View Poll Results: Which rating system shall we implement?

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • American Postal Chess Tournaments (APCT)

    0 0%
  • Association of British Scrabble Players (ABSP)

    0 0%
  • Chess Federation of Canada (CFC)

    0 0%
  • Free Internet Correspondence Games Server (FICGS)

    0 0%
  • GameKnot

    0 0%
  • Glicko-1

    5 45.45%
  • Glicko-2

    2 18.18%
  • International Email Chess Group (IECG)

    1 9.09%
  • Scrabble Australia

    0 0%
  • United States Chess Federation (USCF)

    3 27.27%
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    CC Candidate Master Glenno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Launceston, Tasmania
    Posts
    47

    CC ladder poll (rating system implementation)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    While appreciating that Glenno puts the work he does into maintaining the ladder, since he switched over to measuring it by number of wins rather than a Glicko-style system I have not found it meaningful. It is now a hybrid of activity and performance rather than an indicator of performance alone.
    Quote Originally Posted by Axiom
    I concur , we must adopt a performance based rating system as soon as practicably possible.
    In response, a poll has been created. Several rating systems have been found on the Internet (below are links to such systems). Which shall we implement?

    Last edited by Glenno; 25-07-2008 at 09:56 PM.

  2. #2
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,483
    A lot of the simpler systems there seem quite satisfactory to me; Glicko-2 is very hard work for the maintainer and with relatively limited data to go on the accuracy payoff might not be worth it.

    Interesting to see that Scrabble has assessed an ELO-like modelling curve against actual game data and found a straight line does the trick better.

  3. #3
    CC Candidate Master Glenno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Launceston, Tasmania
    Posts
    47
    We've got two weeks to go before this poll ends.

    As of 10/8/2008, the number of votes were as follows:
    • Glicko-1: 2 votes.
    • Glicko-2: 1 vote.
    • Others: 0 votes.

  4. #4
    CC Candidate Master Glenno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Launceston, Tasmania
    Posts
    47
    One week to go before this poll ends.

    As of 17/8/2008, the number of votes were as follows:

    • Glicko-1: 3 votes.
    • Glicko-2: 2 votes.
    • IECG: 1 vote.
    • USCF: 2 votes.
    • Others: 0 votes.

  5. #5
    CC Candidate Master Glenno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Launceston, Tasmania
    Posts
    47
    24 hours to go now.

  6. #6
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    122
    I voted for the USCF Rating System, mainly for the following reasons:

    a) It is the system used on the Internet Chess Club (ICC), and it seems to work very well there.

    b) Very high-rated players are not penalised for playing low-rated players (e.g in the first round of a Swiss tournament)

    c) It is significantly easier to calculate how many rating points a player has gained or lost in a tournament.

    d) Unlike the Glicko system, the USCF rating system does not penalise you for playing actively. Under the Glicko system, a player can not play for a couple of years, then score very highly at a tournament and gain a couple hundred points. Under the USCF system, this would not happen.

    The only disadvantage of this system is that it may not work as effectively with a smaller number of rated players (ICC and USCF have hundreds of thousands of members, whereas the number of ACF rated players is about 5000). Still, I think the above four advantages outweigh this possibility.

  7. #7
    CC Candidate Master Glenno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Launceston, Tasmania
    Posts
    47
    Poll now closed.

    Final tally of votes:

    Glicko-1: 5 votes.
    Glicko-2: 2 votes.
    IECG: 1 vote.
    USCF: 3 votes.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Objectives of rating systems
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 06-01-2010, 05:18 AM
  2. Underrated Juniors
    By Paul S in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 627
    Last Post: 17-02-2008, 08:43 PM
  3. Regarding the behaviour of some BB members
    By Alan Shore in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 324
    Last Post: 14-08-2006, 09:27 PM
  4. Replies: 109
    Last Post: 08-11-2005, 08:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •