PDA

View Full Version : Glicko and returning players (moved from C of Melb Open)



peter_parr
28-04-2009, 12:06 PM
Welcome back IM Greg Hjorth.

Does his 75% score after 2 rounds in Melbourne adjust his ACF rating from 2423?? to 2225?? (down 198!).

See Barry’s Glicko calculator

Glicko (http://www.bjcox.com/modules.php?name=Glicko_Calc)

Gattaca
28-04-2009, 02:57 PM
Quote: Does his 75% score after 2 rounds in Melbourne adjust his ACF rating from 2423?? to 2225?? (down 198!).

Yes it does.

For my opinion on the Glicko system see my interview with Elliot Renzies at http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=5069&page=10

The Glicko is too volatile. It implies huge fluctuations in playing strength at the top level that simply don't exist. Yes, form does fluctuate somewhat, but only somewhat, not by hundreds of points at IM level. If Greg had lost that game, and let's not forget Voon is quite a tricky 1888 player, Greg would have lost about 400 points! Hjorth, on the basis of 2 games would be rated about 2040. Is that realistic? Is that sensible? I would say not.

The Glicko probably helps underrated juniors get rated more accurately faster, (though it still doesn't seem to work all that well) but distorts strengths at the top end. In my opinion the top end is more important to have accurate as it can affect important things like Olympiad selections that can change whole careers.

Imagine if the ATP tennis rankings were pretty good down in the hundreds, but the top 20 list was often out of whack due to bizarre fluctuations based on a small sample of matches. People would get very upset because there is a lot at stake, tournament invitations and the like. Chess is the same. Some of our top players are professionals and should not be placed at the mercy of extreme volatility.

I understand the argument that it is self correcting, but all that means is that it will be wrong in either direction a roughly equal amount. I prefer a sytem that ensures a better chance of the top players ratings being about right. Yes, "about right" is subjective, but I mean a better predictor of how they will perform in the next few months. I don't want to be told that player X just had one terrible or one brilliant result, I want to be told roughly how strong they are on average.

I'm not having a go at Bill, who has the rating system running very efficiently and well, I'm just saying that I have a strong preference for a less volatile system like the one that preceded the Glicko. Just like I have a strong preference for longer time limits rather than FIDE's new faster ones. It's my opinion only. I'm not going to get involved in yet another debate about the mathematics of the Glicko... my expertise is in chess, not maths. The Glicko may be the most beautiful mathematical creature in the universe, but it is less accurate in reflecting the relative strengths of the top players. I guess many players think that doesn't matter, whereas I think it does.

Sutek
06-05-2009, 02:17 PM
Quote: Does his 75% score after 2 rounds in Melbourne adjust his ACF rating from 2423?? to 2225?? (down 198!).

Yes it does.

For my opinion on the Glicko system see my interview with Elliot Renzies at http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=5069&page=10

The Glicko is too volatile. It implies huge fluctuations in playing strength at the top level that simply don't exist. Yes, form does fluctuate somewhat, but only somewhat, not by hundreds of points at IM level. If Greg had lost that game, and let's not forget Voon is quite a tricky 1888 player, Greg would have lost about 400 points! Hjorth, on the basis of 2 games would be rated about 2040. Is that realistic? Is that sensible? I would say not.

The Glicko probably helps underrated juniors get rated more accurately faster, (though it still doesn't seem to work all that well) but distorts strengths at the top end. In my opinion the top end is more important to have accurate as it can affect important things like Olympiad selections that can change whole careers.

Imagine if the ATP tennis rankings were pretty good down in the hundreds, but the top 20 list was often out of whack due to bizarre fluctuations based on a small sample of matches. People would get very upset because there is a lot at stake, tournament invitations and the like. Chess is the same. Some of our top players are professionals and should not be placed at the mercy of extreme volatility.

I understand the argument that it is self correcting, but all that means is that it will be wrong in either direction a roughly equal amount. I prefer a sytem that ensures a better chance of the top players ratings being about right. Yes, "about right" is subjective, but I mean a better predictor of how they will perform in the next few months. I don't want to be told that player X just had one terrible or one brilliant result, I want to be told roughly how strong they are on average.

I'm not having a go at Bill, who has the rating system running very efficiently and well, I'm just saying that I have a strong preference for a less volatile system like the one that preceded the Glicko. Just like I have a strong preference for longer time limits rather than FIDE's new faster ones. It's my opinion only. I'm not going to get involved in yet another debate about the mathematics of the Glicko... my expertise is in chess, not maths. The Glicko may be the most beautiful mathematical creature in the universe, but it is less accurate in reflecting the relative strengths of the top players. I guess many players think that doesn't matter, whereas I think it does.

Hi Gattaca,

The other absurd thing about Glicko is if you have not played for many years and have a “??” against your rating then you can also go up hundreds of points.

fex. According to the master file my current rating is "2240??"

I haven’t played any otb chess for years yet if I happen to beat you one game on my return my new rating is 2410!
But it gets better, if I beat Ian Rogers one game on my return my new rating is 2582!

What sort of b/s is that?

How is possible to have not played chess for many years and suddenly be Grandmaster strength!

But regardless if you one thinks Glicko is good or bad it definitely discourages anyone from ever making a come back.

How can that be good for Australian chess?

ER
06-05-2009, 02:28 PM
But it gets better, if I beat Ian Rogers one game on my return my new rating is 2582!
Hi Sutek, just in case you ddn't know GM Ian Rogers has retired from competitive Chess! :) However, Glicko or not, if you manage to beat IM Guy West after such a long period of Chess inactivity, you will deserve your new rating, do go for it! :clap:

CameronD
06-05-2009, 11:30 PM
How about you play Ian Rogers, his phone rings and you win by the mobile phone rule, gaining you the rating points.



Hi Gattaca,

The other absurd thing about Glicko is if you have not played for many years and have a “??” against your rating then you can also go up hundreds of points.

fex. According to the master file my current rating is "2240??"

I haven’t played any otb chess for years yet if I happen to beat you one game on my return my new rating is 2410!
But it gets better, if I beat Ian Rogers one game on my return my new rating is 2582!

What sort of b/s is that?

How is possible to have not played chess for many years and suddenly be Grandmaster strength!

But regardless if you one thinks Glicko is good or bad it definitely discourages anyone from ever making a come back.

How can that be good for Australian chess?

Kevin Bonham
07-05-2009, 12:23 AM
This same debate comes up a lot so I thought I'd give it its own thread. Actually Gattaca's post covers a couple of different issues - firstly the question of Glicko's treatment of returning players and secondly whether Glicko is too volatile in general.

Firstly the answer to Peter's original question:


Does his 75% score after 2 rounds in Melbourne adjust his ACF rating from 2423?? to 2225?? (down 198!).

Strictly the answer is no, for two reasons:

1. A player's rating is not calculated game by game in Glicko. It doesn't even make sense to speak of a player's "live rating" in Glicko the way you can in ELO (in which you can know what impact a game will have on a player's rating as soon as that game is played). Rather, a player's rating in Glicko is calculated period by period and in determining how much a player's rating is affected by a result, their opponent's performance in the period is taken into account (among other factors).

2. The ACF no longer uses Glicko-1 (which is the basis for Barry's calculator) but uses an advanced variant of Glicko-2. Glicko-1 is only an approximation.

Most returning players will play a full tournament on their return not just one or two games, and one of the safeguards in the ACF system is that a player can't overshoot. So if a returning player performs way below their rating through the whole event then at worst their new rating will be their performance rating for that event.

The answer to the broader question, of whether it's possible for a returning player to lose lots of points from just one or two games is yes - in certain rare circumstances. (However often when specific examples of this have been claimed, the claims have been incorrect or exaggerated.) It can only happen if the returning player only has those one or two games processed in the period in which they return, which is unusual.

Some players think that returning players should not be able to lose 200 or so points from a single bad event. They seem to believe that a rating that is decades out of date should be just as protected from evidence of its own inaccuracy as one that is current - the way FIDE has done it. Obviously from a predictive viewpoint this is nonsense - chessplayers know that out of date ratings are usually inaccurate and rusty players usually don't perform to their rating (although some do) so why do players expect that an out-of-date rating should carry the same weight as a fresh one?

I note that Gattaca mentioned the ATP tennis ratings. The ATP list discards all evidence that is more than one year old. Win four grand slams in one year and go to #1 in the world, take three years off and you do not come back as #1 in the world again as Kasparov might if he suddenly came out of retirement. No, in tennis you would come back with no rating. Of course, chess strength changes much more slowly than tennis strength but why is it that chessplayers think ratings decades out of date should carry any more than a small amount of weight? If long-inactive players tend to perform way below their ratings for a while on their return then a lower rating will more accurately predict their performance than one that mainly reflects old glories.

Of course, the problem is that under any rating system that treats inactive players accurately, they are likely to lose lots of points. Systems that don't respond rapidly to their new playing strength might mollycoddle more players who are sensitive about their ratings into returning, but at the cost of those players carrying unreasonably high ratings well into their return.

I suggested a way round this before, and Peter didn't like it one iota. I debunked his objections to it here (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=157329&postcount=97) and heard no more from him on the issue. My proposal is that once a rating is more than five years out of date, call it an expired rating. It stays on the master list and in the system as an internal rating for calculation of ratings when the player returns in the normal Glicko way, but the player becomes officially unrated. That way, instead of the thought of loss of points acting as a deterrent, the player has an incentive to return - they would have a rating again instead of no longer having one. Also, a player would have an incentive not to stop playing in the first place - if they stopped for too long, their old rating would expire and they would become officially unrated.

Also, if the number of games a player played on return is less than, say, five, perhaps don't publish their new rating (on the active list at least) until they've played more games on return. I'd say there's actually less confidence about the accuracy of the rating of a player who has played one game now and had a rating 20 years ago than there is about the rating of a new player who has played nine games. But these cases are very very rare. Mostly the problem is that a player plays a whole tournament 300 points below their old rating, having not touched a pawn in 20 years, and thinks they should only lose about 30 points.

In terms of predicting performance, I have not seen any data showing whether so-called "glickoed" ratings (those that drop 100+ points following the first ratings period after inactivity) tend to overstate the damage. There is a theoretical argument that they might, because a player is less rusty a few months after return than immediately after. (A case in point is Julian Steward who lost c. 150 points from a couple of rusty tournaments on return after not playing for 14 years. In the next period he won two tournaments and recovered all his losses - but I suspect on that evidence that he is actually now still underrated.) However even if the Glicko approach might overdo it a bit (and it might not), I'm certain it would be better at predicting the returning player's new strength than the ELO approach.

As for the separate issue of whether Glicko is too volatile in general, this parallels the debate (if you can call it that) between Macieja and Sonas and many others on one hand, and Nunn and some others on the other, about whether the FIDE K-factor should be increased as foreshadowed, or whether it should remain at 10. Those arguing for increasing it are winning because it is apparently true that a higher k-factor makes for a rating that more accurately predicts a player's scores in the next ratings period.

There are those who suggest a rating should measure some other kind of "strength" that is rather more long-term than that, and that for these purposes systems that are less dynamic might be more appropriate at least at the top of a global or local pool. That's especially the case if it's more important to you to prevent a flash-in-the-pan from being world #1 than it is to prevent a player past their peak from losing that status promptly. So there is sometimes a pragmatic argument for using lower k-factors at the top of a rating list, even if it makes the list a bit less accurate. Indeed, the ACF (though not for this reason) already has a degree of protection from rapid rating change for the higher rated players, compared with the rest of the pool.

I set up a thread for discussing the question of objectives of rating systems over here (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=4902), following the correct point by Rincewind that progress in these debates is not possible when people are not explicit about what they believe a rating system is for.

There were a number of helpful suggestions, but those who prefer ELO's treatment of inactive players to Glicko's were conspicuous in their failure to visit the thread and state the basis of their views about what a rating system is actually supposed to do.

To summarise my views about this, a rating should measure how good you are at the time it was issued. It should not measure how good you were a number of decades ago, and it should not measure how good you might be in a year after you shake off the rust.

Bill Gletsos
07-05-2009, 01:06 AM
Greg Hjorth has not played a ACF rated game since June 1993.
Sutek (Stephen Kerr) hasnt played a ACF rated game since December 1991.

Their respective ratings are over 15 and 17 years old.

In fact with that in mind I think I will add 3 new sysmbols to the rating lists.

A ??? indicates your rating is essentially meaninmgless as an indicator of your current strength.

A ?*4 indicates your rating is totally meaningless as an indicator of your current strength.

A ?*∞ indicates your rating is absolutely meaningless as an indicator of your current strength.

Kevin Bonham
07-05-2009, 01:24 AM
:lol:

And one could add:

?*∞*∞ means your rating is Peter Parr's.

ER
07-05-2009, 04:43 AM
Sutek (Stephen Kerr) hasnt played a ACF rated game since December 1991.
Can we hope that all of the above discussion can be interpreted as an indication of Stephen Kerr's possible comeback to OTB chess?
The return to competitive Chess of the former Aus and British Champ as well as a CC IM Stephen Kerr, :clap: :clap: :clap: will definitely be one of the highlights of the year!

ER
19-05-2009, 05:38 PM
CORRECTION CORRECTION CORRECTION

Can we hope that all of the above discussion can be interpreted as an indication of Stephen Kerr's possible comeback to OTB chess?
The return to competitive Chess of the former Aus and British Junior Champ as well as a CC IM Stephen Kerr, :clap: :clap: :clap: will definitely be one of the highlights of the year!

Tzoglanis
21-05-2009, 12:15 PM
:lol:

And one could add:

?*∞*∞ means your rating is Peter Parr's.

A lot of former chess players want to come back and play and support chess.
Do not discourage them by childish remarks please.

Kevin Bonham
21-05-2009, 01:49 PM
A lot of former chess players want to come back and play and support chess.

How are my comments (I'll ignore the unsubstantiated maturity flame) discouraging former chess players from coming back and playing?

Actually what my comments are doing is discouraging former players from sitting on long-inactive ratings, believing that those ratings still mean something and expecting anybody else to care.

I am encouraging inactive players who believe that their old ratings are a meaningful sign of their chess strength to get back into the ring and prove it over the board and I am supporting proposals that I believe do that without compromising the accuracy of the ratings.

Igor_Goldenberg
21-05-2009, 02:09 PM
Let me add two points:

1. Player who has been inactive for a long time might play much weaker in the first few tournaments. However, his/her old rating is a good indicator of the "danger" level.

2. If a 2200 player loses 500 points in the first two tournaments and gets "very reliable" rating of 1700, how long does he have to perform at 2200 to approach this rating? Much more then just a couple of tournaments.

ER
21-05-2009, 02:23 PM
A lot of former chess players want to come back and play and support chess.
Do not discourage them by childish remarks please.
Tzoglanis, with all due respect your remark was out of place and uncalled for! Kev's bit was a tongue-firmly-in-cheek comment which would make Peter himself smile! Furthermore, I do not believe that former chess players' return to chessl could be in any way be hindered by "childish remarks"!

Basil
21-05-2009, 02:41 PM
A lot of former chess players want to come back and play and support chess.
I don't think so. Where are they?


Do not discourage them by childish remarks please.
No. Childish would be changing your nic in the quote to 'Tockly'. Kev has summed up his counter-position more than adequately to deal with your evacuation. I just wanted to post the word tockley (childishly).

Carry on everyody - you're all doing very well.

Kevin Bonham
21-05-2009, 02:45 PM
Let me add two points:

1. Player who has been inactive for a long time might play much weaker in the first few tournaments. However, his/her old rating is a good indicator of the "danger" level.

I think that depends on the age the player stopped and started playing, among other things.

A player who stops in their early-mid 20s and comes back in their mid-late 30s may well get back to their former strength even if their first few tournaments are poor.

A player who stops at 40 and comes back at 55 is very unlikely to return to their full former strength. It's true, their old rating may indicate that they could perform like that on a good day, but the same is true of a continually active player who used to have a much higher rating. And there are also players who never get much above 1500 but can play 2000-strength chess on a good day, so their rating never indicates their "danger" level.


2. If a 2200 player loses 500 points in the first two tournaments and gets "very reliable" rating of 1700, how long does he have to perform at 2200 to approach this rating? Much more then just a couple of tournaments.

I think that if a former 2200 player performs at 1700 in their first two tournaments back then that provides extremely strong evidence that they are not a 2200 player anymore, will never be a 2200 player again, and therefore that the question is academic.

Also I don't think a long-inactive ?? will go to !! in just two tournaments, even if the two tournaments are quite long.

Kevin Bonham
21-05-2009, 02:46 PM
Kev's bit was a tongue-firmly-in-cheek comment which would make Peter himself smile!

:lol:
I'm not entirely sure that he would! :eek:

Tzoglanis
21-05-2009, 05:01 PM
Tzoglanis, with all due respect your remark was out of place and uncalled for! Kev's bit was a tongue-firmly-in-cheek comment which would make Peter himself smile!

Maybe you are right. My intention was not to single out Kevin. Though I hope Chesschat is a democratic site where opposing points of view can be raised.
I have read enough threads to see that some people in the organisation of chess, of various states (Not just NSW), run things in a very 'draconian' manner. I just think that this is detrimental to chess!! That is what I have come to understand. Again apologies if someone feels hard-done-by.

ER
21-05-2009, 07:58 PM
Maybe you are right. My intention was not to single out Kevin. Though I hope Chesschat is a democratic site where opposing points of view can be raised.
Not the slightest doubt about your good intentions! Please do not interpret my intervention as an action to deprive you of your democratic rights!

I have read enough threads to see that some people in the organisation of chess, of various states (Not just NSW), run things in a very 'draconian' manner. I just think that this is detrimental to chess!! (...)
I cannot claim that I am the happiest customer in terms of the behaviour of certain people as I am sure some certain people wouldn't have a bar of my own bevavioural patterns. When it comes to organisations, of course and we cannot agree with everything in regards to their policies! However, in final analysis it comes to personal attitudes against other individuals or organisations! Let's talk about it in a more productive way than just finger pointing, that's what I wanted to say!

