PDA

View Full Version : Incremental Rating "Titles"

Desmond
16-06-2006, 09:38 PM
The idea was originally put forward by Drug (apologies for my failed recollection thinking it was Axiom) in my Australian Master poll.

The basic idea is to have something similair to martial arts belts assigned to chess players at various rating milestones. To give us a discussion starting point, I now put forward the following:

750 - white belt
1000 - yellow belt
1250 - blue belt
1500 - brown belt
1750 - red belt
2000 - black belt

The term "belt" may be too direct a steal from martial arts. I'm open to other suggestions.

One major advantage of this over simply using rating as a metric is that once a player achieves a certain level, it can never be taken from them. For instance, if a player manages to get to 1500 they secure the brown belt for life.

I look forward to reading others' ideas...

Cat
16-06-2006, 09:46 PM
The idea was originally put forward by Drug (apologies for my failed recollection thinking it was Axiom) in my Australian Master poll.

The basic idea is to have something similair to martial arts belts assigned to chess players at various rating milestones. To give us a discussion starting point, I now put forward the following:

750 - white belt
1000 - yellow belt
1250 - blue belt
1500 - brown belt
1750 - red belt
2000 - black belt

The term "belt" may be too direct a steal from martial arts. I'm open to other suggestions.

One major advantage of this over simply using rating as a metric is that once a player achieves a certain level, it can never be taken from them. For instance, if a player manages to get to 1500 they secure the brown belt for life.

I look forward to reading others' ideas...

I think it's a great idea, especially for kids. Studies have shown that the fear of losing is twice as powerful as the attraction of gain. In other words, individuals will experience twice as much unhappiness losing \$10 as they will obtain happiness gaining \$10. The fear of loss is immense.

The good thing about this system is that effort is rewarded and competition is encouraged. Your standard cannot fall, and that is much more reflective of real life - in other words we learn rapidly and we tend to retain the skills we've gained for many years. If we loose strength, it occurs slowly. It also allows for the odd bad performance. We all have bad days. Great idea Boris.

PHAT
16-06-2006, 09:55 PM
Oi didn't I just suggest a belts analogy ;)

In any case, the "titles" could be

Chess Expert 2000+ (a Sperty)
Chess Exponent 1750 (an Expo)
Chess Sportsman 1500 (a Sport)
Chess Clubman 1250 (a Clubby)
Chess Player 1000 (a Player)

ursogr8
16-06-2006, 10:34 PM
The idea was originally put forward by Drug (apologies for my failed recollection thinking it was Axiom) in my Australian Master poll.

The basic idea is to have something similair to martial arts belts assigned to chess players at various rating milestones. To give us a discussion starting point, I now put forward the following:

750 - white belt
1000 - yellow belt
1250 - blue belt
1500 - brown belt
1750 - red belt
2000 - black belt

The term "belt" may be too direct a steal from martial arts. I'm open to other suggestions.

One major advantage of this over simply using rating as a metric is that once a player achieves a certain level, it can never be taken from them. For instance, if a player manages to get to 1500 they secure the brown belt for life.

I look forward to reading others' ideas...

I think the concept is terrific as an adjunct to the ratings system.
I have often asked members of our club from o/s countries if they have seen such a classification elsewhere.
Personally I would like to see 100 point grades (instead of 250; and grades under 750 <half our juniors are under 750>).

starter

Desmond
17-06-2006, 12:10 AM
Oi didn't I just suggest a belts analogy ;)
Yes, but only after drug mentioned it first: http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=4306&page=2
;)

PHAT
17-06-2006, 12:16 AM
Yes, but only after drug mentioned it first: http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=4306&page=2
;)

Bugger!

Is it a case of great minds think alike, or that fools seldom differ.

Desmond
17-06-2006, 08:32 AM
I think the concept is terrific as an adjunct to the ratings system. thank for the support

I have often asked members of our club from o/s countries if they have seen such a classification elsewhere.Any people with said experience, please come forward

Personally I would like to see 100 point grades (instead of 250; and grades under 750 <half our juniors are under 750>).

