Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25
  1. #1
    Account Permanently Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,680

    Is it time to benchmark?

    hi Bill

    The Whitehorse Chess Club has been submitting tourneys for rapid rating for a couple of years. Not may other junior tourneys are submitted in Victoria, so there is a risk that it is a bit of a 'closed' pool. There is a little bit of 'realism' in the ratings as about 10 out of 60 players in each monthly tournament are adults with fairly stable (normal as well as rapid) ratings.

    Those 10 adults and (a small) number of juniors also play in Box Hill Chess Club events...rapid and normal.
    Here is an analysis of the current 175 BHCC members

    > First...have to discard 67 as they have only one rating. That leaves 108 with both a rapid and normal rating.

    >> 1 has a difference (normal - rapid) greater than 500
    >> 2 have ..... in the range 500-400
    >> 7 have........................400-300
    >> 20..............................300-200
    >> 30..............................200-100
    >> 28..............................100-0
    >>> 13............................0 (-100)
    >>> 4.............................(-100)_(-200)
    >>> 3.............................(-200)_(300)


    I can send the more detailed analysis if you PM me a mailbox.

    regards
    starter

  2. #2
    CC Grandmaster Alan Shore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Crane, Poole & Schmidt
    Posts
    3,871
    What I was originally annoyed at years ago (couldn't care less now really) was how QLD Junior ratings were automatically imported into the ACF Rapid rating pool, thus overrating GC players etc. etc. as I alluded to some 6 years ago now. So if you do standardise, make sure it's at least going to be consistent - dunno who made that poor decision.
    "I can't go back to yesterday because I was a different person then."
    - White Queen, Alice through the Looking-Glass

  3. #3
    Account Permanently Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthasar
    What I was originally annoyed at years ago (couldn't care less now really) was how QLD Junior ratings were automatically imported into the ACF Rapid rating pool, thus overrating GC players etc. etc. as I alluded to some 6 years ago now. So if you do standardise, make sure it's at least going to be consistent - dunno who made that poor decision.
    hi BD

    My request to Bill is not about importing/initiating new players into a pool.

    Instead, I am looking a collection of 108 players who have long-standing normal ratings and rapid ratings, with a clear difference between the averages in both measures.

    (But I obviously agree with standardisation of process).

    starter

  4. #4
    Account Permanently Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,680

    From the SHOUTBOX

    Read from the top down to see chronological order >>

    starter:

    >Bill...are you going to engage on the benchmarking question on the new ratings thread?...



    Bill Gletsos:

    you seem to be under the misapprehension that normal and rapid ratings of players should be similar




    starter:

    > Bill........ah...so you are going to engage; and the first debating point is whether the calibration scales should be aligned. I look forward to your argument about the need for independence.




    Bill Gletsos:

    Nope. There is no need for alignment. In fact when FIDE was running their Rapid list it was only a 3 digit number



    Bill Gletsos:

    The reason for this was so that it was not confused as being related to the players normal rating



    starter:

    > Bill; now that I have got your valued attention, do you think we could adjourn to the actual thread....instead of such a public place.



    Bill Gletsos:

    Nope. I see it as a non issue and not worthy of wasting my time on.
    Last edited by ursogr8; 18-09-2005 at 07:29 PM.

  5. #5
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    262
    oooooooooooooooh
    Fight of the BIGGEST and the Big BIG Men

  6. #6
    Account Permanently Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,680

    First principles first.

    So, Bill, as the official ACF Ratings Officer (representative on this bb), can you just advise me of a fact (without controversy) >> Is there an ACF policy on the mission/vision of the rapid ratings scale? And where is it visible? In other words, what is the objective of the process that collects money from us?

    regards
    starter

  7. #7
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by starter
    So, Bill, as the official ACF Ratings Officer (representative on this bb), can you just advise me of a fact (without controversy) >> Is there an ACF policy on the mission/vision of the rapid ratings scale? And where is it visible? In other words, what is the objective of the process that collects money from us?
    The rapid ratings list simply provides rapid ratings for players. The rapid list meets that purpose.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  8. #8
    Account Permanently Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    The rapid ratings list simply provides rapid ratings for players. The rapid list meets that purpose.
    This is a good start by you Bill. No stonewalling. (a/c to note...it apparently in the way you ask the questions).

    Now we move from fact to discourse.
    You have listed one reason that the rapid need to be independent from the normal ratings; viz, so that the average Joe does not confuse one or the other. Are there any other reasons to put on the table at the beginning? Or just this one reason.....so we don't confuse the fact that we have two ratings?


    still, with regards
    starter

  9. #9
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by starter
    This is a good start by you Bill. No stonewalling. (a/c to note...it apparently in the way you ask the questions).

    Now we move from fact to discourse.
    You have listed one reason that the rapid need to be independent from the normal ratings; viz, so that the average Joe does not confuse one or the other. Are there any other reasons to put on the table at the beginning? Or just this one reason.....so we don't confuse the fact that we have two ratings?
    Not sure what you mean.
    Do you mean why is there a seperate rapid list at all?
    The answer is that if there wasnt then rapid games would not be rated and many players mainly juniors would have no rating whatsoever.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  10. #10
    Account Permanently Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Not sure what you mean.
    Do you mean why is there a seperate rapid list at all?
    The answer is that if there wasnt then rapid games would not be rated and many players mainly juniors would have no rating whatsoever.
    OK
    I will re-phrase like this.

