PDA

View Full Version : The "Speck fiddle" furphy: stop it or you'll go blind



Kevin Bonham
20-10-2009, 07:35 PM
I see firegoat 7 elsewhere is the latest to repeat the discredited false rumour that Nick Speck's rating was artificially fiddled following Speck's strong result in the 2001-2 Australian Championship tournament.

As part of a general rant about Glicko and ratings, firegoat writes:


Oh and lets not forget Max the junior and his disappearing rating points or Nick Specks [sic], post Oz championship rating being arftificially [sic] downplayed for Ian Rogers [sic] ego!"

It is bizarre that this rumour is still out there years later when it has been debunked so many times. Here is an example debunking from 2005:


I orginally heard the rumour that people (mainly Victorians) were theorising that speck could reach as high as number 3 on the April 2002 ACF rating list. I believe the person who told me this was Nick Kordahi. This was well before the April 2002 ratings were even submitted for rating. I remember scoffing at the idea to Nick Kordahi. Around about the same time this rumour that speck would reach the number 3 position appeared on the ACF bulletin board, as well as discussion of speck's performance rating.

I pointed out that although people were quoting speck's performance rating as 2490 something, his actual performance rating was around 2532. The reason I said this was because although the traditional means of calculating a performance rating is to take the average of your opponents ratings then add the difference determined from the probability tables based on your score percentage, this only gives an approximation. A players true performance rating is the value for which his expected score matches his actual score.

In order to quell any rumours about speck being number 3 on the list I manually calculated speck's rating as no files had been submitted for rating at this time. His rating came out at 2411. However since it is our policy not to pre-publish any players rating, I said on the Bulletin Board that speck's rating would under no circumstance exceed 2420. I certainly never mentioned a figure of 2490.

Like many of these things the rumour grew in the telling over the years to the point where in 2005 Alan Shore (then Belthasar) was recycling a version in which Speck's rating would have gone to 2600 or so.

Just goes to show again that "a rumour that has no leg to stand on finds some other way to get around".

Denis_Jessop
21-10-2009, 07:41 PM
I see firegoat 7 elsewhere is the latest to repeat the discredited false rumour that Nick Speck's rating was artificially fiddled following Speck's strong result in the 2001-2 Australian Championship tournament.

As part of a general rant about Glicko and ratings, firegoat writes:



It is bizarre that this rumour is still out there years later when it has been debunked so many times. Here is an example debunking from 2005:



Like many of these things the rumour grew in the telling over the years to the point where in 2005 Alan Shore (then Belthasar) was recycling a version in which Speck's rating would have gone to 2600 or so.

Just goes to show again that "a rumour that has no leg to stand on finds some other way to get around".

Or " a rumour that has no leg to stand on is nevertheless hard to defeat" :doh:

DJ