PDA

View Full Version : ACF December 2010 Ratings



Bill Gletsos
30-11-2010, 11:59 PM
The ACF December 2010 rating lists have been sent to the ACF Webmaster and the State Rating Officers.

For the December 2010 rating period there were 122 Tournaments rated (90 Classic, 32 Rapid) and 8967 games of which 6074 were in the ACF Classic rating system and 2893 were in the ACF Rapid rating system.


Top Players
2579!! 0 NSW Zhao, Zong-Yuan [GM]
2488!! 0 ACT Smerdon, David C [GM]
2463!! 7 NSW Xie, George [IM]
2414! 0 NSW Wohl, Aleksander H [IM]
2362!! 0 VIC Johansen, Darryl K [GM]
2326! 0 NSW Sales, Jesse Noel [FM]
2319!! 0 NSW Lane, Gary W [IM]
2315!! 15 QLD Solomon, Stephen J [IM]
2312!! 14 VIC Teichmann, Erik [FM]
2306!! 6 VIC Goldenberg, Igor [IM]
2298!! 0 NSW Rej, Tomek [FM]
2293! 0 VIC Chow, Samuel
2291! 7 NSW Bjelobrk, Igor [FM]
2288!! 15 QLD Ly, Moulthun
2284! 22 NSW Illingworth, Max [FM]
2283!! 16 VIC West, Guy [IM]
2273!! 41 NSW Smirnov, Vladimir [FM]
2272! 0 SA Chapman, Mark [IM]
2270! 0 QLD Froehlich, Peter [IM]
2261! 0 WA Boyd, Tristan
2238!! 16 ACT Ikeda, Junta [FM]
2232!! 14 VIC Wallis, Christopher
2229!! 18 NSW Canfell, Gregory J [FM]
2224!! 20 VIC Rujevic, Mirko [IM]
2221! 5 ACT Ambrus, Endre [FM]
2213!! 4 VIC Sandler, Leonid [IM]
2207!! 38 VIC Cheng, Bobby [FM]
2202! 4 VIC Jordan, Bill [FM]
2190!! 21 VIC Morris, James [IM]
2181!! 0 NSW Scott, Ronald
2181! 0 NSW Feldman, Vladimir [IM]
2180! 9 NSW Tindall, Brett [FM]
2173!! 24 VIC Stojic, Dusan
2173!! 6 VIC Levi, Eddy L [FM]
2170! 0 WA Horstmann, Michael
2168! 0 NSW Samar, Raul
2168!! 16 ACT Brown, Andrew
2167! 0 QLD Caoili, Arianne B [WIM]
2167!! 0 ACT Oliver, Gareth
2162! 0 NSW Hu, Jason
2153! 9 VIC Schon, Eugene
2129!! 3 VIC Jager, Jesse
2127!! 16 NSW Ayvazyan, Armen
2116!! 18 NSW Bird, Andrew
2115! 0 NSW Wright, Neil S
2115!! 6 WA Kurniawan, Stephanus
2113!! 30 VIC Dragicevic, Domagoj
2108! 0 ACT Wei, Michael
2106! 0 NSW Flatow, A (Fred) [FM]
2105! 2 ACT Yuan, Yi
2097! 0 QLD Wongwichit, Phachara
2094! 9 WA Choong, Yita
2093! 0 NSW Chernih, Nicholas
2091! 0 NSW Morris, Michael
2087!! 5 SA Sheldrick, Kevin
2082!! 13 VIC Gorka, Carl
2067!! 31 VIC Tan, Justin
2054!! 1 NSW Charles, Gareth
2049! 6 VIC Booth, Stewart
2048!! 0 NSW McNamara, Gary

Bill Gletsos
30-11-2010, 11:59 PM
Top Females
2167! 0 QLD Caoili, Arianne B [WIM]
2047! 0 NSW Berezina-Feldman, Irina [IM]
1949!! 1 NSW Dekic, Biljana [WIM]
1883! 0 QLD Jule, Alexandra [WIM]
1856!! 23 ACT Guo, Emma [WFM]
1732!! 9 NSW Musaeva, Aina
1725! 9 VIC Yu, Sally
1696!! 6 VIC Wijesuriya, Vineetha
1691! 0 VIC Szuveges, Narelle S [WIM]
1650! 4 VIC Anton, Sarah
1611! 0 NSW Reid, Vaness [WFM]
1609! 0 WA Maris, Natalie A
1593!! 30 ACT Chibnall, Alana
1550!! 7 NSW Chai, Hweimeen
1534! 0 ACT Oliver, Tamzin L
1532!! 24 NSW Drastik, Penelope
1527!! 13 QLD Lyons, Kieran C [WFM]
1483! 0 QLD Simmonds, Leteisha
1477! 0 NSW De Groen, Gunbritt
1419! 8 NSW Mithran, Mirakla