    You, as ACF Ratings Officer (and cohorts) must have decided that a scale and an update formula were required (for rapids). As you point out, you could have picked a 3 digit scale, a 4 digit scale, a 5 digit scale, or even alphabetic.
    You chose basically a 4 digit scale.
    Next choice is whether to choose whether to align the rapid with the normal. That is, a player with equal skill at rapid and normal would end up with very similar measures for the two if he was active and if he moved across closed pools.
    I think you are saying you choose to NOT align because you did not want players to confuse their two numbers.
    Correct so far?

    w.k.r,
    starter

  11. #11
    Account Permanently Banned PHAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    4,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    There is no need for alignment. In fact when FIDE was running their Rapid list it was only a 3 digit number. The reason for this was so that it was not confused as being related to the players normal rating
    Most of the time you heap scorn upon the FIDE rating system (as well as other FIDE decissions.) Now, when starter called you to justify the non-alignment of rapid and normal ratings in the ACF system, you cite soley the FIDE methods and reasons as your own justification.

    It is an error to, on one hand ridicule the FIDE methods, while on the other hand using similarity to FIDE methods as evidence that your (non)policy is sound.

  12. #12
    Account Permanently Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew Sweeney
    Most of the time you heap scorn upon the FIDE rating system (as well as other FIDE decissions.) Now, when starter called you to justify the non-alignment of rapid and normal ratings in the ACF system, you cite soley the FIDE methods and reasons as your own justification.

    It is an error to, on one hand ridicule the FIDE methods, while on the other hand using similarity to FIDE methods as evidence that your (non)policy is sound.
    Yeh. I saw this illogicality earlier too. But, at the moment I am just picking the long-hanging fruit.

    But, in the interest of discipline in the ring....TAG.


    starter

  13. #13
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by starter
    OK
    I will re-phrase like this.

    You, as ACF Ratings Officer (and cohorts) must have decided that a scale and an update formula were required (for rapids). As you point out, you could have picked a 3 digit scale, a 4 digit scale, a 5 digit scale, or even alphabetic.
    You chose basically a 4 digit scale.
    Next choice is whether to choose whether to align the rapid with the normal. That is, a player with equal skill at rapid and normal would end up with very similar measures for the two if he was active and if he moved across closed pools.
    I think you are saying you choose to NOT align because you did not want players to confuse their two numbers.
    Correct so far?
    You miss the point.
    The formula used is the same as for normal games.
    The rapid measures players results in rapid games.

    In fact if every players rapid strength matched their normal strength their would be no need for a rapid list.

    However players normal and rapid strengths can vary quite a lot. Hence a player rated 1600 normal may be 1800 rapid whilst another rated 1600 normal may be 1400 rapid. Likewise a player rated 1600 normal plays like a 1600 rapid.

    You cannot align these three players rapid ratings to the normal scale.

    There is no reason to expect that a player rated 1600 at rapid is equal in skill as a player rated 1600 in normal.

    It is a non issue.
    Thus endeth the discussion.
    Last edited by Bill Gletsos; 18-09-2005 at 09:17 PM. Reason: spelling correction
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  14. #14
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by starter
    Yeh. I saw this illogicality earlier too. But, at the moment I am just picking the long-hanging fruit.

    But, in the interest of discipline in the ring....TAG.
    You and your tag partner can play with yourselves.
    Last edited by Bill Gletsos; 18-09-2005 at 09:08 PM.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  15. #15
    Account Permanently Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    You miss the point.
    I am willing to listen to the point...so thanks in advance for what is your response.

    The formula used is the same as for normal games.
    Of course; quite logical. I have no issue with this.

    The rapid measures players results in rapid games.
    Of course; quite logical. I have no issue with this.

    In fact if every players rapid strength matched their normal strength their would be no need for a rapid list.
    Of course; quite logical. I have no issue with this. And it is a strawman you have introduced, not my suggestion at all.

    However players normal and rapid strengths can vary quite a lot. Hence a player rated 1600 normal may be 1800 rapid whilst another rated 1600 normal may be 1400 rapid. Likewise a player rated 1600 normal plays like a 1600 rapid.
    But of course, we would all agree with this empirical data.

    You cannot align these three players rapid ratings to the normal scale.
    Another strawman of yours.

    There is no reason to expect that a player rated 1600 at rapid is equal in skill as a player rated 1600 in normal.
    This is a self evident truth if you don't align the scales.
    But it is a different matter if the ACF Ratings Officer uplifted the rapids so that the mean of the population (with both ratings) matched the mean of the normal.

    It is a non issue.
    So what does this mean. You don't discuss because it is only one of us? You don't discuss because I am barking up the wrong tree? You don't discuss because it is awkward for you to do the re-alignment. Other?

    Thus endeth the discussion.
    That will be a first for you Bill.


    starter

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Charles Robert Darwin 1809-1882
    By antichrist in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 150
    Last Post: 04-09-2013, 02:18 PM
  2. one hour plus one minute time limit
    By FM_Bill in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 06-06-2005, 04:43 PM
  3. FIDE time limit and age
    By Ian Rout in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 28-05-2005, 09:52 AM
  4. Minimum time control for standard rating
    By Rincewind in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 24-04-2004, 10:22 AM
  5. Weekend Time Controls
    By shaun in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 14-02-2004, 05:05 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
  •