Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 143

Thread: rating system

  1. #1
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,687

    rating system

    I think that it time to revise the rating system. The big problem is that improving juniors tend to be always und rated and they drive down the adult ratings.

    I suggest the following rule for when adults play juniors.

    The junior gains or loses rating points according to the result as at present.
    The adult neither gains or loses rating points.

  2. #2
    CC International Master Brian_Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidflude
    The adult neither gains or loses rating points.
    That sounds like a great idea to me Fludy (seriously!)

  3. #3
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Sounds a bit silly to me and would also lead to rorting where adults will throw games to juniors to boost up their rating. Particularly in the bottom boards of club events. Particularly clubs that have a large number of juniors playing.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  4. #4
    CC International Master Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    in long grass
    Posts
    1,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian_Jones
    That sounds like a great idea to me Fludy (seriously!)
    Statistically its sound, tennis does a similar thing (but not exactly the same).
    Power comes from the barrel of a gun.

  5. #5
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    262
    Thats an absolutely ridiculous idea...

    You are just having trouble beating the juniors arent you...
    Adults can improve TOO you know!

  6. #6
    CC International Master Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    in long grass
    Posts
    1,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Walker
    Thats an absolutely ridiculous idea...

    You are just having trouble beating the juniors arent you...
    Adults can improve TOO you know!
    No its a sensible idea. Argue the merits, don't insult. If you have a point, raise it - no need to get personal.
    Power comes from the barrel of a gun.

  7. #7
    Account Permanently Banned PHAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    4,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat
    No its a sensible idea. Argue the merits, don't insult. If you have a point, raise it - no need to get personal.
    He has been taking lessons from BG on how to defend the Glicko.

  8. #8
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    762
    Toby Lewski (rating 1951?) scored 2/7 against an average rating of 1725 in the Doeberl Cup (Easter) 2005. His expected score was 5.53.

    He scored 3.5 points less then he should have.
    On any normal rating system (FIDE) etc he would expect to lose no more than 50 rating points.

    Under the ACF Glicko rating system he lost 337 rating points – down from 1951? To 1614?
    Last year I talked to Gletsos (ACF ratings officer) about this.

    PP – “under FIDE you lose a maximum of 15 points when you lose to a very low rated player”
    BG – “It is a silly system”

    PP – “is it a good system to lose 337 rating points when scoring 3.5 points less than expected in a 7 round event”
    BG – “Yes”

    PP “is there any other country in the world (161 FIDE countries) where the Glicko system is used.
    BG “No”

    PP – “is there any other city, state or country in the world where a player can lose 337 rating points in a weekend”
    BG – “No”

    PP – “is the rest of the world wrong and Glicko right?
    BG – “yes”

    Lewski was in my shop again today in the Sydney CBD telling me once again how absurd it was losing 337 rating points in a weekend.
    I fully agree with Lewski a regular Sydney player who I have known for 38 years.
    Personally I would like to play a few tournaments from time to time but would never consider playing while the Glicko system is in use.
    With a rating of 2227 based on many years I could lose 500 or more rating points in one small event, absurd.

    This applies to numerous players who have dropped out of the game for a few years.
    I always advise players they are risking being Glicko’d.

    BTW on the latest ACF (March 2006) rating list the top 10 players lost 68 rating points, the second 10 lost 45, the third ten lost 70 the fourth 10 lost 164, from the top 40 (top players list) 10 played no games and the other 30 between then lost 347 (average 11.57 rating points per player)

    This is only one of the 4 rating lists per year. So overall yearly loss??

    Any sensible system like FIDE should be used.
    It really is time the ACF over ruled Gletsos and used a normal rating system.

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,047
    Shock horror! I am talking to Lewski today. I play chess with him everyday. I get some quotes from him too.

    AR

  10. #10
    Account Suspended jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,701
    I thought we weren't allowed to quote stuff, or am I mistaken? There are so many rules now and I am too lazy to keep track of them.......

  11. #11
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,325
    Quote Originally Posted by peter_parr
    Personally I would like to play a few tournaments from time to time but would never consider playing while the Glicko system is in use.
    With a rating of 2227 based on many years I could lose 500 or more rating points in one small event, absurd.
    Peter, your rating on playchess is about 2000. That means your ACF should not be higher than 1900-2000. The only reason you have 2227 is because you accumulated 220 points without playing in the last few years, when everybody's rating was raised. I really can't see what you are complaining about. You should be under 2000 and you scared to play because you will loose your overrated rating.

    In defence of the current system I can say couple things.

    1) It is symmetric. If you did very badly this time and lost 300 points, you can do very well next period and gain 300 points back.
    2) I believe most of the top 20 players are overrated in comparison with others. They have received 220 points but they have not played many games recently. This is exactly what your statistics shows. It is saying the system should be even more "Glicko" to get the top players converge to their actual ratings quicker.

  12. #12
    CC International Master WhiteElephant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,965
    Quote Originally Posted by drug
    Peter, your rating on playchess is about 2000. That means your ACF should not be higher than 1900-2000. The only reason you have 2227 is because you accumulated 220 points without playing in the last few years, when everybody's rating was raised. I really can't see what you are complaining about. You should be under 2000 and you scared to play because you will loose your overrated rating.