Bill Gletsos
01-12-2010, 12:00 AM
Top Under 20
2288!! 18 QLD Ly, Moulthun
2284! 17 NSW Illingworth, Max [FM]
2238!! 18 ACT Ikeda, Junta [FM]
2232!! 19 VIC Wallis, Christopher
2207!! 12 VIC Cheng, Bobby [FM]
2190!! 15 VIC Morris, James [IM]
2168!! 17 ACT Brown, Andrew
2153! 15 VIC Schon, Eugene
2105! 14 ACT Yuan, Yi
2094! 17 WA Choong, Yita
2067!! 12 VIC Tan, Justin
2043!! 13 VIC Matheson, Laurence
2031!! 14 QLD Nakauchi, Gene [FM]
2021!! 17 QLD McClymont, Brodie
1977!! 12 NSW Chen, Pengyu
1961! 16 VIC Tang, Jason
1958!! 17 SA Zulfic, Fedja
1929!! 17 TAS Dyer, Alastair
1921! 15 NSW Papantoniou, John
1888!! 19 WA Donaldson, Thomas

Bill Gletsos
01-12-2010, 12:00 AM
Top Under 18
2284! 17 NSW Illingworth, Max [FM]
2207!! 12 VIC Cheng, Bobby [FM]
2190!! 15 VIC Morris, James [IM]
2168!! 17 ACT Brown, Andrew
2153! 15 VIC Schon, Eugene
2105! 14 ACT Yuan, Yi
2094! 17 WA Choong, Yita
2067!! 12 VIC Tan, Justin
2043!! 13 VIC Matheson, Laurence
2031!! 14 QLD Nakauchi, Gene [FM]
2021!! 17 QLD McClymont, Brodie
1977!! 12 NSW Chen, Pengyu
1961! 16 VIC Tang, Jason
1958!! 17 SA Zulfic, Fedja
1929!! 17 TAS Dyer, Alastair
1921! 15 NSW Papantoniou, John
1886! 12 QLD Liu, Yi (1997)
1882!! 16 QLD Grigg, Sam
1865!! 17 ACT Setiabudi, Allen
1858! 11 NSW Pan, Andrew

Bill Gletsos
01-12-2010, 12:01 AM
Top Under 16
2207!! 12 VIC Cheng, Bobby [FM]
2190!! 15 VIC Morris, James [IM]
2153! 15 VIC Schon, Eugene
2105! 14 ACT Yuan, Yi
2067!! 12 VIC Tan, Justin
2043!! 13 VIC Matheson, Laurence
2031!! 14 QLD Nakauchi, Gene [FM]
1977!! 12 NSW Chen, Pengyu
1921! 15 NSW Papantoniou, John
1886! 12 QLD Liu, Yi (1997)
1858! 11 NSW Pan, Andrew
1856!! 14 ACT Guo, Emma [WFM]
1838!! 8 NSW Smirnov, Anton
1827! 14 SA Cameron, Alistair
1811! 11 VIC Chan, Michael
1801!! 12 NSW Wang, Oscar
1795!! 13 NSW Ruan, Jack
1745! 10 NSW Gu, Sean
1725! 15 VIC Yu, Sally
1714! 13 NSW Chau, Bernard

Bill Gletsos
01-12-2010, 12:01 AM
Top Under 14
2207!! 12 VIC Cheng, Bobby [FM]
2067!! 12 VIC Tan, Justin
2043!! 13 VIC Matheson, Laurence
1977!! 12 NSW Chen, Pengyu
1886! 12 QLD Liu, Yi (1997)
1858! 11 NSW Pan, Andrew
1838!! 8 NSW Smirnov, Anton
1811! 11 VIC Chan, Michael
1801!! 12 NSW Wang, Oscar
1795!! 13 NSW Ruan, Jack
1745! 10 NSW Gu, Sean
1714! 13 NSW Chau, Bernard
1705!! 13 QLD Stahnke, Alexander
1683!! 13 NSW Perera, Pasan
1678! 12 WA Sam, Ryan
1655!! 11 NSW Chen, Vincent
1647!! 11 NSW Ruan, Harry
1647!! 10 VIC Zelesco, Karl
1646! 12 VIC Yu, Allen
1645! 12 WA Taminsyah, Aston