Again apologies if someone feels hard-done-by.
No harm done, pleased to have talked with you! :)

Kevin Bonham
21-05-2009, 07:59 PM
I have read enough threads to see that some people in the organisation of chess, of various states (Not just NSW), run things in a very 'draconian' manner. I just think that this is detrimental to chess!! That is what I have come to understand.

What does this have to do with ratings? Might be best discussed on a different thread, instead of just saying that people are "draconian" and not saying what things they do are draconian or even giving them any understanding of the basis of your perception.

Garvinator
22-05-2009, 12:28 AM
Tzoglanis, is draconian the correct word for what you are trying to describe, or would a better word be- dictatorial?

Tzoglanis
22-05-2009, 01:49 AM
Tzoglanis, is draconian the correct word for what you are trying to describe, or would a better word be- dictatorial?

Well, I guess what I really desire is an all inclusive process (input + discussion + agreement + positive steps going forward). Where everyone can have a say. Even concerning ratings, why couldn't we have a vote on what chess players want. When you vote an office bearer in do you really give them "carde blanc"?
There are some really great players (like sutek) who don't play, and I believe
that is a loss for chess in Australia. Do other countries around the World have frustrated ex-players feeling unwanted by their federations? I hope Bill will put that computer genius brain (genuine) of his, and come-up with Glek3, soon.

Tzoglanis
22-05-2009, 01:52 AM
Well, I guess what I really desire is an all inclusive process (input + discussion + agreement + positive steps going forward). Where everyone can have a say. Even concerning ratings, why couldn't we have a vote on what chess players want. When you vote an office bearer in do you really give them "carde blanc"?
There are some really great players (like sutek) who don't play, and I believe
that is a loss for chess in Australia. Do other countries around the World have frustrated ex-players feeling unwanted by their federations? I hope Bill will put that computer genius brain (genuine) of his, and come-up with Glek3, soon.
Sorry. Glicko 3?

Kevin Bonham
22-05-2009, 02:43 AM
Well, I guess what I really desire is an all inclusive process (input + discussion + agreement + positive steps going forward). Where everyone can have a say.

Anyone can have a say on ratings if they like. Whether they will be agreed with or not is another question, and what you see as a "positive" step others might see as a bad idea.


Even concerning ratings, why couldn't we have a vote on what chess players want.

Because running a good rating system is a specialised task that is much better handled by an indirect democracy than by a direct one. It would be like having popular voting on minor details of income tax law or environmental management. People may have their preferences about how a rating system should work, but they do not generally know enough to know all the consequences those ideas might have, or how to tell whether the system is working or not, or how to fix the thing up when it goes pearshape.

Also, the things players want often contradict each other. As Shaun Press pointed out in a very funny post here (http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2008/02/my-rating-is-inaccurate.html), people tend to have double standards about how a rating system should operate.


When you vote an office bearer in do you really give them "carde blanc"?

No. The Ratings Officers are answerable to the ACF Council and frequently seek approval for changes they propose to make to the system that might be contentious.

If people do not like the way the ratings are currently operated then they are welcome to try to get the numbers at their State Associations to support delegates who will pressure the Ratings Officers to adopt a different system.

But frankly, I doubt that the tiny minority of inactive players sitting on inaccurate ratings and unwilling to return to play specifically because of the rating system would have much influence anyway, even if there was some way to have a vote. Many active players strongly dislike being ranked behind inactive overrated players.

Tzoglanis
22-05-2009, 05:58 AM
Also, the things players want often contradict each other. As Shaun Press pointed out in a very funny post here (http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2008/02/my-rating-is-inaccurate.html), people tend to have double standards about how a rating system should operate.
I like Shaun Press's logic! What you say,Kevin, ofcourse makes sense.
If you are using pure mathematical reason including statistical analysis.
Just that I feel it is not all encompassing.


But frankly, I doubt that the tiny minority of inactive players sitting on inaccurate ratings and unwilling to return to play specifically because of the rating system would have much influence anyway, even if there was some way to have a vote. Many active players strongly dislike being ranked behind inactive overrated players.

Running an organisation like a chess organisation the objective shouldn't be to win at all costs but rather to cater for everyone, even minorities. Why alienate people. Who loses out, really?

Spiny Norman
22-05-2009, 06:08 AM
As a general observation, I think its always helpful to ask questions so as to elicit the best possible information. Very few people seem to be asking Bill anything much in particular.

So Bill, I have a question for you: In respect of top players (this might be measured by titles, or perhaps by their previous rating being over a certain level such as 2200 or something like that) ... in respect of top players, returning after an extended break ... does the current modified Glicko-2 system in use by the ACF treat them differently than, say, an under 2000 player returning after a long break? e.g. by means of a different volatility factor, or something like that?

Kevin Bonham
22-05-2009, 02:10 PM
Running an organisation like a chess organisation the objective shouldn't be to win at all costs but rather to cater for everyone, even minorities.

You can't run a rating system that caters for everyone. A rating system that caters for inactive players who want to lose very few ratings points when they return does not cater for other players who want the ratings to be accurate and meaningful.

antichrist
22-05-2009, 03:02 PM
Remember a few years back when Maxy Fuller returned and cleaned up Greg Canfell in the State Championship, then Canfell cleaned me up about him apologising to Maxy's family dog, parish priest and mother in law.

I think that they should keep their ratings as it gives them incentive to come back, plus they can study and compete socially beforehand to play near their previous standard. Sometimes a break is better for the game.

Bill Gletsos
22-05-2009, 04:21 PM
As a general observation, I think its always helpful to ask questions so as to elicit the best possible information. Very few people seem to be asking Bill anything much in particular.

So Bill, I have a question for you: In respect of top players (this might be measured by titles, or perhaps by their previous rating being over a certain level such as 2200 or something like that) ... in respect of top players, returning after an extended break ... does the current modified Glicko-2 system in use by the ACF treat them differently than, say, an under 2000 player returning after a long break? e.g. by means of a different volatility factor, or something like that?With regards different volatility factors, inactive players are treated the same whether they are over or under 2200.