    In defence of the current system I can say couple things.

    1) It is symmetric. If you did very badly this time and lost 300 points, you can do very well next period and gain 300 points back.
    2) I believe most of the top 20 players are overrated in comparison with others. They have received 220 points but they have not played many games recently. This is exactly what your statistics shows. It is saying the system should be even more "Glicko" to get the top players converge to their actual ratings quicker.
    Did some people's rating really go up by 220? I was inactive during the rating uplift periods. I was given a rating increase of 70 or 90 - I don't remember exactly. Then some time later I was given another, similar uplift. However, the second uplift was then taken away supposedly because I continued to be inactive. So my overall rise while inactive was 70-90 in total.

  13. #13
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by peter_parr
    Toby Lewski (rating 1951?) scored 2/7 against an average rating of 1725 in the Doeberl Cup (Easter) 2005. His expected score was 5.53.

    He scored 3.5 points less then he should have.
    On any normal rating system (FIDE) etc he would expect to lose no more than 50 rating points.

    Under the ACF Glicko rating system he lost 337 rating points – down from 1951? To 1614?
    Last year I talked to Gletsos (ACF ratings officer) about this.

    PP – “under FIDE you lose a maximum of 15 points when you lose to a very low rated player”
    BG – “It is a silly system”

    PP – “is it a good system to lose 337 rating points when scoring 3.5 points less than expected in a 7 round event”
    BG – “Yes”

    PP “is there any other country in the world (161 FIDE countries) where the Glicko system is used.
    BG “No”

    PP – “is there any other city, state or country in the world where a player can lose 337 rating points in a weekend”
    BG – “No”

    PP – “is the rest of the world wrong and Glicko right?
    BG – “yes”
    I see you are still making up supposed conversations.
    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
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,325
    Quote Originally Posted by WhiteElephant
    Did some people's rating really go up by 220? I was inactive during the rating uplift periods. I was given a rating increase of 70 or 90 - I don't remember exactly. Then some time later I was given another, similar uplift. However, the second uplift was then taken away supposedly because I continued to be inactive. So my overall rise while inactive was 70-90 in total.
    The first uplift was 150 points. The second one was 70 points. Even if we assume that the second one was taken away, 150 is still huge increase.

    If you do not play for a few years, your playing strength will be at least 100 points less. About 10 years ago I had couple competitions with performance around 2300 FIDE. Then I did not play for a few years. I started playing in Australia in 1999. My first rating was 1850. That partly reflects the fact that ACT ratings are highly underrated, but still 450 points drop.

  15. #15
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by drug
    Peter, your rating on playchess is about 2000. That means your ACF should not be higher than 1900-2000. The only reason you have 2227 is because you accumulated 220 points without playing in the last few years, when everybody's rating was raised. I really can't see what you are complaining about. You should be under 2000 and you scared to play because you will loose your overrated rating.
    Peter last played in 1998. His 2227 rating only includes the 150 point uplift of April 2000. It does not include the 70 point uplift of March 2004 which was only applied to players active between April 2000 and December 2003.
    Quote Originally Posted by drug
    In defence of the current system I can say couple things.

    1) It is symmetric. If you did very badly this time and lost 300 points, you can do very well next period and gain 300 points back.
    2) I believe most of the top 20 players are overrated in comparison with others. They have received 220 points but they have not played many games recently. This is exactly what your statistics shows. It is saying the system should be even more "Glicko" to get the top players converge to their actual ratings quicker.
    Yes prior to the August 2002 rating period Lewski had not played a rated game of chess since prior to 1981. In the 7 games he played in the August 2002 period he had a performance rating of around 1854.
    In the 2005 Doeberl Cup where he scored 2/7 he results were:
    loss 2066, loss 1771, loss 1704, loss 1667, loss 1758, win 1463, win 1650.
    That is a rough performance rating of 1566. His true performance rating was even lower at 1526.

    Also whilst talking about averages Peter conveinetly ignores a number of issues. Firstly he ignores the fact that players will be losing points to overseas players who are not include in the top list as well as to players further down the list. For the players who were active in the March 2006 rating period who had played at least 30 rated games prior to the March period and had !! at the start of the period and !! at the end of the period the average rating increased by 4.14 points. That represented 44% of rated players who played in the period. If we also include all players who had an ! at the start of the period and either an ! or !! at the end of the period the average increase was 1.11 points. This represented 71% of rated players who played in the period.
    Last edited by Bill Gletsos; 12-04-2006 at 03:32 PM. Reason: corrected typing error
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Underrated Juniors
    By Paul S in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 627
    Last Post: 17-02-2008, 08:43 PM
  2. Age data, sf A Rating System
    By ursogr8 in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-03-2006, 08:04 PM
  3. Rating computation suggestion
    By pax in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 292
    Last Post: 19-09-2004, 07:46 PM
  4. Planned Rating Changes
    By Bill Gletsos in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 415
    Last Post: 30-07-2004, 01:00 AM
  5. Best posts of 2003
    By paulb in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 289
    Last Post: 29-03-2004, 10:54 AM

Posting Permissions

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