PDA

View Full Version : What are ratings for?

PHAT
08-09-2004, 12:11 AM
I have been watching DR and BG smacking eachother up the chops over juniors and the rating system. It has become apparent to me that David wants to use the ratings for the promotion of chess, while Bill wants to have the best prediting rating system. Alas, these two goals are conflictual. Therefore, our two champions of their respective causes are bound to never agree.

For this reason, I thought it might serve all, to clarify the conflict by asking the utterly fundamental question, what are ratings for. There is a thread on the old BB that attemped to do this, but it eventually fizzled out when BG slowly strangled it but insisting that mathematical purity and the predictiveness that it yields, was the only consideration. Let us hope that this thread will not suffer the same fate.

To kick off:

Ratings are mostly used to compare the relative playing strength of players.

Players like to keep an eye on their place in the pecking order. For many, their rating holds a great deal of importance. For some players, a declining rating is enought to drive them away from chess. Children in particular, tend to react badly to unambiguously naked negative feedback (a drop in rating) because they only know success - they are growing, learning and improving in everything they do in approximate step with their peers.

I would ask, what is the cost having a "no drop" policy for young juniors? Is the cost too great to bare?

Alan Shore
08-09-2004, 12:24 AM
This poses a problem Matt, of which one could see emerging in the QLD Junior rating system. To encourage juniors, when they played tournaments their expected score agaisnt opponents identical to their rating was deemed to be 47% rather than 50%. Seems a good idea in theory, as juniors' ratings will increase to a greater extent and everyone's happy. It also represents a method to combat rating deflation.

The problem however, lay in those juniors who played a lot of rated games. As their expected score was only 47% against players of the same rating, multiply this by 120 (the number of games some of the most active juniors would play in a three-month period). Whoa. As the Gold Coast was a hive of activity compared with Brisbane juniors who rarely played more than one or two tournaments per rating period, can you guess what happened? GC juniors were soon tremendously overrated. As a Brisbane junior, back when I was rated just 900 I ventured to the Gold Coast to play a junior tournament and proceeded to perform at nearly 1400. I was not alone, as nearly all Brisbane juniors walked away with rating prizes for performing so highly.

As for the no-drop suggestion I'm not sure how it would stand up logistically.. it's an inventive idea for sure but I don't know if you could call it fair. I also think it would do crazy things to the ratings of the players' opponents.

PHAT
08-09-2004, 12:54 AM
To encourage juniors, when they played tournaments their expected score agaisnt opponents identical to their rating was deemed to be 47% rather than 50%.

Maybe a flat 47% was to generous. Perhaps a sliding %. Occational players get 46% and very actives get 49%. I don't know. But it could be tried.

As for the no-drop suggestion I'm not sure how it would stand up logistically.. it's an inventive idea for sure but I don't know if you could call it fair.

Fair. How can we decide what is "fair". Eg. in soccer, the rules are not ridgedly enforced in the U8s. It is rightly seen as counter productive to enforce perfect shying and offside observance. Remember, these are kids, not adults. Same for chess. What kind of a bastard would want to apply a "tightrope-without-a-net" rating systems to kids. I mean, what is a rating system for?

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 12:56 AM
What is clear is that the vast majority of juniors who play chess dont even have ACF ratings.

So Matt you can waffle as much as you like, the system isnt about to change.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 12:58 AM
Maybe a flat 47% was to generous. Perhaps a sliding %. Occational players get 46% and very actives get 49%. I don't know. But it could be tried.
No, you idiot it cannot be tried.
As usual you have no clue.
Yout just pulling ideas out your rear end.

PHAT
08-09-2004, 12:59 AM
What is clear is that the vast majority of juniors who play chess dont even have ACF ratings.

They should! There should be only one National system.

So Matt you can waffle as much as you like, the system isnt about to change.

Unphknblevable. :wall:

You don't know how stupid you appear to be. :hand:

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 01:06 AM
They should! There should be only one National system.
You just show how little you know.
The vast majority of kids who actually play chess in NSW only play chess in the interschools comps and no other games.
The vast majority of those would never play a rated player or even a player who has played a rated player. As such they would receive no rating.

Unphknblevable. :wall:

You don't know how stupid you appear to be. :hand:
The only one appearing stupid is you.
You are suggesting something be implemented the impact of which you have no idea.
You are just a fool.

PHAT
08-09-2004, 01:17 AM
The vast majority of kids who actually play chess in NSW only play chess in the interschools comps and no other games.
The vast majority of those would never play a rated player or even a player who has played a rated player. As such they would receive no rating.

WTF has this got to do with not having a single national rating system? Nophknphing

The only one appearing stupid is you.
You are suggesting something be implemented the impact of which you have no idea.
You are just a fool.

And you are a tradesman trying to be an engineer. You are an embarassment to to yourself. FO

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 01:20 AM
WTF has this got to do with not having a single national rating system? Nophknphing
As I said it shows how little you know.
In fact it shows you have no understanding about the NSWJCL rating system.
Of course you demonstrated that fact earlier in the year.

And you are a tradesman trying to be an engineer. You are an embarassment to to yourself. FO
The only embarressment around here is you.

Garvinator
08-09-2004, 01:25 AM
They should! There should be only one National system.
tell that to the guru :evil:

PHAT
08-09-2004, 01:26 AM
As I said it shows how little you know.
In fact it shows you have no understanding about the NSWJCL rating system.

I know this much; The NSWJCL wants nothing to do with the ACF Glicko system.

Garvinator
08-09-2004, 01:27 AM
nice to see you two clowns could not even get past one page of posts before slagging each other off.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 01:28 AM
I know this much; The NSWJCL wants nothing to do with the ACF Glicko system.
As usual you know absolutely nothing.
All you do is make things up.
You havent spoken to Charles Z about it.
You havent spoken to Richard G-H about it.
You havent spoken to, well lets face it ... anyone about it.
You are a complete joke.

PHAT
08-09-2004, 01:35 AM
nice to see you two clowns could not even get past one page of posts before slagging each other off.

Remember who started it with this:

No, you idiot it cannot be tried.
As usual you have no clue.
Yout just pulling ideas out your rear end.

gray, remember this: Do not side with him lest you be associated with him.

PHAT
08-09-2004, 01:36 AM
You havent spoken to, well lets face it ... anyone about it.

:D Yes I have :D

Garvinator
08-09-2004, 01:40 AM
gray, remember this: BG is a dikhed. Do not side with him lest you be associated with him.
i dont side with anyone. I have my opinions based on my own knowledge and knowledge gained from others who know more than i do about subjects i am not sure about. I do think though that the issue of players(juniors in this case) leaving the game cause of loss of rating points would rate about number 30 on the list of reasons why a junior would leave the game.

