PDA

View Full Version : Ergas Australian Junior Chess Squad

Pages : 1 [2]

four four two
21-10-2005, 01:31 AM
Ah yes,but if these juniors were really underated then they should be getting 100 points from higher rated outsiders from Doeberl,and they then should be handing back few points to the locals if they play consistently well. ;)

jenni
21-10-2005, 09:24 AM
Ah yes,but if these juniors were really underated then they should be getting 100 points from higher rated outsiders from Doeberl,and they then should be handing back few points to the locals if they play consistently well. ;)
I guess its not worth argueing about - however you might want to ask people the ACT juniors savage their opinion. :)

Ian Rout
21-10-2005, 10:09 AM
Ah yes,but if these juniors were really underated then they should be getting 100 points from higher rated outsiders from Doeberl,
Why 100? Why not 97.2 or 112.385? Let us try to be a bit more precise.

Suppose test subject A has a rating of X (with RD=!) but a true strength of X+300 (= is 300 points under-rated). Suppose further that he (we also suppose A is male) plays seven players rated X+300 (with RD=!!) and scores 50%.

Using Barry Cox's Glicko simulator we find that A's rating does indeed go up 108 points.

Now let us look at something more in the real world. First nobody will be 300 points under-rated for very long so that's not very interesting; let us look at subject B who has a rating of y! and plays at y+150. Now in a seven-player Swiss in Canberra it is likely that one opponent will be an equally under-rated player from Canberra or Victoria (suppose they draw) and of the remaining six opponents one is likely to be a sizeable amount above and one a sizeable amount below (suppose B scores a loss and a win). Let us suppose the rest are in the region of y+150 (again with RD=!!), B's real strength, and B scores 50%.

Now the calculator shows B gaining 33 points.

So we conclude that in a realistic scenario a player playing 150 points above their rating can reasonably expect to gain 30-something points from a tournament such as the Doeberl Cup.

To simulate other scenarios Barry's calculator is at

http://www.bjcox.com/modules.php?name=Glicko_Calc

Rincewind
21-10-2005, 10:25 AM
Sorry bout not being able to quote it properly havnt learnt that yet.
Anyway I know Jenni was talking about me :D Jenni is right Rincewood you said we should go out more to say Adelaide and Melbourne. Sydney is much easiar to. There is only about 15 max amount of juniors going outside the ACT for tourns (not including juniors, aussie open, and schools). If it was as easy as you said it is. Then that amount should double atleast. If you observe the ACT ratings as a whole you will see that alot of ratings rocket the rating list after doeberl (not so much ANU). Take my rating. I picked up 30 rating points from that. Now if we do a time line of where those points go.
timeline 1, i drew with kayleigh :P then kayleigh smith who lost to Emma who lost to a girl called Alanah Chibnall and she lost to a yound guy called benjamin xing. Now a draw with kayleigh lost me say 7 points. From me to Benjamin thats about 1200 points so 7 of my gained points from doeberl have trickelled down to a 500 rated player. Now if you let this happen continuously to everyone. The top ACT players will have the same problem. So even though the rough raises say 15 points. It will slowly keep trickeling down to lower rated players. So our rating 'Roof' will advance only slowly while other states continue to have their players jump upwards at a much faster pace. So yes the ACT's players are slowly getting ratings they deserve. But we get them 2morrow while nearly everyone else already had them yesterday.

Sorry if none of it made sense

GloryGlory,

It is a mistake to think the rating system is a closed system. Although for the purposes of the argument you an consider it to be almost closed. My point was the geographic proximity of Canberra to the large capitals works to your advantage, rather than disadvantage, as compared to say Queensland where there is also a big junior community.

Anecdotally...
I played in the ANU Open this year but never played in the Doeberl. My experience there was I played very badly. I lost to one Canberra junior after winning material in very short time. Lost to an older Sydney junior. Then I beat two weaker Canberra juniors and Canberra senior and finished with two draws against Shannon Oliver and James Morris. Of the two games I lost the player who impressed me the most was the Sydney guy. So in short while my rating was ravaged (by around 60 points I think). I'm sure this wasn't due to an epidemic of underrated local juniors.