Bill Gletsos
01-12-2010, 12:02 AM
Top Under 12
1858! 11 NSW Pan, Andrew
1838!! 8 NSW Smirnov, Anton
1811! 11 VIC Chan, Michael
1745! 10 NSW Gu, Sean
1655!! 11 NSW Chen, Vincent
1647!! 11 NSW Ruan, Harry
1647!! 10 VIC Zelesco, Karl
1622! 10 VIC Loh, Zachary
1621!! 11 VIC Dale, Ari
1557! 11 NSW Koh, Cedric
1475! 11 NSW Han, Raymond
1457! 8 VIC Fan, Enoch
1417! 10 QLD Gray, Callum
1413! 10 QLD Lapitan, Daniel
1410! 11 ACT Mason, Stuart
1408! 11 QLD Jack, Martin
1388!! 10 NSW Behar, Joshua
1367!! 10 ACT Derwent, Ethan
1352!! 10 ACT Kethro, Michael
1351! 11 SA Nicholls, Stuart

Bill Gletsos
01-12-2010, 12:02 AM
Top Under 10
1838!! 8 NSW Smirnov, Anton
1457! 8 VIC Fan, Enoch
1316! 9 NSW Siow-Lee, Dylan
1211!! 8 ACT Qi, Glen
1204!! 9 ACT Guo, Jamie-Lee
1159! 9 VIC Wallmueller, Peter
1131! 7 VIC Lim, Ethan
1064! 8 VIC Cannon, David
1053!! 6 NSW Willathgamuwa, Kevin
1052! 9 VIC Yuan, Daniel

Bill Gletsos
01-12-2010, 12:03 AM
Top Females Under 20
1856!! 14 ACT Guo, Emma [WFM]
1725! 15 VIC Yu, Sally
1593!! 18 ACT Chibnall, Alana
1534! 18 ACT Oliver, Tamzin L
1532!! 12 NSW Drastik, Penelope
1483! 13 QLD Simmonds, Leteisha
1419! 12 NSW Mithran, Mirakla
1397!! 13 ACT Setiabudi, Megan
1361!! 12 NSW Gu, Shirley
1330! 12 QLD Bortsova, Natasha
1311! 19 NSW Qiao, Shan-Shan
1301! 12 NSW Shan, Caroline
1261!! 12 NSW Koh, Clarise
1162!! 11 VIC Narenthran, Savithri
1101! 10 VIC Lim, Denise
966! 12 ACT Mason, Joanne
919!! 9 NSW Christian, Kashish
847! 13 NSW Bommireddipalli, Shobana
838!! 9 NSW Gu, Theresa
834! 14 VIC Narenthran, Janaki

Bill Gletsos
01-12-2010, 12:04 AM
Top Seniors
2224!! 63 VIC Rujevic, Mirko [IM]
2106! 72 NSW Flatow, A (Fred) [FM]
2047!! 68 VIC Hamilton, Douglas G [FM]
2037! 61 SA Cowley, Robert G (Bob)
2002! 69 SA Zaric, Srboljub
1971!! 61 NSW Rose, Adrian P
1968!! 62 NSW Jones, Brian A [FM]
1941! 61 NSW Hursky, Karel P
1878!! 62 SA Kerr, Bill
1872!! 69 WA Ellis, David
1853!! 67 SA Mdinaradze, Edgar
1838!! 81 WA Leonhardt, Wolfgang
1832!! 61 NSW Cassettari, Peter
1832! 63 NSW Chen, Yu-Shiun
1829! 82 NSW Viner, Phillip J
1820! 61 NSW Ilic, Ilija
1808! 75 NSW Jens, Henk W
1797!! 70 NSW Tulevski, Vasil G
1783!! 65 VIC Mijatovic, Bosko
1775!! 61 NSW Radev, Nikola