With it being such a small factor overall, to rip up the rating system to accommodate for such a small problem is absurd. That is what your changes would do, rip it up, cause it would change the workings completely.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 01:40 AM
:D Yes I have :D
Talking to yourself doesnt count.
And you clearly havent spoken to anyone in any position of authority within the NSWJCL.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 01:42 AM
iWith it being such a small factor overall, to rip up the rating system to accommodate for such a small problem is absurd. That is what your changes would do, rip it up, cause it would change the workings completely.
Worse than that it would distort the whole bottom of the pool.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 01:45 AM
Remember who started it with this:

gray, remember this: BG is a dikhed. Do not side with him lest you be associated with him.
I started nothing.
You started mouthing off as usual with your brain in neutral.
You have no idea of the impact of what you are suggesting but as far as you were concerned it "could" be tried.
That just showed what a complete fool you are.

Garvinator
08-09-2004, 01:46 AM
Worse than that it would distort the whole bottom of the pool.
well i had to avoid looking like a doomsayer ;)

PHAT
08-09-2004, 01:46 AM
Worse than that it would distort the whole bottom of the pool.

DISTORTION! DISTORTION! UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 01:48 AM
DISTORTION! DISTORTION! UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!
Your are the only unclean distortion around here.

Garvinator
08-09-2004, 01:56 AM
can a thread be locked or deleted from about post three :owned:

PHAT
08-09-2004, 02:10 AM
I started nothing.

:liar:

You started mouthing off as usual with your brain in neutral.
You have no idea of the impact of what you are suggesting but as far as you were concerned it "could" be tried.
That just showed what a complete fool you are.

Taking a risk does not make a person a fool. I dare you to state otherwise.

PHAT
08-09-2004, 02:12 AM
Your are the only unclean distortion around here.

If I'm unclean, you're washed up.

Trent Parker
08-09-2004, 02:13 AM
:D Yes I have :D.

Just out of curiosity.....
with whom did u speak???? c'mon name names :D

PHAT
08-09-2004, 02:15 AM
.

Just out of curiosity.....
with whom did u speak???? c'mon name names :D

:uhoh: I know a bloke who knowns the NSWJCL ratings officer.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 02:16 AM
Taking a risk does not make a person a fool. I dare you to state otherwise.
You arent taking a calulated risk.
You are recommending a chnage the impact of which you have no clue.
That makes you a fool.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 02:20 AM
:uhoh: I know a bloke who knowns the NSWJCL ratings officer.
As I said you have not spoken to anyone of any authority.
All you ever do is repeat heresay and even then you do so in a misleading manner.
You are a joke.

PHAT
08-09-2004, 02:23 AM
You arent taking a calulated risk.
You are recommending a chnage the impact of which you have no clue.

A calculated risk is not a risk at all because you know the chances. A real risk is one where you step into the unknown.

Lookm Bill, just face facts. You are a scaredy-cat. You fear failure more than you value success.

Get some professional help.

PHAT
08-09-2004, 02:27 AM
As I said you have not spoken to anyone of any authority.

There are people who can speak in authority and those who can speak with authority.

The NSWJCL won't have a bar of your Glicko, and you know it.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 02:29 AM
A calculated risk is not a risk at all because you know the chances. A real risk is one where you step into the unknown.
No thats stupidity.

Lookm Bill, just face facts. You are a scaredy-cat. You fear failure more than you value success.

Get some professional help.
You really are an idiot.
Its not a case of courage if you are too stupid to appreciate the pitfalls.

You continually demonstrate what a fool you are.
You are prepared to destroy and distort the ratings without knowing what the impact is.
No wonder you are considered a joke.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 02:33 AM
There are people who can speak in authority and those who can speak with authority.

The NSWJCL won't have a bar of your Glicko, and you know it.
As usual you can try and distort the truth as much as you like.
Ot has nothing to do with Glicko.
The fact is the NSWJCL didnt want anything to do with Elo either.
The NSWJCL rate the events they consider important in the Glicko system, like the State Junior and the City of Sydney Junior.

PHAT
08-09-2004, 02:35 AM
Its not a case of courage if you are too stupid to appreciate the pitfalls.

Victory to the brave.

You are prepared to destroy and distort the ratings without knowing what the impact is.

L-i-s-t-e-n c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y. I am preped to accept distortion as the impact.

No wonder you are considered a joke.

Name names.

Trent Parker
08-09-2004, 02:36 AM
A calculated risk is not a risk at all because you know the chances. A real risk is one where you step into the unknown.

A person places \$1000000 on red on a roulette table (that has no 0 or 00) he knows that the chances of getting red are 50%.

Because he knows the chances this is not a risk???
Almost all risks can be calculated......

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 02:40 AM
Name names.
Use what you call a brain and think about it.
After all you demonstrated what a do nothing jike you were to the members of the NSWCA Council.
Therefore you wont have to go very far past those on the NSWCA Council and some on the NSWJCL.

08-09-2004, 02:41 AM
Guys, perhaps you're all getting bogged down in details and insults.
My initial reaction to the topic was that it was a philosophical one (something you don't often see here) ... but it seems to have lost the initial impetus in the discussion that has followed.
Personally I see ratings as a comparative measure of our chess abilities ... however I don't think it can really be an exact science - after all there are a number of factors that should be taken into account (tournament situation, mental state, time of day, etc) to get a more accurate system which just can't be done.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 02:44 AM
The point is Matt is all for doing something even though he has no clue what the impact is.
There is nothing philosophical about that.
It is just plainly stupid.

PHAT
08-09-2004, 02:49 AM
A person places \$1000000 on red on a roulette table (that has no 0 or 00) he knows that the chances of getting red are 50%.

Because he knows the chances this is not a risk???
Almost all risks can be calculated......

True, Trent, risks can be calculated. How would you calculate te risk of increased/decreased customer numbers by changing the restraunt decore to ultramodern? A bit iffy?

Sometimes we need to just step out into the unknown. THAT is a real risk. Calculated risksare for geldings

PHAT
08-09-2004, 02:50 AM
Therefore you wont have to go very far past those on the NSWCA Council and some on the NSWJCL.

Name names.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 02:51 AM
True, Trent, risks can be calculated. How would you calculate te risk of increased/decreased customer numbers by changing the restraunt decore to ultramodern? A bit iffy?

Sometimes we need to just step out into the unknown. THAT is a real risk. Calculated risksare for geldings
Why dont you try the Gap. You could step out into the unknown from there and report back on what you find.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 02:53 AM
Name names.
Work it out you fool.
If you cant thats your probkem.

Trent Parker
08-09-2004, 02:53 AM
True, Trent, risks can be calculated. How would you calculate te risk of increased/decreased customer numbers by changing the restraunt decore to ultramodern? A bit iffy?

Utilising statistics
Restaurant a b c changed decore and x y z resulted
Restaurant def did not and resulted in stu

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 02:56 AM
You need a good root with someone you shouldn't root.
Thats original.
When you cant justify your arguments be crude.
You are a complete joke.

