldn't accuse others of unduly focusing on that part of the issue when all I am doing is refuting that line of comment.


Because it's important, because it creates a huge distrust for the ACF,

I'm not convinced it is creating "huge distrust" and I'm also not convinced the distrusters who are out there will be any less distrusting if they are given what they say they want.


because it's setting you on a collision course

With who or what that we have not been colliding with largely uneventfully for the past decade?


because it's holding back business ventures that can bring money into Australian chess via Cordover (some of which yes would go into his pocket). etc etc etc

A weak argument at best. The ACF's priority as concerns ratings is to provide accurate national ratings. It should not be compromising that goal just because some private operator might make a buck out of a "business venture" that may or may not flow through to the competitive OTB chess community.


What Im starting to realise (rather quickly) is that this is not about the RD with the ratings. It is about something bigger - Im not exactly sure what, but Im rapidly getting an idea. Give me some time to get back to you (everyone reading this) and I will have a better idea soon enough.

I think you're probably right that ratings are a proxy for something else here but I suggest that that isn't necessarily something "bigger". :lol:

Paul Cavezza
14-11-2011, 11:02 AM
Kevin, the reality I was talking about was not focussing on the one nutcase in victoria who thinks vics are discriminated against, but rather the rest who want a transparent system for reasonable... reasons!

I am not sure where I have suggested there is an anti-victorian sentiment vis-a-vis ratings? If you look back through this thread there is quite a lot of sniping at victorians rather than confronting the actual issue. Bringing inter-state stuff into it is a complete nonsense, it's just a way of deflecting from the fact that people don't like some facts about the way ratings work and they're entitled to hold that view.

I also think you're misquoting Grant in saying he thinks it is "so widespread", he said it was a vast minority in fact.

These are some of the real issues:
People don't care too much about their rating but at the same time don't like that the conditions for corruption over important issues such as selection criteria for tournaments exist. They don't see why on principle the ACF should be the plaything of one guy advancing a rating formula, and that we have to pay rating fees for it while our requests are ignored. They wonder who the ACF (and moreso the VCF) serve. There is a definite climate, and you can tell from the amount of hydras here, that people are reticent to criticise the ACF because of the lack of transparency and potential for corruption that exists. They are quite cynical about the ACF doing certain things to keep a strangle-hold on power, and that that is often placed ahead of what is good for chess

and like in all good political discussions, we've moved on to idiotic anti-victorian/nsw/vics are whingers rather than discussing any of them at all.

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2011, 11:23 AM
I am not sure where I have suggested there is an anti-victorian sentiment vis-a-vis ratings?

You didn't; you suggested there was anti-Victorianism on this thread. At the time you made that comment there was at most one post that might be interpreted as Vic-stirring. Remaining posts discussed the claimed perceptions of some Victorians that there was anti-Victorianism in the running of the system.


Bringing inter-state stuff into it is a complete nonsense, it's just a way of deflecting from the fact that people don't like some facts about the way ratings work and they're entitled to hold that view.

People are entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts. It's a fact that what's being called for as transparency actually isn't. It's a fact that Australia actually has two Ratings Officers and the system is not the preserve of a single person as spuriously believed by some.

As for selections, firstly if there was any evidence of rorting to achieve selection outcomes then selectors for major events could simply ignore the ratings and select based on their ideas of player strength. But there is none and generally it is not the ratings of the top players that create arguments.

As for the hydras referred to, they come from a very small number of people who were banned from this board for repeat misbehaviour. Nearly all of the hydras seen here are a single person whose identity is unknown (the recent Bonneville was an exception). They are nothing to do with the ratings issue (even though they may attempt to use it). Bringing them into the debate is simply a furphy.


I also think you're misquoting Grant in saying he thinks it is "so widespread", he said it was a vast minority in fact.

Not so vast at all. He reckoned there were maybe ten of them - out of seventy that is quite a substantial minority. If he's wrong and there's really only one that's good to hear.

Also, I didn't quote Grant in that sentence so how could I misquote him?