I guess I'm a little out of touch with the bottom end of the rating spectrum. What rating are they starting at these days? And how quickly are they improving? I guess it should be set up so that a regularly improving kid would go up a level a year. Whether this is 100 points or 250 or otherwise I'm not sure.

qpawn
17-06-2006, 12:27 PM
This is a great idea that would ease the climb up the chess mountain.

After all, marathon runners train by giving themselves "reward points" along the way such as the "happy signpost" etc.

Desmond
18-06-2006, 10:05 PM
Another idea is to have a certificate and some token (badge, ribbon, baseball cap or something similair) for the achievement. I think it would be quite neat to see an army of kids sporting their chess rank, and looking up to those they would like to catch up to one day.

Kevin Bonham
22-06-2006, 03:07 PM
In one of the ratings threads, Boris suggested this might assist with the retention of players of declining strength. How would it do so?

I do think the idea of classifying players both along the lines of their present strength and along the lines of their peak strength is an interesting one. (But I would say that, having been over 2000 thus far for precisely one ratings period!)

Igor_Goldenberg
22-06-2006, 04:23 PM
I don't know what is the system now, but that's how it looked about 15 years ago:

The rating system in former USSR applied from 2200 level. Before that they used category:

5th category - beginner. not sure it was even used
4th category - need to score 60% among the beginners.
3rd, 2nd and 1st category. Need to score 50% against that category or 75% against the one below or 25% againt the one above. (e.g, for the 2nd category need to score 75% against the 3rd, 50% against the 2nd, 25% against the 1st, etc.)

Candidate master. Need to score 30% against the masters, 55% against candidate master, 75% against 1st category with some minimal number of candidate masters, etc.

Relatively strong candidate master could play in a rated tournament with the starting rating of 2200.

To stay in the particular category, a player must score a norm at least once in a three year. Few very bad results could lower the category.

The title "master" cannot be lost, but for the purpose of qualification had to be confirmed time to time as well.

IMHO, the rating system superseeds it, but it has to be fixed. ELO system works well for the players in close range and does not wok well for big differences. I must admit that I never looked seriously at the mathematics of ELO system, it's just my gut feeling.

For example, the expected score of 25% (75%) indicates 200 points difference. In this case 1500 means 4th category, but in my experience it's close to the 2nd category. It confirms my suspision that it has to be close to exponential then linear, but I have to learn the math of the ELO before arguing it.

Any links to a SHORT explanation of underlying math model of ELO would be appreciated.

ursogr8
22-06-2006, 04:56 PM
In one of the ratings threads, Boris suggested this might assist with the retention of players of declining strength. How would it do so?

hi KB
But let me, in my own oblique style, sketch a possible scenario that could be seen after 'Perpetual Grade Titles' had been implemented.
The round X pairings of the BHCC Championship would look like
Pairing no.
Name of white player
White players PGT
Progress score to date
Name of black player
Black players PGT
Progress score to date.

The difference is ...... the players' ACF ratings are no longer visible on pairings (nor cross-tables).

I do think the idea of classifying players both along the lines of their present strength and along the lines of their peak strength is an interesting one. (But I would say that, having been over 2000 thus far for precisely one ratings period!)

:clap: :clap:
Good to see you (nearly) on board.

regards
starter

Desmond
22-06-2006, 08:24 PM
In one of the ratings threads, Boris suggested this might assist with the retention of players of declining strength. How would it do so?
I thought I had stated this in my initial post, but I will try to make it clearer.

A player's rating is a symbol of their chess prowess. Getting a rating to a certain point is often the result of many years of improvement, hard work, spent weekends and so forth. At this point in time, if I am formerly a 2000 rated player who has dropped to 1500, there is nothing to differentiate me from a player who has just scraped up to the 1500 mark.

The fundamental idea that I am suggesting, is that we introduce some metric other than a rating which will not decline if the rating does. I think it is quite self-explanatory how/why this would assist in the retention of "koalas falling out of their trees" so to speak.

There are other benefits to the idea as well. Any suggestion of improvements is welcome.