However all players over 2300 whether inactive or not only lose or gain rating points at .75 the rate of players below 2200. For players between 2200 to 2300 the amount of loss or gain is scaled between 1.0 and .75.

peter_parr
15-09-2009, 03:09 PM
A few days ago a very active FIDE master with a well established rating over many years lost the first two games he played in a GP weekender. He was Glicko’d about 100 rating points from just over 2000 to just over 1900.

How can any very active player lose a hundred rating points in 2 games.

If I had the same result against the same two players I would have been Glicko’d over 900 rating points from 2227?? to 1306??

The damage to our total number of active players and inactive players who will never return under the Glicko rating system is mounting.

The other 150 countries worldwide use much more sensible systems.

Any loss of more than 40 rating points on 2 games (active or inactive) is unacceptable by FIDE and all other countries – except Australia – very sad.

Kevin Bonham
15-09-2009, 04:53 PM
A few days ago a very active FIDE master with a well established rating over many years lost the first two games he played in a GP weekender. He was Glicko’d about 100 rating points from just over 2000 to just over 1900.

It looks like you are using Barry's calculator without updating the ratings to the new period from the active list.

Barry's calculator, using the previous list's ratings, gives a drop of 107 points.

If you use the new list ratings the drop is only 52.

The crucial difference is that the player in question was ! on the previous list but is !! on the September one.

These are only approximations and Barry's calculator does not know the true RDs for these players, so the difference between the result it gives for ! and !! may be larger than the real difference. For instance, a player might have moved from the lower end of the ! RD range to the higher end of the !! range.

In any case, these will not be the player's only rated games for the period.


If I had the same result against the same two players I would have been Glicko’d over 900 rating points from 2227?? to 1306??

I doubt it would actually be that much but in any case if you are rated 2227?? and lose to players rated 1564!! and 1411!! in consecutive rounds then that shows that your old rating of 2227?? is very likely to be no longer of the slightest value or meaning. The system is quite right, mathematically speaking, to effectively start such a player from scratch and let them prove they are as good as they were over 40-50 games if that is really still the case.


The other 150 countries worldwide use much more sensible systems.

Any loss of more than 40 rating points on 2 games (active or inactive) is unacceptable by FIDE and all other countries – except Australia – very sad.

This is just an argument from popularity. Just because many other countries choose to use simpler systems (for whatever reason) doesn't mean those systems are more predictively accurate.

For example, a Hobart player recently returned after several years off. His old rating was just above 1600. In his first tournament back he played eight rated games performing at just below 1200. Implementing your suggestion of a maximum loss per game of 20 points his rating would not have dropped below about 1500 from that tournament. Barry's calculator gives around 1350 as his rating if that tournament was processed by itself. In his next tournament he performed just below 1300. In that case, and many others, the dynamic interpretation of the data by the Glicko system was correct, while limiting the points loss for a rusty player leads to a rating that is very inaccurate.

Vlad
15-09-2009, 06:32 PM
I still remember seeing a group of juniors jumping around the arbiter (when he was preparing the draw) asking: please give me Brian! no, please give me Brian! :lol:

antichrist
15-09-2009, 06:58 PM
This argument depends from where the person is coming from. I can understand players who want to keep their prestige and rating without having to fight like hell to re-earn their rating after losing their first games back.

But there are some players, quite a few actually, who go for the possible prizemoney and appreciate dropping some points to be in the lower range to give themselves a better chance of winning. With entrance fees from $70 upwards usually it is a bit of money for some people.

But assuming we should give priority to the more honourable we should change back - but also realise that we will discourage some players from returning because they have no chance of winning prize money.

Phil Bourke
15-09-2009, 10:12 PM
I still remember seeing a group of juniors jumping around the arbiter (when he was preparing the draw) asking: please give me Brian! no, please give me Brian! :lol:
It is unfortunate for Brian, but it does add to the lure of the weekender :)

Kevin Bonham
15-09-2009, 10:24 PM
This argument depends from where the person is coming from. I can understand players who want to keep their prestige and rating without having to fight like hell to re-earn their rating after losing their first games back.

But if your prestige is based upon having a rating now when the evidence that rating is based on is totally out of date and unreliable, then it's a bogus prestige. It's like the kind of prestige you get from a vanity-press Who's Who type directory that you pay to be included in. It isn't real. That's why I've suggested the very old ratings should be classified "expired".

Peter Parr is not a 2227 player now because he is not a tournament player now at all. He is entitled to the prestige that comes with having been a 2227 player many years ago, but even if he comes back and gets only a 1700 rating now, he doesn't lose the prestige of having held that standard in the past.

Brian_Jones
16-09-2009, 02:35 PM
I still remember seeing a group of juniors jumping around the arbiter (when he was preparing the draw) asking: please give me Brian! no, please give me Brian! :lol:

It is unfortunate for Brian, but it does add to the lure of the weekender

Yes, it's always nice to be popular - I quite like this Glicko system. :hand:

:)

antichrist
17-09-2009, 08:14 PM
But if your prestige is based upon having a rating now when the evidence that rating is based on is totally out of date and unreliable, then it's a bogus prestige. It's like the kind of prestige you get from a vanity-press Who's Who type directory that you pay to be included in. It isn't real. That's why I've suggested the very old ratings should be classified "expired".

Peter Parr is not a 2227 player now because he is not a tournament player now at all. He is entitled to the prestige that comes with having been a 2227 player many years ago, but even if he comes back and gets only a 1700 rating now, he doesn't lose the prestige of having held that standard in the past.

Max Fuller came back with avenge a few years ago to win NSW Championship again. If he had had his rating dropped due to inaction, played some lesser-rated players, got equal points as Shirty, then lost on countback because Shirty had played higher-rated players. I am not sure of course how it all works so I am half guessing here. Would that have been fair? Would it serve as encouragment for other retired players to return?

Guessing again. If Max had started further down the rating list he may have got a worse colour allotment - more blacks?

If there were insufficient rounds in the comp could it effect if Max got to meet Shirty at all? That is not a chance to hold Shirty to existing score whilst going ahead oneself. guessing again of course.

Kevin Bonham
17-09-2009, 08:35 PM
Bzzzt! Firstly he didn't win the title; he tied with Andrew Bird and Bird defeated him in a playoff.

Secondly it was a round robin so ratings could not have affected the countback since each player met the same field.