Hope this clarifies things.

four four two
21-10-2005, 11:32 AM
Ian,how much would a 1200 player gain if they were playing at a 1650 level for 7 rounds at Doeberl? :hmm: My whole point is that a 1200 player playing at a 1350 level isnt seriously "underated",they are simply progressing at a relatively normal level. Some of the people in Canberra are under the impression that theyre low rated players[1300 and below] are actually 300 points stronger in real strength.If that was the case theyre rating would certainly gain more than 30 points if they were playing at Doeberl.One or two good results in my opinion doesnt make a player underated,they have to consistently perform well, in which case theyre rating would catch up in the course of 3 to 4 rating lists.There is plenty of rating points out there for the average club player,whether they are juniors or adults, or whether they live in Tasmania or Sydney.You would have to be an exceptional junior[2000+] to remain "underated" for an 18 month period in Australia,especially with the Glicko sysem. ;)

jenni
21-10-2005, 12:16 PM
Some of the people in Canberra are under the impression that theyre low rated players[1300 and below] are actually 300 points stronger in real strength.If that was the case theyre rating would certainly gain more than 30 points if they were playing at Doeberl.
No they wouldn't. Becasue of the large numbers of ACT juniors that play in the minor, what typically happens is that they play each other, thus minimising rating gains. We need to use the Club feature and not allow the ACT juniors to pay each other at Doeberl and then we would see that sort of gain. :lol:

One or two good results in my opinion doesnt make a player underated,they have to consistently perform well, in which case theyre rating would catch up in the course of 3 to 4 rating lists.

You miss the point - they do perform well when playing people from out of town. They then play in town and shed the rating points. Obviously they still go up in rating, but at a slower rate.

There is plenty of rating points out there for the average club player,whether they are juniors or adults, or whether they live in Tasmania or Sydney.You would have to be an exceptional junior[2000+] to remain "underated" for an 18 month period in Australia,especially with the Glicko sysem. ;)

We are talking particularly about the band from about 1100 to 1600. Becasue we have almost no-one (except juniors) in that band, it is very hard to make progress. Once you get above that you tend to be someone who travels frequently and it gets easier. Once you get above 1900 it gets hard again, as we have a ceiling effect. e.g Michael Wei who did not lose a game in the ACT championships went up 4 points.

jenni
21-10-2005, 12:32 PM
GloryGlory,

It is a mistake to think the rating system is a closed system. Although for the purposes of the argument you an consider it to be almost closed. My point was the geographic proximity of Canberra to the large capitals works to your advantage, rather than disadvantage, as compared to say Queensland where there is also a big junior community.

Anecdotally...
I played in the ANU Open this year but never played in the Doeberl. My experience there was I played very badly. I lost to one Canberra junior after winning material in very short time. Lost to an older Sydney junior. Then I beat two weaker Canberra juniors and Canberra senior and finished with two draws against Shannon Oliver and James Morris. Of the two games I lost the player who impressed me the most was the Sydney guy. So in short while my rating was ravaged (by around 60 points I think). I'm sure this wasn't due to an epidemic of underrated local juniors.

Hope this clarifies things.

The ACT Junior you lost to was a bit of a shock. Although he falls into our 1100 band, he is a junior who plays for fun. He's never had coaching and doesn't take his chess at all seriously, so wouldn't be one that I would have expected you to have any problems with. Of the two other Canberra Juniors you played, one was rated 1300 points less than you and one 900, so you would have to have been playing VERY badly to have lost to them. :) You then played the third Junior's Dad and as I have beaten him, you would have to have really hung your head in shame if you lost that one. Shannon is tough to beat, when she isn't stressing and of course James is good. So all in all, apart from the first two, I think you played well. I guess the reason you lost as many rating points as you did would have been

1. you lost to an ACT junior
2. you lost to a NSW person
2. you drew with a recent ACT junior
3. you drew with an up and coming Victorian junior
4. your wins were against such low rated ACT people that there was no ability to claw back rating points from your losses and draws.

I think point 4 is an important one. Your 3 wins gave you so few points (3) that it really magnified your losses and draw. And that is very much an ACT experience.

Ian Rout
21-10-2005, 12:35 PM
Ian,how much would a 1200 player gain if they were playing at a 1650 level for 7 rounds at Doeberl? :hmm: My whole point is that a 1200 player playing at a 1350 level isnt seriously "underated",they are simply progressing at a relatively normal level. Some of the people in Canberra are under the impression that theyre low rated players[1300 and below] are actually 300 points stronger in real strength.If that was the case theyre rating would certainly gain more than 30 points if they were playing at Doeberl.One or two good results in my opinion doesnt make a player underated,they have to consistently perform well, in which case theyre rating would catch up in the course of 3 to 4 rating lists.There is plenty of rating points out there for the average club player,whether they are juniors or adults, or whether they live in Tasmania or Sydney.You would have to be an exceptional junior[2000+] to remain "underated" for an 18 month period in Australia,especially with the Glicko sysem. ;)

I wouldn't worry too much about players 400 points under-rated, they will zoom up pretty quickly, even playing people who are "only" 150 points under-rated.