PHAT
08-09-2004, 02:56 AM
Work it out you fool.
If you cant thats your probkem.

Dear President,

Who is it on the NSWCA council who thinks I am a moron/fool/blowhard.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 02:58 AM
Dear President,

Who is it on the NSWCA council who thinks I am a moron/fool/blowhard.

Dear Ex-Councillor,
Work it out for yourself.
Mind the door as you exit.

PHAT
08-09-2004, 02:59 AM
Utilising statistics
Restaurant a b c changed decore and x y z resulted
Restaurant def did not and resulted in stu

That is a calculated risk What do you do when there are no statistics. The world is still there, you still have to make a move or you lose on time.

PHAT
08-09-2004, 03:01 AM
Dear Ex-Councillor,
Work it out for yourself.
Mind the door as you exit.

Derr. I am already on the outsideof the tent p.ssing in.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 03:03 AM
That is a calculated risk What do you do when there are no statistics. The world is still there, you still have to make a move or you lose on time.
The point is you fool, that if you can determine the impact and the risk then you should.
To not do so is stupid.
It is easy to prove that what you proposed earlier would distort the ratings of the bottom end of the pool.

Trent Parker
08-09-2004, 03:04 AM
That is a calculated risk What do you do when there are no statistics. The world is still there, you still have to make a move or you lose on time.

collect the statistics......
Surveys.....

If we change this or that or this and that would you be more likely to come into the restaurant......

PHAT
08-09-2004, 03:11 AM
collect the statistics......
Surveys.....

"Seize the day" Ecclesiastes 9:10

Eric
08-09-2004, 07:17 AM
Dear Ex-Councillor,
Work it out for yourself.
Mind the door as you exit.

Matt, the problem is not naming names of those that think you're a moron. The short list is those who think you are not.

(I believe it's a list comprising one name, yours!!!)

ursogr8
08-09-2004, 09:53 AM
Matt, the problem is not naming names of those that think you're a moron. The short list is those who think you are not.

(I believe it's a list comprising one name, yours!!!)

In spite of Bill's repeated assertions, it is not my opinion that Matt is a moron.
Matt does have a curious obsession to help Bill improve (at least that is what I presume is the purpose of all his posts to Bill).
When Bill has improved enough I presume Matt will drop his obsession. :uhoh:

starter

arosar
08-09-2004, 10:12 AM
"Seize the day" Ecclesiastes 9:10

Is that Ecclesiastes? I thought it was Horace...

AR

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 10:29 AM
In spite of Bill's repeated assertions, it is not my opinion that Matt is a moron.
Guess that puts you in the minority.

Matt does have a curious obsession to help Bill improve (at least that is what I presume is the purpose of all his posts to Bill).
If you really believe this, then I'm sorry to say you are a goose. ;)

Rincewind
08-09-2004, 10:46 AM
Is that Ecclesiastes? I thought it was Horace...

Quite right. Carpe Diem was written by Horace in Odes, I.xi.7

However Ecc 9:10 certainly has a similar message...

Whatever you hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.

However, I use the word similar as it is not quite the same as what Horace intended by carpe diem, as he was saying live in the moment and not rely on the future at all. Ecc message is more one of work hard while you are alive as we are all mortal and there is no point bringing regrets to the grave.

Eric
08-09-2004, 11:29 AM
In spite of Bill's repeated assertions, it is not my opinion that Matt is a moron.
Matt does have a curious obsession to help Bill improve (at least that is what I presume is the purpose of all his posts to Bill).
When Bill has improved enough I presume Matt will drop his obsession. :uhoh:

starter

If Matt were merely a dolt I'd have sympathy for your comments and him.

In the past he has been a master of spreading untruths based on misinformation or down right lies. This was the case when he's made references to particular persons that were highly defamatory and organisations such as the ACF and the New South Wales Junior Chess League. In the case of the New South Wales Juniorj Chess League he argued they offered little help to those representing Australia overseas (a lie) and that there were problems between the League and the NSW Chess Association, also a lie. He never retracted his comments and has continued to blunder on in his idiotic manner. These issues have nothing to do with with 'helping Bill'.

PHAT
08-09-2004, 03:07 PM
In the past he has been a master of spreading untruths based on misinformation or down right lies. This was the case when he's made references to particular persons that were highly defamatory and organisations such as the ACF and the New South Wales Junior Chess League.

If I have made "highly defamatory" references about persons, nobody but you is talking about it. Feel free the PM me to get it off your chest. Saving that, just shut-up :P.

You cannot defame a federation. (Welllllll, you can, but it is realy hard to prove.)

In the case of the New South Wales Juniorj Chess League he argued they offered little help to those representing Australia overseas (a lie)

It wasn't a lie then and it isn't a lie now. It all hinges on how we define Little help. Anything less than \$1k is, I think, "little".

... and that there were problems between the League and the NSW Chess Association, also a lie. He never retracted his comments ...

I haven't retracted because I hear otherwise. Furthermore, there is the inconvieniant fact that the NSWJCL does not publically stated that there are no problems. The only voice is the shrill and abusive tones from Billy Big Ears, denying that there is a problem.

BTW, Eric Anon. Get a real name - or get cancer.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 03:25 PM
If I have made "highly defamatory" references about persons, nobody but you is talking about it. Feel free the PM me to get it off your chest. Saving that, just shut-up :P.
Why.
You never check your facts with the responsible parties before shooting you big mouth off full of inaccuracies, mistruths and just stupid speculation.
You have done so ever since you first posted the original ACF forums.

It wasn't a lie then and it isn't a lie now. It all hinges on how we define Little help. Anything less than \$1k is, I think, "little".
Even now you demonstrate your complete ignorance of the NSWJCL.

I haven't retracted because I hear otherwise.

Name names you moron.

Obviously you didnt hear this from anyone in the authority in the NSWJCL.
Have you spoken to Richard G-H or Charles Z.
They would tell you there is no problem between the NSWJCL and the NSWCA.

Furthermore, there is the inconvieniant fact that the NSWJCL does not publically stated that there are no problems.
Why should they state it you fool.
You are the only idiot making the claims.

The only voice is the shrill and abusive tones from Billy Big Ears, denying that there is a problem.
I'm just countering the unfounded claims of Matt the moron.

BTW, Eric Anon. Get a real name - or get cancer.
You are a disgrace.

ursogr8
08-09-2004, 03:50 PM
The thread title was What are ratings for?

I think ratings are essentially our (ACF) product that we sell to chess players.
Therefore the value that players get from ratings is the answer to the thread question.

It is only incidental that ratings are also handy for
> constructing SWISS pairings
>> deciding who is in overseas teams
for example.

The prime purpose is determined by the buyer.