Thirdly since there was a playoff your countback scenario is irrelevant.

It is true that sometimes inaccurate ratings affect countbacks unfairly. That is all the more reason not to let players with out-of-date high ratings gain an unfair advantage. If anything, it is an argument for a decay factor for long out-of-date ratings, provided that factor is predictively valid.

Oepty
17-09-2009, 08:37 PM
Max Fuller came back with avenge a few years ago to win NSW Championship again. If he had had his rating dropped due to inaction, played some lesser-rated players, got equal points as Shirty, then lost on countback because Shirty had played higher-rated players. I am not sure of course how it all works so I am half guessing here. Would that have been fair? Would it serve as encouragment for other retired players to return?

Guessing again. If Max had started further down the rating list he may have got a worse colour allotment - more blacks?

If there were insufficient rounds in the comp could it effect if Max got to meet Shirty at all? That is not a chance to hold Shirty to existing score whilst going ahead oneself. guessing again of course.

I think all your guessing is either wrong or so dependant on the particular unique situation of an individual tournament that you cannot make any point based on it.
Scott

Oepty
17-09-2009, 08:44 PM
Secondly it was a round robin

How can someones rating stop them playing some else in a RR when everybody plays everyone else? LOL Totally stupid
Scott

antichrist
18-09-2009, 01:25 PM
Bzzzt! Firstly he didn't win the title; he tied with Andrew Bird and Bird defeated him in a playoff.

Secondly it was a round robin so ratings could not have affected the countback since each player met the same field.

Thirdly since there was a playoff your countback scenario is irrelevant.

It is true that sometimes inaccurate ratings affect countbacks unfairly. That is all the more reason not to let players with out-of-date high ratings gain an unfair advantage. If anything, it is an argument for a decay factor for long out-of-date ratings, provided that factor is predictively valid.

Well I was half right even if only for the wrong reason

Kevin Bonham
18-09-2009, 02:18 PM
Well I was half right even if only for the wrong reason

Actually you were wrong in three different ways and the basic point you were trying to make kicks a goal for the opposite team.

antichrist
19-09-2009, 03:28 PM
what about if a comp was Swiss and not round robin could the countback rule come into force and discriminate against the lower-ranked returning player as she did not have the chance to play higher-ranked players?

I think your reply refers to the returning players' opponents who may get an advantage by playing a returning player who may lose (easier than should) rather than to the returning player who only wins against lower-rated opponents as not the chance to player against higher-rated opponents.

I still have a life here in the endgame. A queen coming up shortly when PParr comes and backs me up.

antichrist
19-09-2009, 03:29 PM
Actually you were wrong in three different ways and the basic point you were trying to make kicks a goal for the opposite team.

And even if this is the case it is not an argument that you had thought of. (gunnar is it okay to leave that preposition hanging?)

Spiny Norman
19-09-2009, 03:52 PM
Actually you were wrong in three different ways and the basic point you were trying to make kicks a goal for the opposite team.
My mama always told me that "two wrongs don't make a right". She obviously hadn't met Antichrist ... where three wrongs make a right ... :rolleyes:

antichrist
19-09-2009, 04:13 PM
My mama always told me that "two wrongs don't make a right". She obviously hadn't met Antichrist ... where three wrongs make a right ... :rolleyes:

You should at least give me credit for being incorrect in 3 diff ways, pretty creative effort - like a tripple check is better than a double check

Kevin Bonham
19-09-2009, 04:16 PM
And even if this is the case it is not an argument that you had thought of.

Actually the correct version is an argument I have used a few times before.

antichrist
19-09-2009, 04:32 PM
Actually the correct version is an argument I have used a few times before.

I take it that my post 43 doesnt hold up either?

Kevin Bonham
19-09-2009, 04:49 PM
I take it that my post 43 doesnt hold up either?

It might hold up if the returning player was actually underrated as a result of the points loss. But often they are not.

In any case a player who wants to protect themselves against being disadvantaged by having a lower rating based on a few games on return has an easy way to solve it if they are better than that. That way is to play more games.


A queen coming up shortly when PParr comes and backs me up.

Based on the form so far I would not count on any useful assistance from Peter in these matters.

antichrist
20-09-2009, 11:10 AM
It might hold up if the returning player was actually underrated as a result of the points loss. But often they are not.

In any case a player who wants to protect themselves against being disadvantaged by having a lower rating based on a few games on return has an easy way to solve it if they are better than that. That way is to play more games.



Based on the form so far I would not count on any useful assistance from Peter in these matters.

Kevin Bonham]It might hold up if the returning player was actually underrated as a result of the points loss. But often they are not.


A/C
But in the cases where they are underrated for being diligent and training before returnng to rated games they are penalised and could lose the comp over it.

Your second point illustrates that you don't mind a good (meaning industrious) top returning player being penalised in initial returning comps for no other reason of their own other than that Glicko has arrived. It is not always easy to pick up lost points - esp is disheartening when should not have lost them in the first place.

Your stance is a bit arrogrant and unfair. I have not gone into this debate earlier and did not care either way. But now knowing the issues I am against Glicko.

It should be that you only earn points over the board so also you should only lose them over the board.

Kevin Bonham
20-09-2009, 03:40 PM
But in the cases where they are underrated for being diligent and training before returnng to rated games they are penalised and could lose the comp over it.

Why would they be underrated if they trained before return?


Your second point illustrates that you don't mind a good (meaning industrious) top returning player being penalised in initial returning comps for no other reason of their own other than that Glicko has arrived.

The good reason is that they are not performing anywhere near as strongly as before and therefore their old rating is not reliable.


It should be that you only earn points over the board so also you should only lose them over the board.

That is actually how Glicko does work. The only thing to bear in mind is that the longer you've been inactive, the more points you'll lose if you play below your rating - and the more points you'll gain if you play above it.

Although I was suggesting there might well be a sound case for taking points away from long-inactive players, Glicko does not do that.

peter_parr
21-09-2009, 11:09 AM
The other 150 countries worldwide use much more sensible systems.


This is just an argument from popularity. Just because many other countries choose to use simpler systems (for whatever reason) doesn't mean those systems are more predictively accurate.


