Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 94
  1. #46
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    205
    Firegoat will get Toasted if he dares a trip to W.A.

  2. #47
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    Well you tell me. Surely the ACF is best served by judging those players under the cut off on their ratings, otherwise somebody gets in at somebody elses expense. Isn't that the point of a rating?
    The point of the provision is that there are sometimes factors not represented by the ACF rating.

    e.g Player A performs consistently at 2200 in long time controls, but has a lower rating due to G60 tournaments. Player B played most of his games overseas, and has demonstrated proficiency at the required level despite not having the required ACF rating.


    What is?
    Don't play dumb. 250 points is more than either Dragicevic or Anderson's ratings have improved in the same time.

  3. #48
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,398
    OK, for the benefit of those who are jumping the gun and getting silly about nothing there are words at the top of that list of players. Those words, which are obviously smaller than the 48-point required for some people to pay attention to them, are: "(subject to selection procedure)". That list is simply a list of (i) those who have applied for the Australian Championships and qualified automatically (ii) those who have applied for the Australian Championships and whose applications have not yet been ruled on.

    There is not much point speculating about whether Player X who is not on that list should be in the field because Player X not being on that list means that Player X has not, at this stage, applied.

  4. #49
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Is the mean higher? Is there a larger variance? Or have you just decided that there are too many.
    Look at the comparative averages...

    WA has 10/168 registered/rated players between 2000-2200= 5.95%

    2135!! 13 Barber, Haydn J [FM]
    2264!! 13 Boyd, Tristan
    2135! 0 Byrne, Stewart J
    2021!! 9 Haasse, Adam
    2067!! 13 Hare, Tim
    2100! 0 Horstmann, Michael
    2145! 0 Lakner, Jay
    2111 0 McCamon, Boyd
    2030 0 Painter, Julian
    2009 0 Tomek, Glenn

    Victoria has 27/748 registered/rated players between 2000-2200 =3.61%

    2094! 0 Aghamalyan, Armen
    2173 0 Anderson, Tim
    2184! 6 Booth, Stewart
    2192! 0 Chow, Samuel
    2014!! 30 Dizdarevic, Mehmedalija
    2129!! 25 Dragicevic, Domagoj
    2008?? 0 Frean, Greg J
    2166!! 16 Gorka, Carl
    2079!! 36 Hacche, David J
    2058!! 26 Hislop, James K
    2040!! 10 Jensen, Kai
    2100! 0 Le, Tuan N
    2032!! 21 Lojanica, Milenko
    2000 5 Mirkovic, Jovica
    2103? 0 O'Carroll, Jeremy
    2070! 0 Partsi, Dimitry
    2027!! 16 Pecori, Ascaro
    2096 0 Powell, David G
    2079!! 42 Pyke, Malcolm L
    2045!! 16 Skiotis, Pano
    2055? 1 Small, David H
    2019!! 21 Stead, Kerry
    2050!! 17 Stirling, Nathan
    2055!! 40 Wallis, Christopher
    2142 11 Wong, Ngiam Yee
    2134! 4 Woodhams, Michael V
    2005! 0 Wright, Ian D

    A quick look showed Canberra had 3 and Tasmania 0

    Therefore Mr Paxman, you are refuted again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pax
    How many WA players have you played recently?
    I notice you continue to infer things that have nothing to do with the evidence.

    cheers Fg7

  5. #50
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by pax

    Don't play dumb. 250 points is more than either Dragicevic or Anderson's ratings have improved in the same time.
    Hey buddy, if anyone is the dumbo it is you.....

    For instance here is Dragicevic's efforts in November 2003

    http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2003...op/results.htm

    Here is his current rating as of Decemder 2003
    http://www.auschess.org.au/ratings/acfrate.htm

    2-0- Put that in your peace pipe and smoke it.

    cheers Fg7

  6. #51
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,398
    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    Look at the comparative averages...

    WA has 10/168 registered/rated players between 2000-2200= 5.95%
    [..]
    Victoria has 27/748 registered/rated players between 2000-2200 =3.61%
    Proves nothing, because Victoria is much more active in getting juniors onto the rating list, so the above stat could result from Victoria having more weak juniors rather than less 2000+ adults.

    By the way Tasmania now has one 2000-2200, Tony Dowden, unless he is listed as overseas. In the initial version of the December list he appears as unrated but Bill has now been advised of his FIDE rating and Dowden is now ACF 2184.

    Re Raymond Song: ACF Council approved Song's application in June. At the time it was approved Song's rating had in fact improved by 423 points in the previous two years (including 70 point uplift).

    Worth noting that the excellent free service provided by ACE at http://www.chessaustralia.com.au/ind...ratings#search is very useful for looking at ratings gains over time, although it does not as yet include the December ratings.

  7. #52
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    Hey buddy, if anyone is the dumbo it is you.....

    For instance here is Dragicevic's efforts in November 2003

    http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2003...op/results.htm

    Here is his current rating as of Decemder 2003
    http://www.auschess.org.au/ratings/acfrate.htm

    2-0- Put that in your peace pipe and smoke it.

    cheers Fg7
    Let's see:

    Dragicevic 12/05=2129, 12/03=1895. Difference=234.
    Song 12/05=2073, 12/03=1790. Difference=293.

    Didn't they teach you sums in school?


    p.s If you insist on going back to the September 2003 list, then the improvement becomes Dragicevic 285, Song 389. I'm afraid you lose either way.