Garvinator
14-11-2011, 11:36 AM
People are entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts.Hey, watch it, that is my line. :P Give credit please :)

Kerry Stead
14-11-2011, 12:15 PM
Is part of the problem that people want 'transparency' and 'objectivity', in whatever manner they define those terms. The trouble is that given the relatively small size of the chess community ... and even smaller size of those involved in administration in the chess community ... mean that it is almost impossible to have people that do not have some sort of interest involved in various chess matters. This is most obvious when it comes to ratings, as EVERYONE who plays tournament chess has a rating (whether they are actually concerned about what it is is a different matter), so arguments can tend to lack objectivity as a result.

ER
14-11-2011, 03:25 PM
People are entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts.


Hey, watch it, that is my line. :P Give credit please :)

Hey watch it you two, Daniel Patrick Moynihan said that! Or at least he is attributed to have said it! :P

ER
14-11-2011, 03:34 PM
They are still talking about Max's rating going to 2300 a few years ago? ....

Hey watch it pal! Max is half Victorian :owned: and we love him here! :D :clap:

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2011, 10:13 PM
Hey watch it you two, Daniel Patrick Moynihan said that! Or at least he is attributed to have said it! :P

As I've mentioned here before, he said versions of it several times (some are clearly sourced), and there were close precursor comments by others.

Looking at the thread so far, I have this question: if there is such widespread discontent with ratings in Victoria as claimed, why has no motion like this been both attempted and passed at CV level before? After all the motions in question are hardly caused by a groundswell of discontent (although whether or not that exists will affect their chances of passing) - the second in particular is clearly driven by the mover's software development goals.

Grant Szuveges
14-11-2011, 11:23 PM
Looking at the thread so far, I have this question: if there is such widespread discontent with ratings in Victoria as claimed, why has no motion like this been both attempted and passed at CV level before?

Because we are dealing with a bunch of chess players here... they are not the most organised people in the world... this motion is a big step! (one giant step for chess players, one great leap for mankind)

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2011, 11:29 PM
Because we are dealing with a bunch of chess players here... they are not the most organised people in the world...

Yeah, the whole "herding cats" problem - I'd still expect if there was that much opposition and the opposition was intense then something should have happened. After all a motion to request the ACF to release more detail got passed by CAQ once and there's been no suggestion (except from trolls) of a similar level of opposition up there.

Kerry Stead
04-12-2011, 08:48 PM
Quick update on the CV AGM:
2011/12 Chess Victoria Executive is as follows:
President - Leonid Sandler
Vice-President - Darryl Johansen
Treasurer - Trevor Stanning
Secretary - Kerry Stead
Executive Members - Grant Szuveges & NY Wong
Other positions decided at the meeting:
Chairman - Geoff Keenan
Auditor - Bob Bergmanis
All were elected unopposed as the only nominees for the various positions.

The various motions put forward by David Cordover all lapsed as there was no mover or seconder for any of the motions.

antichrist
04-12-2011, 09:30 PM
The various motions put forward by David Cordover all lapsed as there was no mover or seconder for any of the motions.

what was the subject of such motions? Any as to why BHCC got the championship and not MCC?

Kevin Bonham
04-12-2011, 09:33 PM
what was the subject of such motions? Any as to why BHCC got the championship and not MCC?

To avoid looking any more of a fool than you have to, always try reading the whole thread! See #6.

Grant Szuveges
04-12-2011, 10:13 PM
2011/12 Chess Victoria Executive is as follows:
President - Leonid Sandler
Vice-President - Darryl Johansen
Treasurer - Trevor Stanning
Secretary - Kerry Stead
Executive Members - Grant Szuveges & NY Wong
Other positions decided at the meeting:
Chairman - Geoff Keenan
Auditor - Bob Bergmanis
All were elected unopposed as the only nominees for the various positions.


Looking forward to working with CV in 2012! I hope to make a positive contribution.

Santa
11-12-2011, 01:37 AM
There already is: http://www.bjcox.com/modules.php?name=Glicko_Calc

No.
The ACF authorized a ratings system "based on" glicko2. Barry claims to use Glick-1.

Santa
11-12-2011, 02:15 AM
As for the players wanting the information that is the subject the motions, I see no mass clamour for it. Indeed probably 99%+ of rated players couldn't care less. Also the ACF receives no benefit from non-disclosure as you suggest so that aspect of your response is baseless. On the other hand David Cordover would like it for his own rating system but that is no ground for the ACF to release it.

DJ

I use several distributions of Linux.Note that, strictly speaking, Linux refers to the kernel of what most people think of as Linux.