Peter Parr is not a 2227 player now because he is not a tournament player now at all. He is entitled to the prestige that comes with having been a 2227 player many years ago, but even if he comes back and gets only a 1700 rating now, he doesn't lose the prestige of having held that standard in the past.

Atomic chess rating warning from King Island (where I have been sent) off the remote Tasmanian Coast - I have a large red button on my computer. I am fed up with all chess players who have not played in recent chess tournaments. Anyone who is inactive is losing strength at chess by 90 rating points each and every year and after about 9 years they have lost all their standard and are clearly complete beginners. I hereby declare that 80% of the players on the Master file rating list will be oblite-rated into oblivion at any moment.

Millions of rating points gone.
I (a snail-pace improver) will now be no 1 on the King Island rating list - bravo!


As for PP I know he was seeded no 3 in a strong Australian Championship, played at over 2500 in another event, won many tournaments and games against IM's etc and later after thousands of games dropped down to 2227 but now I am chopping another 527 rating points off him so far for inactivity. And as for you Garry Kasparov you can look back on your record of World no 1 for 20 years. You do not lose the prestige of having held the standard in the past of being the greatest player that ever lived but I am warning you I am going to chop 527 rating points off your last rating soon. This would be an accurate evaluation of your current strength - below that of a FIDE Master. And Garry if you still insist on not playing you will be wiped out altogether. Don't forget to tell all your grandmaster mates who are inactive you will all be deleted. Yes I know legend Bobby Fischer did not play for a record 20 years but still performed well above 2600 in a grueling 30 game match. Shut up - not relevant - just shut up.


I know the policy of the World Chess Federation is that inactive players are considered rated at their most recent published rating for rating and title result purposes. I know that this wording will remain without question if and when FIDE makes or does not make slight amendments to the k factor. I know GM Benjamin, Nunn and all opinion ever expressed by numerous contributors to FIDE concerning ratings that it is the unanimous opinion worldwide of all experts from all continents(except King Island, Australia) that inactive players are treated the same as active players with very good reasons. I know there is considerable expertise in mathematics, statistics and common sense in every country from the 150 affiliated federations and no expert in any other country and no national federation anywhere in the world treats inactive or active players differently. Well you are all wrong - every country, every expert, every GM, every journalist, every person they are all wrong. I will post messages every day on chesschat to prove I am right and the other six billion on the planet are all wrong. Inactive players must be punished - I will push my large red button very soon and you will all disappear - good riddance. I will now crown myself King of King Island for the term of my natural life.

MichaelBaron
21-09-2009, 12:57 PM
I still remember seeing a group of juniors jumping around the arbiter (when he was preparing the draw) asking: please give me Brian! no, please give me Brian! :lol:

Yes....one can get soft titles...but when you set at the board and play..it does not help :owned:

ER
21-09-2009, 02:41 PM
what are the odds in a First To Reach 6 Wins Match b/n FM Michael Baron vs FM Brian Jones?

Kevin Bonham
21-09-2009, 05:31 PM
Atomic chess rating warning from King Island (where I have been sent) off the remote Tasmanian Coast

Well, you got that bit right; I did indeed have a very pleasant week working over there a few months back. But I am back in Hobart now. Did you know that King Island once produced the youngest ever Tasmanian Champion? So I wouldn't knock the place's chess strength too much, though I am unsure if there is any there at the moment.

Thanks for the amusing sarcasm, but for the record if there was a mathematically justifiable system of points loss for inactivity (without playing any games) it would be nothing like as drastic as you suggest. It would probably be in the order of 5-10 points a year and kick in after a few years off. But a great deal of statistical data would need to be examined to see how much below their previous rating players typically perform on and shortly after returning to play, and to scale the system accordingly and prevent deflation.

What I was suggesting with my 1700 comment was that even if you returned and played so badly that your rating went to 1700 under the existing system, you would still have the prestige of having been 2227. That comment was unrelated to my comment about the possible benefits of some points deduction for inactivity.

But if your whole point is that Glicko is bad because returning players will fear large points losses, all the more reason to take points off them for not playing (provided this is predictively valid) so that they will not have such a large points loss to fear if they play below their old strength on return. Indeed they might be more encouraged to return if they felt their adjusted rating could be easily improved upon.

As for Kasparov, his FIDE rating at retirement was 2812. That was over four years ago. He could return in 30 years, play a few rated games and still have a 2800+ rating even if he is clearly playing nowhere near that strongly. The only reason that aspect of the FIDE system has not been seen to be more ludicrous on this account is that the ratings at the top of the FIDE system have had a recent tendency to increase over time. So a player who does not play games is effectively penalised in the FIDE system anyway.


I am fed up with all chess players who have not played in recent chess tournaments.

No, just with some of them whinging about how their rating will go down if they return. :lol:


Yes I know legend Bobby Fischer did not play for a record 20 years but still performed well above 2600 in a grueling 30 game match. Shut up - not relevant - just shut up.

Very relevant actually, don't shut up at all - the Fischer case compellingly proves my points. Bobby Fischer's performance after 20 years off was nowhere near his former strength. In the early 90s he was ludicrously appearing as world #2 on the lists although he had not played competitively for 20 years. FIDE now includes activity provisions that would prevent such a joke re-occurring.

The 1992 Spassky rematch was not rated by FIDE. But if it had been (and if FIDE had been counting him as inactive then), Fischer would have lost about 60 points and emerged on the active player list. He would probably have been ranked world #3 behind Kasparov and Karpov, or perhaps #5 behind K, K, Ivanchuk and Anand. Yet in thirty games in his match against Spassky, Fischer had performed in the low 2600s (equivalent to about world #40 standard). On the evidence of the match a 2700s rating for the re-emerging Fischer would have been completely ludicrous.

Under a system that deducted points for inactivity alone, it is likely that Fischer's rating before his match against Spassky would have gone down from 2780 to something in the range 2610-2700 and that his rating after the Spassky match (if it was rated) would be not much different to his performance in that match. For such a large match, Glicko would deliver a similar credible outcome - his new rating would essentially be his PR vs Spassky. By comparison to both these systems the existing FIDE one would return a joke rating for Fischer that was way too high.