Bill Gletsos
01-12-2010, 12:05 AM
Top Improvers
1532 198 NSW Drastik, Penelope
1036 161 QLD Mills, Gareth
1271 160 NSW Quek, Bob
1663 158 ACT Yin, Wenlin
1977 152 NSW Chen, Pengyu
467 145 ACT Wolffs, Walter
1331 145 VIC Meilicke, George
1107 136 QLD Cervenjak, Matthew
1457 132 VIC Fan, Enoch
1282 130 VIC Mullen, Chris
1257 125 TAS Duiker, Fred
1295 123 NSW Redgrave, Andrew
1230 119 ACT Rostov, Gregory
1131 118 VIC Lim, Ethan
1345 113 NSW Merhi, Alexandre
817 112 VIC Gu, Stephanie
1351 110 NSW Cook, David
1178 102 VIC Foo, Kit Ming
1647 102 VIC Zelesco, Karl
2021 101 QLD McClymont, Brodie
1351 101 SA Nicholls, Stuart
1865 98 ACT Setiabudi, Allen
1272 97 VIC Ni, John
1110 95 ACT Rostov, Marat
1050 95 QLD Slater-Jones, Tom
625 94 VIC Ngai, Kenny
1811 92 VIC Chan, Michael
1146 91 VIC Puccini, Jack
1755 91 VIC Lekkas, Frank
1488 89 NSW Karayi, Valsalan
2067 89 VIC Tan, Justin
1422 89 VIC Simon, Endre

Bill Gletsos
01-12-2010, 12:05 AM
Busiest Players
1838 60 NSW Smirnov, Anton
1407 48 NSW Greenwood, Norman
1647 46 VIC Zelesco, Karl
1758 45 VIC Voon, Richard
1347 44 NSW Tracey, Michael J
1711 44 ACT Ali, Mosaddeque
1678 43 ACT Grcic, Milan
1828 43 VIC Birchall, Ian
2273 41 NSW Smirnov, Vladimir
1352 41 ACT Kethro, Michael
1307 39 ACT Press, Harry
1162 39 VIC Naude, Herman
2207 38 VIC Cheng, Bobby
1495 37 VIC Potter, Christopher
1663 36 ACT Yin, Wenlin
1447 35 ACT Ingham, Glenn
1506 35 NSW Parker, Trent
1431 34 ACT Beare, Nick
1211 32 ACT Qi, Glen
2040 32 NSW Mandla, Blair
1301 32 NSW Roche, Stephen
1930 31 VIC Stojic, Svetozar
2067 31 VIC Tan, Justin
817 31 VIC Gu, Stephanie
1593 30 ACT Chibnall, Alana
1397 30 ACT Setiabudi, Megan
1110 30 ACT Rostov, Marat
1434 30 NSW Losh, Gary
1220 30 NSW Clark, Neil
2113 30 VIC Dragicevic, Domagoj
1874 30 VIC Ly, Thai
1865 29 ACT Setiabudi, Allen
1591 29 NSW Baterowicz, Mark
1290 29 VIC Chew Lee, Max
1526 28 VIC Flude, David A
1592 28 VIC Brown, Kevin M
1633 28 VIC Chmiel, Rad
790 28 VIC Yung, Pearl
1516 28 VIC Chong, Reginald
2031 28 QLD Nakauchi, Gene

Bill Gletsos
01-12-2010, 12:05 AM
Category Players Percentage
2500..2599 1 0.05
2400..2499 3 0.18
2300..2399 8 0.54
2200..2299 24 1.62
2100..2199 26 2.80
2000..2099 45 4.82
1900..1999 67 7.84
1800..1899 112 12.89
1700..1799 129 18.71
1600..1699 182 26.92
1500..1599 191 35.53
1400..1499 223 45.58
1300..1399 202 54.69
1200..1299 173 62.49
1100..1199 154 69.43
1000..1099 122 74.93
900.. 999 95 79.22
800.. 899 89 83.23
700.. 799 70 86.38
600.. 699 66 89.36
500.. 599 49 91.57
400.. 499 59 94.23
300.. 399 50 96.48
200.. 299 38 98.20
100.. 199 40 100.00