As a proportion of users, hardly any want the source code to the Linux kernel. Nonetheless, it's freely available to anyone who wants it, and you don't even have to ask!

One of the distributions I use is Debian GNU/Linux. The Debian folk are very strict on openness and transparency. All its source code is available, all its bug reports are online for anyone to see, and just about all of its correspondence is too. Even when they refer to each other in unfriendly terms, as they do from time to time. By far the most flamewars I have seen can be found in Debian mailing list archives.

I also use CentOS on several machines. CentOS is built from the source code of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, a commercial product, and which Red Hat releases for anyone who wants it.

I also use Fedora, a "community" distribution from which RHEL is drawn, and have used OpenSUSE and Suse Linux Enterprise Server (SLES).

Whether I choose to avail myself of the unrestricted access to the source code, the fact is that some people do. Often, the do so to fix bugs and make improvements. Or just to have a look and learn how it works.

Because other people do these things, I can be confident there is no malware in any Linux distribution. There have been incidences of sites being cracked, but generally these are discovered and fixed in a day or so, because someone notices.

The problem I have wit the ACF ratings system is that there is so little information about how it works. The ratings officers were empowered to create a ratings system "based on" the Glicko2 system, but there is no public information about how it works. Since there is not information about it, nobody can verify that it actually works correctly.

Santa
11-12-2011, 02:28 AM
And even if you did have all that information, it would still not really be possible to calculate some ratings because for players whose rating is going to change a lot in a rating period, an intermediate rating is used. Without knowing what that rating is, it is nigh on impossible to calculate a players new rating.
.

Glickman says,
The formulas:
To apply the rating algorithm, we treat a collection of games within a “rating period” to have occurred simultaneously. A rating period could be as long as several months, or could be as short as one minute. In the former case, players would have ratings and RD’s at the beginning of the rating period, game outcomes would be observed, and then updated ratings and RD’s would be computed at the end of the rating period (which would then be used as the pre-period ratings and RD’s for the subsequent rating period). In the latter case, ratings and RD’s would be updated on a game-by-game basis (this is currently the system used by FICS). The Glicko system works best when the number of games in a rating period
is moderate, say an average of 5-10 games per player in a rating period.

See PDFs listed on http://www.glicko.net/glicko.html

Players here have played a few more than Glickman recommends:
http://www.auschess.org.au/ratings/dec11/busiest.txt

Kevin Bonham
11-12-2011, 10:36 AM
No.
The ACF authorized a ratings system "based on" glicko2. Barry claims to use Glick-1.

Barry has now issued a Glicko-2 spreadsheet - see http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=323152&postcount=72


The ratings officers were empowered to create a ratings system "based on" the Glicko2 system, but there is no public information about how it works.

This is simply false; quite a deal of information about the system and changes made to it from time to time has been published in the ACF newsletter as well as here. Not enough for you to replicate its outputs, but you couldn't do that without all the data even if you had all the details of how the system worked anyway.

Kevin Bonham
11-12-2011, 10:37 AM
The Glicko system works best when the number of games in a rating period
is moderate, say an average of 5-10 games per player in a rating period.

See PDFs listed on http://www.glicko.net/glicko.html

Players here have played a few more than Glickman recommends:
http://www.auschess.org.au/ratings/dec11/busiest.txt

:rolleyes: Which part of the word "average" are you unable to understand today?

ER
11-12-2011, 11:19 AM
I find posts #69 to the present a little irrelevant to the 2011 Chess Victoria AGM. With all due respect to the participants of the otherwise very interesting Glicko discussion agree that it should be moved to another thread?

Kevin Bonham
11-12-2011, 11:55 AM
I find posts #69 to the present a little irrelevant to the 2011 Chess Victoria AGM.

Pretty much the whole thread is like that. The fact is there's been negligible discussion of the CV AGM beyond that caused by the presence on the agenda of an invalid ratings motion that didn't even get a mover let alone a seconder. If we move #69 and on we should move virtually all the ratings discussion and the remaining thread will be about six posts long. And none of the ratings discussion is really covering any new ground.

ER
11-12-2011, 02:36 PM
If we move #69 and on we should move virtually all the ratings discussion and the remaining thread will be about six posts long... :lol: how about changing the heading then? You 've got to admit the way it is it's quite misleading! :P