Thus if the buyer is interested in the predictive value of the rating for future games then we should have rating formulae that specialise in that.

On the other hand if enough buyers simply wanted their rating to be a monotonicaly increasing sequence, then I would be happy to sell them that.

starter

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 04:01 PM
The thread title was What are ratings for?

I think ratings are essentially our (ACF) product that we sell to chess players.
Therefore the value that players get from ratings is the answer to the thread question.

It is only incidental that ratings are also handy for
> constructing SWISS pairings
>> deciding who is in overseas teams
for example.

The prime purpose is determined by the buyer.

Thus if the buyer is interested in the predictive value of the rating for future games then we should have rating formulae that specialise in that.

On the other hand if enough buyers simply wanted their rating to be a monotonicaly increasing sequence, then I would be happy to sell them that.

starter
That sounds like putting the inmates in charge of the asylum.

The prime purpse is determined by the seller.
The ACF charges for the rating service but you arent forced to buy it.
The ACF provides a rating service which provides meaningful ratings with regards the relative strength of players.

No matter what some fools make think that situation wont be changing anytime soon.

Garvinator
08-09-2004, 04:05 PM
the easiest way to determine if the organisers want a rating system at all, or more specifically the way it is run now, is if they send their tournaments in for rating. If they send it in for rating, then they believe that either
1) the rating system has some value for the players
2) the players believe the rating system has value and only play at rated tournaments.

I fit into category 2.

Eric
08-09-2004, 04:05 PM
If I have made "highly defamatory" references about persons, nobody but you is talking about it. Feel free the PM me to get it off your chest. Saving that, just shut-up :P.

You cannot defame a federation. (Welllllll, you can, but it is realy hard to prove.)

It wasn't a lie then and it isn't a lie now. It all hinges on how we define Little help. Anything less than \$1k is, I think, "little".

I haven't retracted because I hear otherwise. Furthermore, there is the inconvieniant fact that the NSWJCL does not publically stated that there are no problems. The only voice is the shrill and abusive tones from Billy Big Ears, denying that there is a problem.

BTW, Eric Anon. Get a real name - or get cancer.

First of all, I'm underwhelmed by your wit. I haven't heard anything so eloquent since you won \$25 for being a resident boofhead at a Fairfield weekender and gave a specch like you won the World Championship.

I still assert you either lied or were misinformed in your comments about the NSWJCL and the NSW Chess Association. The NSWJCL offers substantial help to the kids and has a good relationship with the NSW Chess Association. You're just too stupid and lazy to discover the facts..

Glad to hear your concerned about my health. And this comming from a dope who looks like he eats a dozen eggs and a pig for breakfast!!

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 04:10 PM
Here is the Matt "fact" regarding the NSWJCL from the old ACF BB.

BTW I do not recall slagging off the NSWJCL. I do recall saying that the monetary help it gives to NSW junior reps was paultry, being entry fees et cetera. But that is a statement of fact.
Kerry responded as follows:

Matthew, based on what you have just posted, the fact that the NSWJCL is going extremely well is all you know about the organisation.

Your 'statement of fact' is totally false. Perhaps you should check your facts!
and

If I recall correctly, you said something along the lines of 'the NSWJCL's contribution couldn't even cover the cost of a taxi fare' (feel free to correct me, but I believe that was the general gist of what you were getting at). That is in fact a completely baseless lie!
Matt then tried the old:

BTW I do not tell lies , but I can and do get things wrong sometimes - just like everyone else.
Kerry replied:

Well in this case Matthew, you have got things very wrong. I have seen the treasurer's reports, and needless to say the support provided by the NSWJCL would cover more than a few cab rides. And no Matthew, I won't be going into specifics.
Matt then tried the:

With that kind of evation, a reader might draw the conclusion that it is you who are hiding the facts and I it is me who cannot see the Empiror?s clothes.

As a paid-up member of the NSWJCL, Kerry, how do I get to see the treasurer's report? How can we confirm that the financial assistance given to our rising stars is more than taxi fairs and entry fees.
That drew the following reponse from Kerry:

I would like to think that a reader would draw the conclusion that I was protecting the NSWJCL from the financial suggestions that you seem to be willing to make about other chess organisations that you know nothing about. It is of no benefit to anyone concerned and is simply for your personal amusement - call me Scrooge for not indulging, if you will.

As Bill has already said, the AGM is the place to find out such information. Can I suggest however, that if you knew half of what the NSWJCL does for kids, you would not make a negative comment about the NSWJCL for at least a year (if not much longer).

Remember Matthew, there is more to the world than just what you see in 'Matty-land' ... pull your head out of the sand and have a look around!

So what we have is that Matt had no clue what the actul facts were but that did not stop him from making an entirely false claim.

When confronted by Kerry who would obviously know the truth, did Matt retract his statement.
No.
Did he apologise for it in anyway.
No.

bobby1972
08-09-2004, 04:12 PM
What are ratings for? indication maybe motivation i dont know, but i think if there were no ratings at all the number of players in turnys would be reduced,a friend of mine said to me that " his self worth was not related to his rating" very funny remark i think to put rating and self worth in same sentence means people have got severe problems.does chess need a rating system i dont know?

arosar
08-09-2004, 04:49 PM
Jesus Christ! Youse two blokes, BG and MS - you can really carry on a bit, can't you? From 12AM to 3AM, nothin' but abuse. How's about you blokes just set up accounts in MSN or Yahoo Messenger and just insult each other there?

AR

Garvinator
08-09-2004, 04:52 PM
Jesus Christ! Youse two blokes, BG and MS - you can really carry on a bit, can't you? From 12AM to 3AM, nothin' but abuse. How's about you blokes just set up accounts in MSN or Yahoo Messenger and just insult each other there?

AR
amiels best suggestion yet :clap: :clap: :clap:

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 05:04 PM
amiels best suggestion yet :clap: :clap: :clap:
Its not going to happen.
Matt has been sprouting crap on the bulletin boards since their inception.
He continually makes unfounded, unsubstantiated claims.
He resorts to vulraity and crudity when he cant brow beat his opponents.
Eric summed him up fairly well for a recent poster. Obviously he has been observing him since at least last year if not sonner on the old ACF BB or forums..

Although Matt continues to be vulgar on a fairly regular basis, since no one will take any action and actually ban him he will just continue to be rude, crude and post crap.
I'm not prepared to let him get away with this and I am going to continue to oppose him and highlight his distortion of the facts.

PHAT
08-09-2004, 05:07 PM
First of all, I'm underwhelmed by your wit.

It is like pearls before swine.

I haven't heard anything so eloquent since you won \$25 for being a resident boofhead at a Fairfield weekender and gave a specch like you won the World Championship.

