Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    14,204

    Incremental Rating "Titles"

    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...
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  2. #2
    CC International Master Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    in long grass
    Posts
    1,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    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.
    Power comes from the barrel of a gun.

  3. #3
    Account Permanently Banned PHAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    4,254
    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)

  4. #4
    Account Permanently Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    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

  5. #5
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    14,204
    Quote Originally Posted by PHAT
    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
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  6. #6
    Account Permanently Banned PHAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    4,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    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.

  7. #7
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    14,204
    Quote Originally Posted by starter
    I think the concept is terrific as an adjunct to the ratings system.
    thank for the support
    Quote Originally Posted by starter
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by starter
    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.
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  8. #8
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    587

    it all sounds like fun

    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.

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    14,204
    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.
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  10. #10
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,342
    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!)
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,539

    USSR qualification system

    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.

  12. #12
    Account Permanently Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    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
    I thought the answer to your question was self-evident.
    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!)

    Good to see you (nearly) on board.

    regards
    starter
    Last edited by ursogr8; 22-06-2006 at 04:58 PM.

  13. #13
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    14,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    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.
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

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. Game by Game ratings, fide
    By Garvinator in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 14-10-2005, 11:11 AM
  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

Posting Permissions

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