I know GM Benjamin, Nunn and all opinion ever expressed by numerous contributors to FIDE concerning ratings that it is the unanimous opinion worldwide of all experts from all continents(except King Island, Australia) that inactive players are treated the same as active players with very good reasons.

That's just an argument from authority. If you are so sure that the reasons are very good, tell me what they are.


I know there is considerable expertise in mathematics, statistics and common sense in every country from the 150 affiliated federations and no expert in any other country and no national federation anywhere in the world treats inactive or active players differently.

Any mention of "common sense" by Peter Parr is an automatic indicator of an unsound argument. And in this case his claim that the notion of deducting points for inactivity has not had serious support at higher levels is simply stone cold wrong. Here (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2440) is an article by Dr Nunn in 2005 where he disagrees with the idea that inactive players should lose points for inactivity. What is important in that article is that at that stage the idea was being taken very seriously indeed. Nunn writes:


That is what I wrote in February. In May a meeting took place between the ACP and FIDE. On the ACP website, the minutes of the meeting are given and include the following: “ACP agrees and adds that inactive players should lose rating points. FIDE agrees.”

Obviously as recently as 2005 the idea of deducting points from inactive players was being considered at the highest levels until Nunn and co complained.

Note how Nunn, whose argument is contaminated by conflict of interest as an inactive player himself, straw-mans the case for deducting points by suggesting that Kasparov might have to start at 2200 under such a system. He also refers to Judit Polgar, but she had been inactive for less than two years and there would be no reason for deducting points for such a short period.

If you don't like the idea of zapping a few points a year from long-inactive players then perhaps you should instead support my proposal that their ratings be shown on the master list but declared to have "expired".

What I am seeking is a system that:

1. Accurately assesses the actual playing strength of players who have returned after a long break.

2. So far as is compatible with 1, does not discourage players from returning.

If large points losses on return under Glicko are a problem then the only solutions I can suggest that do not scrap objective (1) are to either declare a long-inactive rating to be expired, or else to deduct points for inactivity.

Do you have any other solutions that are actually consistent with objective 1? The FIDE method is clearly not - it does not reflect player strength accurately as the Fischer example demonstrates. Or do you think we should have ratings that are clearly wrong just to massage the egos of a handful of rusties who might be deterred from playing again by potential ratings drop?

MichaelBaron
21-09-2009, 05:58 PM
what are the odds in a First To Reach 6 Wins Match b/n FM Michael Baron vs FM Brian Jones?

Let make it more even.....i am happy to give 3 board simul to FM Brian Jones FM Lee Jones and WIM Nancy Jones...Lets add WIM Szuveges and FM Stawski and make it a 5 board simul. I am happy to make a bet that i will score at least 50% in a simul. If we are to have a series of 3-4 simuls..I am happy to bet that i am going to win. Risky? may be but lets see!

antichrist
21-09-2009, 06:52 PM
Let make it more even.....i am happy to give 3 board simul to FM Brian Jones FM Lee Jones and WIM Nancy Jones...Lets add WIM Szuveges and FM Stawski and make it a 5 board simul. I am happy to make a bet that i will score at least 50% in a simul. If we are to have a series of 3-4 simuls..I am happy to bet that i am going to win. Risky? may be but lets see!

That's the fighting spirit I love to see - have battles out over the chess board rather that the BB. Congrats Mike an best of luck. Love you too Brian but it is spirit I admire here.

How about spectators can bet and all proceeds to chess charity.

MichaelBaron
21-09-2009, 07:52 PM
That's the fighting spirit I love to see - have battles out over the chess board rather that the BB. Congrats Mike an best of luck. Love you too Brian but it is spirit I admire here.

How about spectators can bet and all proceeds to chess charity.

good lets set it up ..me vs Jones family..all proceeds to charity!

ER
21-09-2009, 08:51 PM
Fantastic idea! I am all for it! FMs for charity! I know that Michael has guts and would never make a step back when it's about a fair dincum fight! :clap: Will Brian accept the challenge?

MichaelBaron
23-09-2009, 02:06 PM
No response.....the Jones family must be busy...being emberassed :)

Lekko
24-09-2009, 04:20 PM
good lets set it up ..me vs Jones family..all proceeds to charity!
/me puts $50 on MBaron

ER
24-09-2009, 05:15 PM
Amiel will have them all for breakfast and he's not even an FM! He proved it too!

Phil Bourke
25-09-2009, 02:47 PM
No response.....the Jones family must be busy...being emberassed :)
Perhaps too busy arranging a trip.........to the Solomon Islands!

http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2009/09/solomons-islands-international-day-1.html

antichrist
25-09-2009, 04:02 PM
Perhaps too busy arranging a trip.........to the Solomon Islands!

http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2009/09/solomons-islands-international-day-1.html

Is there a tourney there or is it a hideout? Or are they after wisdom?

Bill Gletsos
25-09-2009, 04:03 PM
Is there a tourney there or is it a hideout?You can answer that question yourself by following the link.

Brian_Jones
02-10-2009, 02:55 PM
No response.....the Jones family must be busy...being emberassed :)

Now I have found the challenge. :D

Actually, Lee and I were in the Solomon Islands playing in a international chess tournament. The others were looking after children.

What about Michael putting some money where his mouth is. :hand:

I will be happy to play Michael at Rapid Chess in a match of 6 games.

Based on our age difference I will bet $100 at 20 to 1.
So if he loses Michael must donate $2,000 to the 2011 Sydney International Open (SIO). :hand:

************************************************** *******

george
02-10-2009, 11:47 PM
Brian,

20/1 in a two horse race is a bit rich. Even in my biggest gambling snooker days I never found a better player to give me 20/1. 2 or 3 to one would be fair and reasonable - age has no barrier in chess unless you are pleading senility then you may well be right - but if you are not senile 2 or 3 to one seems appropriate.

So you put up say $100 and Michael puts up $300. If you win the money goes to SIO if Michael wins it goes to the charity of his choice.

Venue - perhaps a sonsor could be found - television and radio coverage of 'Great Aussie Grudge Match - the mouth from the south plays chess godzilla" Sex it up anyway you like - the more chess coverage the better - work on it Brian/Michael make something good out of this!!!!!!