I happen to think that players should thank the organisers, sponsors and praise the other players. Alas, it happens rarely. The near total lack of manners that 95% of players display when they collect a prize is appauling. Sometimes I think that they should be fined by the NSWCA for bring the game into disrepute.

If i recall the event correctly, I was filling the embarrassing hole that my fellow prize winners left in the air.

Now, you, Eric Anon., go and take some lessons in flaming. You shouldn't wadle up and give me a bucket of water to douse you with.

I still assert you either lied or were misinformed in your comments about the NSWJCL and the NSW Chess Association.

OHHhhhhhhh. Now you back down a tad. "... or were misinformed ..." gives me an out. If you what to nail me, don't back down, ya limp wristed coward.

OK, Eric the Viqueen, if I am misinformed, I will recant if/when the details are officialy made public. Until then, I will stand by my sources - and at the moment you have not proved to be a source of anything but tears and snot.

The NSWJCL offers substantial help to the kids and has a good relationship with the NSW Chess Association. You're just too stupid and lazy to discover the facts.

and you're too stupid and lazy to post the facts.

Why should I be concerned? You are not a person, you are an Eric Anon.

And this comming from a dope who looks like he eats a dozen eggs and a pig for breakfast!!

:LOL: You under estimate my glutony - and my VoMax. :cool:

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 05:14 PM
OK, Eric the Viqueen, if I am misinformed, I will recant if/when the details are officialy made public. Until then, I will stand by my sources - and at the moment you have not proved to be a source of anything but tears and snot.
Its comments like this that earn you the derision you deserve.
You never check out if what you are saying is correct with the actual people concened or through the appropriate channels.

The information is made available at the NSWJCL AGM.
Did you go to the last NSWJCL AGM. Obviously not or you would know the figures.

Did you ask the NSWJCL Treasuer Richard G-H. No you didnt.
Did you ask the NSWJCL President Charles Z. No you didnt.

You are just a joke.

PHAT
08-09-2004, 05:22 PM
When confronted by Kerry who would obviously know the truth, did Matt retract his statement.
No.
Did he apologise for it in anyway.
No.

When Kerry or someone else presents some verifiable numbers to show that juniors receive more than entry fee and a monkey, I am perfectly in my rights to state what I believe to be true. This is especially so since I am not defaming the NSWJCL when I do.

BTW, for the umpteenth time, I will repeat that I think the NSWJCL is arguably the finest run chess body in Australia. That may be why it doesn't want to get married to the NSWCA. :hand:

Eric
08-09-2004, 05:22 PM
It is like pearls before swine.

I happen to think that players should thank the organisers, sponsors and praise the other players. Alas, it happens rarely. The near total lack of manners that 95% of players display when they collect a prize is appauling. Sometimes I think that they should be fined by the NSWCA for bring the game into disrepute.

If i recall the event correctly, I was filling the embarrassing hole that my fellow prize winners left in the air.

Now, you, Eric Anon., go and take some lessons in flaming. You shouldn't wadle up and give me a bucket of water to douse you with.

OHHhhhhhhh. Now you back down a tad. "... or were misinformed ..." gives me an out. If you what to nail me, don't back down, ya limp wristed coward.

OK, Eric the Viqueen, if I am misinformed, I will recant if/when the details are officialy made public. Until then, I will stand by my sources - and at the moment you have not proved to be a source of anything but tears and snot.

and you're too stupid and lazy to post the facts.

Why should I be concerned? You are not a person, you are an Eric Anon.

:LOL: You under estimate my glutony - and my VoMax. :cool:

I'm not backing down. If you prepared to stick by the comments you've made about the NSW Chess Association and it's relationship with the NSWJCL and still talk about what your 'sources' say, you are indeed a liar. It's tragic you are a baffoon and don't realise it.

Go ahead, get off your fat backside and find out the facts! As I said before, you're just too stupid and lazy to see what a fool you make of yourself.

I would never underestimate your intelligence, there isn't any to estimate.

PHAT
08-09-2004, 05:26 PM
The information is made available at the NSWJCL AGM.
Did you go to the last NSWJCL AGM.

Yes. I was there, patzer. A treasurer's report was neither distributed nor posted.

JGB
08-09-2004, 05:30 PM
In regard to some of the topics started here I was thinking about starting a new topic...

'What are brains for?'

ursogr8
08-09-2004, 05:32 PM
That sounds like putting the inmates in charge of the asylum.

But Bill, you are one of the buyers and you would not regard yourself as an inmate in an asylum. Would you? :confused: I would be respectful of your input to the issue as a buyer (and I have every respect for your input as a constructor as I have said many times).

The prime purpose is determined by the seller.

Yes it is at the moment. But, in addition, let us hear from the buyers...that was what the thread started to be, I thought. Check post #1.

The ACF charges for the rating service but you arent forced to buy it.

So what Bill?

The ACF provides a rating service which provides meaningful ratings with regards the relative strength of players.

Ok. This is one good observation of what the buyers might want .. a measure of relative strength.

No matter what some fools make think that situation wont be changing anytime soon.

Oi. Steady on. Let us not get to calling me goose too soon. Strike 'fools'.
And no-one is calling for immediate change. This is just an exploratory thread.

starter

Eric
08-09-2004, 05:34 PM
Yes. I was there, patzer. A treasurer's report was neither distributed nor posted.

Look who's calling someone a patzer!!

I can imagine you looking at the computer sceen with that moronic grin of yours thinking your smart. As usual you have both feet firmly planted on thin air that mirrors the space between your ears!!

Eric
08-09-2004, 05:41 PM
Yes. I was there, patzer. A treasurer's report was neither distributed nor posted.

By the way you're confused Matt, you can't be a member of the NSWJCL unless you're under 18 years of age! Your IQ of 18 doesn't make you eligible!!!!

PHAT
08-09-2004, 05:43 PM
If you prepared to stick by the comments you've made about the NSW Chess Association and it's relationship with the NSWJCL and still talk about what your 'sources' say, you are indeed a liar.

It is so easy to sprout cover-up words from a position of anonimity.
It is so easy to call someone a liar from the safty of anonimity.

Get a name or evaporate [yawn]:hand:

Go ahead, get off your fat backside and find out the facts! As I said before, you're just too stupid and lazy to see what a fool you make of yourself.

You shut me up. It should be easy for a chap like you - so full of wisdom and goodness. PM the financial facts to me. If you cannot do that, it is you who is milking this for all it's worth.

[I think to self: Troll?]

PHAT
08-09-2004, 05:51 PM
Look who's calling someone a patzer!!

Apparently, you do not know the background to my jibe - so I'll forgive you - but that is the kind of bloke I am. :)

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 06:07 PM
When Kerry or someone else presents some verifiable numbers to show that juniors receive more than entry fee and a monkey, I am perfectly in my rights to state what I believe to be true. This is especially so since I am not defaming the NSWJCL when I do.
You made the claim last year.
The onus was on you to check your facts before making your uninformed claim.