I think you have raised two points here, first that occasionally over-performing relative to your rating doesn't prove anything and second that 150 points is not a lot.

The first is true, and some (many?) players are prone to remembering their good results and forgetting the rest. But when large populations of players are exceeding their expected scores there must be at least some under-rated players in the group. This doesn't apply just to ACT players of course.

The second point is debatable. At a rating difference of 150 points the higher-rated player should score 70%, whereas if they are really the same level they would score 50% each. Personally I would like to see ratings a lttle more meaningful than being within 150 points.

four four two
21-10-2005, 12:37 PM
Well there is the major to play in if they are so concerned about rating points. :wall: Are you telling me that the MAJORITY of juniors in the ACT are underated? If thats the case,what of the juniors who live in more isoloated areas,[WA,TAS] and juniors who live in areas where there are less players period[TAS]? Surely they would be just as "underated" as you claim the ACT players are ,wouldnt they? :hmm:

As for shedding points,are there no 1700 players that they can draw with in Canberra on a regular basis? :hmm: Did Michael Wei only get above 1600 by playing tournaments outside Canberra? :hmm: The point is they have to be playing consistently well to be truly underated,and if they were they wouldnt be shedding points as you claim.This principle applies no matter where you live in Australia.If a junior has 2 to 3 good wins at the Vic open and plays at Boxhill regularly,they should still be playing well at Boxhill on a regular basis to have any claim on being "underated". ;)

jenni
21-10-2005, 01:25 PM
Well there is the major to play in if they are so concerned about rating points. :wall: Are you telling me that the MAJORITY of juniors in the ACT are underated? If thats the case,what of the juniors who live in more isoloated areas,[WA,TAS] and juniors who live in areas where there are less players period[TAS]? Surely they would be just as "underated" as you claim the ACT players are ,wouldnt they? :hmm:

Its not the isolation, but the pool they play in. Both TAS and WA seem to have players in the band we are talking about. I feel like taking out an ad - "missing ACT adults please return - all is forgiven". The old hands like Denis, don't seem to have any real idea what happened to them. Canberra used to have 4 adult clubs. One closed permanently (Woden), one closed and reopened (Belconnen) and two remained going. (Tuggeranong and Canberra). Both Tuggeranong and Belco keep going primarily because of large junior support. Canberra is now the refuge of the adults who can't tolerate the noisy juniors (I don't blame them), or just like the location or night of the week.

As for shedding points,are there no 1700 players that they can draw with in Canberra on a regular basis?

On a regular basis - no.

Have a look at the current belco tournament.

Out of 49 players there are 14 adults playing.

One is Ian Hosking who played one game as a favour to me, because otherwise the player would have had a forfeit win and I wanted him to have a game. Possibly first game he has played this year and he won't play the rest of the tournament. Another is me and I am rated 797 and only play on a fill in basis. (By the time I have collected the money, done the draw and talked to a dozen people I don't fell like playing). That leaves 12 adults.

Then we have 2 unrated adults - I would put them at somewhere between 500 and 700 (ACT terms). Then another 3 at 532, 502 and 555 respectively. Ok that leaves 7 adults.

Then we get one at 1357 and another at 1186. Ok down to 5.

Then we start hitting the targets. Shannon at 1703 and definitely concedes the odd draw and loss to the tigers, particularly if she has had a Uni exam that day :) . Milan Grcic - not a bad player - came fourth in the major at Doeberl, but yes he does give an occasional draw to the band we are talking about, which is why they do slowly make progress.

Then we have Milan Ninchich - he was down at 1500 I think at one point, because he does get savaged by the kids. He has built himself back up after some good wins at ANU and has finally got over 1700 again.

That leaves 2.