  8. #53
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    Look at the comparative averages...

    WA has 10/168 registered/rated players between 2000-2200= 5.95%


    Victoria has 27/748 registered/rated players between 2000-2200 =3.61%
    Blatant misuse of statistics will get you nowhere, my good Goat.

    Lets look at players over 2000, instead of your arbitrary 2000-2200 (a bracket in which WA has an admittedly high number).

    Vic 39/748=5.2%
    WA 10/168=5.9%

    Of course, when you take out recently arrived foreign players Horstmann McCamon and Hare, you get 7/168=4.2%.

  9. #54
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Proves nothing, because Victoria is much more active in getting juniors onto the rating list, so the above stat could result from Victoria having more weak juniors rather than less 2000+ adults.
    I don't think it proves nothing. But for me to believe your junior statistics you need to break it down statistically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonham
    Re Raymond Song: ACF Council approved Song's application in June. At the time it was approved Song's rating had in fact improved by 423 points in the previous two years (including 70 point uplift).
    Well blame Pax, he was the person who first wrote...
    Quote Originally Posted by Pax #36
    Has improved at least 250 points since the last Championship. That's more than any non-junior over 2000 I can think of.
    He then asks me to do the maths When the ignorant fool can't even provide us with the correct information in the first place. So all the arguements were based on his estimate from post 36. Clearly if this is not the case, then Pax is the person to blame not me. The only thing I can be blamed for is believing the clown.

    Then he produced this post....

    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Let's see:

    Dragicevic 12/05=2129, 12/03=1895. Difference=234.
    Song 12/05=2073, 12/03=1790. Difference=293.

    Didn't they teach you sums in school?
    Its a bit late to try and kick goals after the siren...you were the one who provided the false information in the first place. So I guess you look a little bit

    cheers Fg7

  10. #55
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Blatant misuse of statistics will get you nowhere, my good Goat.

    Lets look at players over 2000, instead of your arbitrary 2000-2200 (a bracket in which WA has an admittedly high number).

    Vic 39/748=5.2%
    WA 10/168=5.9%

    Of course, when you take out recently arrived foreign players Horstmann McCamon and Hare, you get 7/168=4.2%.
    Paxman Paxman Paxman

    As usual your sloppy analysis does justice to your stupidy. If you bother to re-read what was posted by myself on 42 and yourself on 44, you will quickly realise that not only did you understand the context of the discussion , but you also accepted it.

    If you want to change the parameters now, after the horse has bolted then thats your own problem

    Face the facts you have been absolutely destroyed in this thread and you simply cannot admit it to yourself...loser

    cheers Fg7

  11. #56
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Let's see:

    Dragicevic 12/05=2129, 12/03=1895. Difference=234.
    Song 12/05=2073, 12/03=1790. Difference=293.

    Didn't they teach you sums in school?

    Just another point. Pax, fails to understand that the higher your rating is, the more the points are worth.

    To suggest that somebody who goes up from 1000-1400 i.e. 400 points, compared to somebody who goes from 2300-2500 i.e. 200 points is a more improved player is simply false. The reality is its not about the quantity of the points anyway. Its about the quality of the points. Something that Mr Paxman does not understand.

    cheers Fg7

  12. #57
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    Just another point. Pax, fails to understand that the higher your rating is, the more the points are worth.

    To suggest that somebody who goes up from 1000-1400 i.e. 400 points, compared to somebody who goes from 2300-2500 i.e. 200 points is a more improved player is simply false. The reality is its not about the quantity of the points anyway. Its about the quality of the points. Something that Mr Paxman does not understand.
    *translation*

    Whoops! I got caught out, so I'd better change the rules of the argument quick!

  13. #58
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    As usual your sloppy analysis does justice to your stupidy. If you bother to re-read what was posted by myself on 42 and yourself on 44, you will quickly realise that not only did you understand the context of the discussion but you also accepted it.
    Sorry mate, but that's just bullshit.

    Did I understand your argument? Yes.

    Did I agree that to arbitrarily choose one particular narrow rating range as proof of whether one system was underrated with respect to another? Sorry, but no.

  14. #59
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,667
    And what is the meaning of "stupidy" anyway?

  15. #60
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Sorry mate, but that's just bullshit.

    Did I understand your argument? Yes.

    Did I agree that to arbitrarily choose one particular narrow rating range as proof of whether one system was underrated with respect to another? Sorry, but no.
    Did you understand the argument about 2000-2200 ratings. Clearly not since you now want to change the category to 2400, simply because you lost the arguement and cannot admit your error.

    You obviously agreed, otherwise you wouldn't have taken exception to the 2000-2200 criteria I used. Seriously, everyone can read it in posts 42 and 44 for themselves....so there is no point in carrying on like you do.

    You just make yourself look more and more stupid by refusing to admit you were wrong. Its not that hard....just admit it...go on ...don't be a girls blouse.

    cheers Fg7
    P.S. Im not your mate, Mr never wrong
    Last edited by firegoat7; 03-12-2005 at 08:38 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. 2005 Queensland Championship and Reserve games
    By Garvinator in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-06-2007, 11:18 AM
  2. Tournaments for December 1st
    By Garvinator in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 01-12-2005, 08:54 PM
  3. Vic Junior games
    By LEARNER in forum Games and Analysis
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 22-08-2005, 01:35 PM
  4. ACF December 2004 Ratings
    By Bill Gletsos in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 98
    Last Post: 18-12-2004, 12:11 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
  •