BTW, for the umpteenth time, I will repeat that I think the NSWJCL is arguably the finest run chess body in Australia. That may be why it doesn't want to get married to the NSWCA. :hand:[/QUOTE]
There is no need for a marriage.
Their current de-facto relationship is just fine.

Anyway your opinion on this matter isnt worth crap.
You are just sprouting your own stupid beliefs.
You have not spoken to Richard or Charles regarding this.
In fact see they wouldnt want you anywher near the NSWJCL Committee.
Of course you would be hard pressed to do any less work on it than you did on the NSWCA Council.

PHAT
08-09-2004, 07:35 PM
By the way you're confused Matt, you can't be a member of the NSWJCL unless you're under 18 years of age! Your IQ of 18 doesn't make you eligible!!!!

Ummm errr did I say I was a member?

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 07:39 PM
Ummm errr did I say I was a member?
Yes, last year on the ACF BB.
You said;

As a paid-up member of the NSWJCL, Kerry, how do I get to see the treasurer's report?

PHAT
08-09-2004, 07:43 PM
You are just sprouting your own stupid beliefs.
You have not spoken to Richard or Charles regarding this.
In fact see they wouldnt want you anywher near the NSWJCL Committee.

Do these two gentlemen know that you are now their official spokes person. I am absolutely sure that neither of them want you of all people speaking for them.

PHAT
08-09-2004, 07:49 PM
Yes, last year on the ACF BB.
You said;

Oh! I did too. Oh well, no problem. In the context of what we are speaking about, the parent/gardian of a NSWJCL member still has a right to view documents pertaining to the child's membership of a group. It is called a duty of care issue.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 07:54 PM
Do these two gentlemen know that you are now their official spokes person. I am absolutely sure that neither of them want you of all people speaking for them.
You wouldnt have a clue because you have never spoken to them.
I know exactly how they feel about it.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 07:55 PM
Oh! I did too. Oh well, no problem. In the context of what we are speaking about, the parent/gardian of a NSWJCL member still has a right to view documents pertaining to the child's membership of a group. It is called a duty of care issue.
So what.
That does not make you a member.

PHAT
08-09-2004, 08:02 PM
You wouldnt have a clue because you have never spoken to them.
I know exactly how they feel about it.

Maybe, maybe not, but you don't know how they feel about you.

PHAT
08-09-2004, 08:07 PM
So what.
That does not make you a member.
So what? I will tell you so what, tin-pot. The parent/gardian of a NSWJCL member still has a right to view documents pertaining to the child's membership of that group.

WTF has this got to do with "What are ratings for?"

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 08:16 PM
So what? I will tell you so what, tin-pot. The parent/gardian of a NSWJCL member still has a right to view documents pertaining to the child's membership of that group.
That wasnt the point.
You claimed you were a member.
You may be the parent/guardian, that does not make you a member and claiming to be one was false.
Instead of just admiting it was false, you are just being a fool trying to defend it with the parent/guardian rubbish.

WTF has this got to do with "What are ratings for?"
It goes to the point of Eric's original post that you make statements that are clearly false and rarely if ever based on actual facts.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 08:20 PM
Maybe, maybe not, but you don't know how they feel about you.
No matter what innuendo you are trying to imply two things are certain.
Firstly You have no clue what they feel of me.
Secondly I know exactly how Charles and Richard feel about me.

08-09-2004, 11:04 PM
When Kerry or someone else presents some verifiable numbers to show that juniors receive more than entry fee and a monkey, I am perfectly in my rights to state what I believe to be true. This is especially so since I am not defaming the NSWJCL when I do.

BTW, for the umpteenth time, I will repeat that I think the NSWJCL is arguably the finest run chess body in Australia. That may be why it doesn't want to get married to the NSWCA. :hand:

Matt, to shut you up once and for all about the NSWJCL I'll give you some rough figures ... although not in too much detail.
I was doing a clean-up of my room and came across the minutes for the 2002 AGM.
As far as money for juniors going overseas is concerned, in 2002 the total was a 5 figure sum ... income for such generous support comes from the canteen ... you've seen how popular it is at Lidcombe, so put two and two together ...
As for the actual fund, in 1991 it had around \$1400, and has been growing every year since then (in spite of the more than generous contributions that are given to juniors going overseas which comes from the fund).
Don't expect any more precise figures from me ... I'm not going to give them out - they are for the members to know, not for anyone who happens to come across the website.

Cat
09-09-2004, 12:08 AM
The thread title was What are ratings for?

I think ratings are essentially our (ACF) product that we sell to chess players.
Therefore the value that players get from ratings is the answer to the thread question.

It is only incidental that ratings are also handy for
> constructing SWISS pairings
>> deciding who is in overseas teams
for example.

The prime purpose is determined by the buyer.

Thus if the buyer is interested in the predictive value of the rating for future games then we should have rating formulae that specialise in that.

On the other hand if enough buyers simply wanted their rating to be a monotonicaly increasing sequence, then I would be happy to sell them that.

starter

Yes I think the ACF has to understand they are selling a product and the buyers will inevitably scrutinise that product, especially if competition increase.

Starter, I don't know about you, but participation is the major problem facing Queensland chess. Players are the real consumers, we buy them the product -are they satisfied? Is our product meeting the needs of the marketplace? It's only one factor, sure, but an important.

What is it they're looking for? The Ratings Officer says it's putting the inmates in charge of the asylum. I guess it says it all!

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 01:39 AM
Yes I think the ACF has to understand they are selling a product and the buyers will inevitably scrutinise that product, especially if competition increase.

Starter, I don't know about you, but participation is the major problem facing Queensland chess. Players are the real consumers, we buy them the product -are they satisfied? Is our product meeting the needs of the marketplace? It's only one factor, sure, but an important.

What is it they're looking for? The Ratings Officer says it's putting the inmates in charge of the asylum. I guess it says it all!
All you are advocating is the sort of lunacy that the USCF had with their rating system with "Fiddle points" when the USCF board ignored the recommendations of their Ratings Committee.
Fortunately wiser heads prevailed and that crap was removed.

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 01:39 AM
Matt, to shut you up once and for all about the NSWJCL
As if that is likely to happen. ;)

Kevin Bonham
09-09-2004, 06:58 AM
You cannot defame a federation. (Welllllll, you can, but it is realy hard to prove.)

If the number of people on a ruling body like a council is small enough a defamatory statement against them will defame them all. Exactly where the line is drawn is unclear but you can certainly defame groups of <10 in this way, while there was a case involving the RSL that found that you could not individually defame each of a group of 2000.

Eric
09-09-2004, 07:18 AM
It is so easy to sprout cover-up words from a position of anonimity.
It is so easy to call someone a liar from the safty of anonimity.