Ian Rout and Mos Ali. Ian is 1800 and I don't think gives draws to under 1600 players ever! Could be wrong! Mos has slipped under 1800 and is certainly another target. So out of 49 players I would consider there are none that the under 1600 band can "regularly" draw with. There are 4 who would concede the very occasional draw to the juniors. Most of the draws and wins come from taking them off each other. When you get a really good player, such as Yi Yuan then they do rise up through the ranks more rapidly, because they beat up all the other juniors very consistently. However he really should have lost to Emma Guo on Friday - I still can't believe he won that game!

Rincewind
21-10-2005, 01:34 PM
The ACT Junior you lost to was a bit of a shock. Although he falls into our 1100 band, he is a junior who plays for fun. He's never had coaching and doesn't take his chess at all seriously, so wouldn't be one that I would have expected you to have any problems with. Of the two other Canberra Juniors you played, one was rated 1300 points less than you and one 900, so you would have to have been playing VERY badly to have lost to them. :) You then played the third Junior's Dad and as I have beaten him, you would have to have really hung your head in shame if you lost that one. Shannon is tough to beat, when she isn't stressing and of course James is good. So all in all, apart from the first two, I think you played well. I guess the reason you lost as many rating points as you did would have been

1. you lost to an ACT junior
2. you lost to a NSW person
2. you drew with a recent ACT junior
3. you drew with an up and coming Victorian junior
4. your wins were against such low rated ACT people that there was no ability to claw back rating points from your losses and draws.

I think point 4 is an important one. Your 3 wins gave you so few points (3) that it really magnified your losses and draw. And that is very much an ACT experience.

Actually I think my problem stemmed from two main non-ACT issues. Firstly having not played a weekender for more than 2 years I was getting used to the time control and weekender experience. I started well i my first game and won material in the opening however, played badly after this and allowed myself to get into a poor position on the clock and on the board. After that I thought the position was probably drawable but overlooked a knight fork in the ending and resigned immidately after due to a well-lost position on the board and confidence that my opponent would have no problem converting it. In the second game I played a opening which my opponent seemed to play very comfortably. Again I got into a worse position on the clock but I was never better and didn't make a gross blunder, was just outplayed, which is why that game impressed me more.

I played very poorly against the 500 rated guy. If his rating was 1000 I probably would have lost. Fortunately he overlooked my blunder and made some of his own and allowed me a comfortable escape though I didn't feel good about it.

The next too games my opponents put up good resistence (though I don't remember the games as well). However, I was getting more used to the time-control by this time and played well enough to win with some time to spare. Actually the game against the dad I do remember the finale and though I was getting short on time again I was able to calculate the mating attacking accurately.

The second problem was I became quite sick with a throat infection on the Sunday, and by the time I played rounds 6 and 7, I was trying to get out of the games as quickly as possible. I played a very drawish line against Shannon and offered a draw quickly after the opening which was thankfully accepted. Against James, he made a mistake in the opening but one which I didn't capitalise on as much as I could have with best play. I offered him a draw pretty early as well which was accepted after much thought.

You are right though that the rating loss was partially due to the fact that my wins were against very low rated players and so did not contribute much to offset my losses. Even the two draws cost me points as both players were more than 100 points lower rated than me.

This is all of only passing interest to me though as the rating is not as important as enjoying the chess. I don't rely on my rating being at any level in particular as I am not vying for selection, playing for rating group prizes or dreaming of qualifying for the Aust Championships. The important thing is to enjoy playing.

Ian Rout
21-10-2005, 02:32 PM
Ian is 1800 and I don't think gives draws to under 1600 players ever!
He does (and more than draws on occasions). Most recently I drew with Jesse Maguire at the ANU Open (but he was 1592).

I have been more miserly in club games though, the last draw seems to have been against Shannon in September 2003.

However the rating system doesn't require you to score 100%, for instance about 92% is break-even against players 400 less.

Kevin Bonham
25-11-2005, 01:10 PM
- Stephen Mayne from Crikey! for an excellent motivational speech (and good PR in his publication)

I was curious about how people got Crikey on board at the time, but now I know. Stephen Mayne actually has a chess background. Today's subscriber email mentions that in 1988 he was President of Doncaster Chess Club.

jenni
25-11-2005, 01:41 PM
I was curious about how people got Crikey on board at the time, but now I know. Stephen Mayne actually has a chess background. Today's subscriber email mentions that in 1988 he was President of Doncaster Chess Club.
Yes that's right. Ian Rogers knew him as a chess player and organised him for us. He was quite keen - popping in on the Saturday with his daughter, to look at games.