Get a name or evaporate [yawn]:hand:

You shut me up. It should be easy for a chap like you - so full of wisdom and goodness. PM the financial facts to me. If you cannot do that, it is you who is milking this for all it's worth.

[I think to self: Troll?]

Matt I'll help you figure out who I am. You're the expert on statistics ,so here goes. I'm one of the people in this world who knows you're a clownish simpleton. There, that narrows it down to about 3.5 billion people. Any help slick? :D

ursogr8
09-09-2004, 07:53 AM
Yes I think the ACF has to understand they are selling a product and the buyers will inevitably scrutinise that product, especially if competition increase.

Starter, I don't know about you, but participation is the major problem facing Queensland chess. Players are the real consumers, we buy them the product -are they satisfied? Is our product meeting the needs of the marketplace? It's only one factor, sure, but an important.

What is it they're looking for? The Ratings Officer says it's putting the inmates in charge of the asylum. I guess it says it all!

Dave

Thanks for a response that is at least in the spirit of the thread title. I intend to start forming a list of what buyers want when they 'buy' the ACF product called ratings. You have added 'participation in chess' as a potential. Not sure I see how that is part of the product, but is more a consequence of some design feature of the product; like frequency of update, or method of circulation, or parity with FIDE equivalent, etc.
Could you be more specific?

starter

ursogr8
09-09-2004, 08:19 AM
To start the list that Matthew invited when he initiated the thread here is Matt's contribution again...very rational.

I have been watching DR and BG smacking each other up the chops over juniors and the rating system. It has become apparent to me that David wants to use the ratings for the promotion of chess, while Bill wants to have the best predicting rating system. Alas, these two goals are conflictual. Therefore, our two champions of their respective causes are bound to never agree.

For this reason, I thought it might serve all, to clarify the conflict by asking the utterly fundamental question, what are ratings for. There is a thread on the old BB that attemped to do this, but it eventually fizzled out when BG slowly strangled it but insisting that mathematical purity and the predictiveness that it yields, was the only consideration. Let us hope that this thread will not suffer the same fate.

To kick off:

Ratings are mostly used to compare the relative playing strength of players.

Therefore our list starts
1. The buyers want ratings so that they know their place in the pecking order.

starter

PHAT
09-09-2004, 02:30 PM
Instead of just admiting it was false, you are just being a fool trying to defend it with the parent/guardian rubbish.

I am not was not a member. Now STFU ya conscientious negative technician. :owned:

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 02:34 PM
I am not was not a member.
Now that wasnt that hard was it.

Now STFU ya conscientious negative technician. :owned:
Apart from the fact I'm neither negative nor a technician the best thing that could happen woulod be for you to just follow your own advice you moron.

antichrist
09-09-2004, 02:38 PM
I have just had a brainwave to cure Bill and Matts obsession with punishing each other. A few S & M sessions, in alternating positons. That should fix it as long as they don't get addicted to it.

PHAT
09-09-2004, 02:41 PM
Matt I'll help you figure out who I am. You're the expert on statistics ,so here goes. I'm one of the people in this world who knows you're a clownish simpleton. There, that narrows it down to about 3.5 billion people. Any help slick? :D

Actually it is about 6 billion - and none of them know you, because you are nothing but a namesless troll. You have sent me no PM with info suffice to shut me up. I therefore deem you = zero. Now Eric, move along and spill some seed else where.

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 02:42 PM
I have just had a brainwave to cure Bill and Matts obsession with punishing each other. A few S & M sessions, in alternating positons. That should fix it as long as they don't get addicted to it.
You are just a complete moron.
Stick to the off topic threads because you certainly cant contribute to the chess ones.

Eric
09-09-2004, 02:44 PM
I am not was not a member. Now STFU ya conscientious negative technician. :owned:

Now all you have to do is respond to Kerry and admit you don't know what you're talking about regarding the NSWJCL.

At least it might indicate that there is some synaptic conection, (You'll notice I used the singlular), within that almost empty space in your head.

PHAT
09-09-2004, 02:46 PM
#2 ratings are for

For the news media to use to indicate playing ability. (eg, tenis world rankings and ceeding.)

Eric
09-09-2004, 02:49 PM
Actually it is about 6 billion - and none of them know you, because you are nothing but a namesless troll. You have sent me no PM with info suffice to shut me up. I therefore deem you = zero. Now Eric, move along and spill some seed else where.

Were you wearing that moronic grin of yours when you wrote that?

You're living proof the autonomic nervous system is quite powerful because you are fuctioning at a minimal level without any frontal lobes son.

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 02:50 PM
#2 ratings are for

For the news media to use to indicate playing ability. (eg, tenis world rankings and ceeding.)
What evidence do you have that tennis world rankings are there for the benefit of the news media.
Rather than just repond with your usual bluster, please provide a reference, preferably from the world tennis body.

PHAT
09-09-2004, 02:55 PM
Matt, to shut you up once and for all about the NSWJCL I'll give you some rough figures ... although not in too much detail.
I was doing a clean-up of my room and came across the minutes for the 2002 AGM.
As far as money for juniors going overseas is concerned, in 2002 the total was a 5 figure sum ... income for such generous support comes from the canteen ... you've seen how popular it is at Lidcombe, so put two and two together ...
As for the actual fund, in 1991 it had around \$1400, and has been growing every year since then (in spite of the more than generous contributions that are given to juniors going overseas which comes from the fund).
Don't expect any more precise figures from me ... I'm not going to give them out - they are for the members to know, not for anyone who happens to come across the website.

\$100,000 to \$10,000? and no number of recipients? Be serious Kerry. :lol: that isn't a rough figure at all. It is meaningless. When you do give a rough figure, I'll either recant or claim vindication.

If you know Eric, just tell him to nick off because he is playing three grades to high.

Eric
09-09-2004, 02:58 PM
\$100,000 to \$10,000? and no number of recipients? Be serious Kerry. :lol: that isn't a rough figure at all. It is meaningless. When you do give a rough figure, I'll either recant or claim vindication.

If you know Eric, just tell him to nick off because he is playing three grades to high.

Hey weeney! Is that moronic smile still in place?

Just relax, with a lttile help you'll be able to learn to suck eggs in 15 or 20 years.

You are a first class liar about the NSWJCL and you're just too big a knuclehead to know when you're out done..

PHAT
09-09-2004, 02:58 PM
Were you wearing that moronic grin of yours when you wrote that?

You're living proof the autonomic nervous system is quite powerful because you are fuctioning at a minimal level without any frontal lobes son. :D

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 02:59 PM
\$100,000 to \$10,000? and no number of recipients? Be serious Kerry. :lol: that isn't a rough figure at all. It is meaningless. When you do give a rough figure, I'll either recant or claim vindication.
Your inability to admit you have no clue what you are talking about as usual just goes to demonstrate what an absolutle fool you are.

If you know Eric, just tell him to nick off because he is playing three grades to high.
He is obviously a significant number of grades above you.

PHAT
09-09-2004, 03:01 PM
Hey weeney! Is that moronic smile still in place?

Just relax, with a lttile help you'll be able to learn to suck eggs in 15 or 20 years.

You are a first class liar about the NSWJCL and you're just too big a knuclehead to know when you're out done..

:D

PHAT
09-09-2004, 03:04 PM
What evidence do you have that tennis world rankings are there for the benefit of the news media.
Rather than just repond with your usual bluster, please provide a reference, preferably from the world tennis body.

It requires no reference. Let meput it this way to a conscientious negative techician. If the ATP did not have rankings, they would invent them. It is good for promotional reasons.

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 03:17 PM
It requires no reference. Let meput it this way to a conscientious negative techician.
Coming from a foolish useless cretin knowing essentially rubbish like you a reference is required.

If the ATP did not have rankings, they would invent them. It is good for promotional reasons.
Immaterial.
Thats just a side effect. Its not there reason for being.

09-09-2004, 03:37 PM
\$100,000 to \$10,000? and no number of recipients? Be serious Kerry. :lol: that isn't a rough figure at all. It is meaningless. When you do give a rough figure, I'll either recant or claim vindication.

If you know Eric, just tell him to nick off because he is playing three grades to high.

Matt ... think things through again ... it IS a rough figure ...
If you knew figures, you would hardly be claiming vindication. You could probably figure out the number of recipients yourself if you did some research (you know ... things just don't come your way on their own). ACF bulletins are online ... go search Matt ... you never know ... it might be productive and you might learn something!
I'll repeat what I said earlier, so you understand my position ...
Don't expect any more precise figures from me ... I'm not going to give them out - they are for the members to know, not for anyone who happens to come across the website.

P.S. I have a feeling I know who Eric is, and he is playing numerous grades down to engage in a quasi-argument with your BB persona! :lol: :wall:

ursogr8
09-09-2004, 03:47 PM
#2 ratings are for

For the news media to use to indicate playing ability. (eg, tenis world rankings and ceeding.)

Hmm
Matt
The PRESS do not pay us any money for ratings.
So they are not 'buyers' of ratings

But on the other hand, it is your thread, and the title was not restricted to a buying relationship, so, OK...we now have

Therefore our list starts
1. The buyers want ratings so that they know their place in the pecking order.
2. The NEWS media use our ratings as a descriptor of strength
3. Players use as a measure of 'self-esteem'.

Now the third one was listed by Ascaro...and may be the same as 1. But a bit of redundancy will not hurt in the early collection of data.
All welcome to contribute.

starter

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 03:52 PM
Hmm
Matt
The PRESS do not pay us any money for ratings.
So they are not 'buyers' of ratings

But on the other hand, it is your thread, and the title was not restricted to a buying relationship, so, OK...we now have
Since when does the starter of a thread get to designate what should be included in it.
On that basis Matt and DR would never get to post in any of my rating threads. ;)

You do yourself no service by including stupid suggestions.

Rincewind
09-09-2004, 03:53 PM
Therefore our list starts
1. The buyers want ratings so that they know their place in the pecking order.
2. The NEWS media use our ratings as a descriptor of strength
3. Players use as a measure of 'self-esteem'.

The two most obvious ones are missing from your list. I won't spoil the surprise as you have already quoted me out of context once today. :hand:

ursogr8
09-09-2004, 04:59 PM
Since when does the starter of a thread get to designate what should be included in it.
On that basis Matt and DR would never get to post in any of my rating threads. ;)

You do yourself no service by including stupid suggestions.

Bill
But, anyhow, I am going to respond >>

For the threads you start, if you have trouble disciplining certain posters on the thread, just let me know, and I will give you a few hints on how to control your thread.

regards,

starter

ursogr8
09-09-2004, 05:10 PM
The two most obvious ones are missing from your list. I won't spoil the surprise as you have already quoted me out of context once today. :hand:

Eh? :confused:

And I was so careful. Was it the 7 ?

starter

Cat
09-09-2004, 06:01 PM
Dave

Thanks for a response that is at least in the spirit of the thread title. I intend to start forming a list of what buyers want when they 'buy' the ACF product called ratings. You have added 'participation in chess' as a potential. Not sure I see how that is part of the product, but is more a consequence of some design feature of the product; like frequency of update, or method of circulation, or parity with FIDE equivalent, etc.
Could you be more specific?

starter

There are 2 things I feel to be important;

1. Structure. Kids need structure, they perform better in a structured environment. One of the problems, as I see it, certainly on the Gold Coast, is that there are times in a child's chess journey that the structure breaks down. They drift aimlessly in the system without any obvious direction for progression. We see this when the kids ratings reach around 1200, some of the kids sit on this rating for inordinate periods, despite obvious maturation in their play. This is because we have a dearth of players in the 1200-1500 bracket, particularly adults. It seems many of our adults with these ratings have disappeared, I suspect because they've been exposed to voracious juniors and become jaded.

2. Reward Not excessive , just appropriate to effort. In some ways this is related to structure.

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 07:07 PM
Bill
But, anyhow, I am going to respond >>

For the threads you start, if you have trouble disciplining certain posters on the thread, just let me know, and I will give you a few hints on how to control your thread.

regards,

starter
I'm quite happy to continue handling the clowns in my usual manner. :owned:

ursogr8
09-09-2004, 08:06 PM
I'm quite happy to continue handling the clowns in my usual manner. :owned:

Thought that would be your response. ;)

Recherché
10-09-2004, 11:20 AM
There are 2 things I feel to be important;

1. Structure...
2. [B]Reward...

If you believe these things are so important, why are you insisting they must be provided by the ACF ratings system? Why not set something up within the relevant club or junior league or whatever you have up there on the Gold Coast?

Garvinator
10-09-2004, 11:53 AM
There are 2 things I feel to be important;

1. Structure. Kids need structure, they perform better in a structured environment. One of the problems, as I see it, certainly on the Gold Coast, is that there are times in a child's chess journey that the structure breaks down. They drift aimlessly in the system without any obvious direction for progression. We see this when the kids ratings reach around 1200, some of the kids sit on this rating for inordinate periods, despite obvious maturation in their play. This is because we have a dearth of players in the 1200-1500 bracket, particularly adults. It seems many of our adults with these ratings have disappeared, I suspect because they've been exposed to voracious juniors and become jaded.

2. Reward Not excessive , just appropriate to effort. In some ways this is related to structure.
so that would mean the players want more competitive games :owned: maybe these players are just after what alot of other players are after, competitive games. So maybe instead of running monster swiss formats, use other formats including different rating divisions, under 1600 etc. Oh thats right, that wont work, cause then that wouldnt be Bill's fault :doh: :P