Bill Gletsos
01-12-2010, 12:06 AM
Normal Tournaments Rated
ACT
30/09/2010 47 9 2010 ACT Junior Championship
05/09/2010 27 6 2010 ACT Open School Playoff
31/10/2010 26 6 2010 ACT Under 14 Championship
03/11/2010 26 6 2010 ANU Spring Swiss
23/09/2010 14 7 2010 B-UC CC Tournament 2
20/10/2010 10 9 2010 Charity Cup
11/11/2010 10 7 2010 Floriade Dark Knights
29/11/2010 16 7 2010 Hetherington Memorial
13/09/2010 22 7 2010 Murrumbidgee Masters
21/11/2010 57 7 2010 Vikings Weekender
NSW
29/09/2010 10 9 2010 Australian Young Masters
23/11/2010 96 1 2010 Big Boards Saints v Norths
08/10/2010 27 11 2010 City of Sydney Junior Championship - Under 12
08/10/2010 23 8 2010 City of Sydney Junior Championship - Under 15
08/10/2010 9 9 2010 City of Sydney Junior Championship - Under 18
01/10/2010 7 7 2010 NSW Girls Championship - Under 18
29/11/2010 8 7 2010 Rooty Hill Club Championship Div A
29/11/2010 8 7 2010 Rooty Hill Club Championship Div B
29/11/2010 8 7 2010 Rooty Hill Club Championship Div C
29/11/2010 12 7 2010 Rooty Hill Club Championship Div D
09/11/2010 49 9 2010 St. George Swiss
20/07/2010 11 7 Central Coast District Championship 2010
20/09/2010 20 9 Easts Winter Chess Challenge 2010
07/11/2010 46 7 Fisher's Ghost 2010
09/11/2010 71 9 Ford Memorial Open Tournament 2010
30/11/2010 16 7 Gosford Club Championship 2010
17/10/2010 30 7 Gosford Open 2010
31/08/2010 12 6 Gosford Winter Swiss
22/11/2010 21 9 Harbord Diggers H'cap
12/10/2010 32 1 Little Board Norths V Harbord Diggers Second Leg 2010
13/10/2010 34 9 NSW State Championship 2010
25/11/2010 25 9 Parrramatta RSL Club Swiss 2010
29/09/2010 37 9 Rooty Hill Open 2010
24/11/2010 6 5 Ryde Eastwood Club Championship Final 2010
04/10/2010 63 7 Ryde Eastwood Open 2010
28/09/2010 10 9 Wgong A Grade 2010
19/10/2010 12 11 Wgong B Grade 2010
QLD
18/11/2010 21 9 2010 BCC Club Championship
09/09/2010 16 5 2010 BCC Tal Memorial Division A
09/09/2010 13 5 2010 BCC Tal Memorial Division B
19/09/2010 53 6 2010 Nell Van De Graaff Classic
03/10/2010 10 6 2010 Qld Veterans Championship
03/10/2010 6 5 2010 Qld Womens Championship
10/11/2010 18 7 2010 Redcliffe Club Championship
10/10/2010 56 6 2010 Wendy Terry Memorial
06/09/2010 12 8 Junior Masters A T3 2010
06/09/2010 14 8 Junior Masters B T3 2010
10/08/2010 25 7 SCC Championships
05/11/2010 14 14 The Gap Chess Club - Stuart Wilson Trophy
SA
03/10/2010 14 6 Labour Day 2010
26/10/2010 35 7 SA Interclub Pennant B 2010
26/10/2010 36 7 SA Pennant Matches A Grade 2010
TAS
24/10/2010 13 6 Burnie Shines 2010
29/11/2010 7 7 HICC Champs 2010 Part 1
29/11/2010 7 7 HICC Champs 2010 Part 2
29/09/2010 14 13 Robert Isted Memorial Tournament 2010
05/09/2010 6 5 U18 TJCC 2010
VIC
05/10/2010 10 9 Box Hill Masters
19/11/2010 43 6 Box Hill Spring Grades
07/09/2010 26 7 Canterbury July Swiss
10/09/2010 55 9 Canterbury Open
16/09/2010 14 5 Croydon "The Frost"
25/11/2010 16 7 Croydon Club Championship
03/10/2010 38 5 Croydon Guy West Classic
24/11/2010 35 9 Dandenong Club Championship
01/09/2010 8 7 Dandenong Grades Tournament (A Grade)
01/09/2010 8 7 Dandenong Grades Tournament (B Grade)
01/09/2010 8 7 Dandenong Grades Tournament (C Grade)
01/09/2010 8 7 Dandenong Grades Tournament (Premier Grade)
23/11/2010 8 7 Hobsons Bay/Yarraville Club Championship
13/11/2010 6 5 Hobsons Bay/Yarraville Junior Club Championship
13/11/2010 3 6 Hobsons Bay/Yarraville Junior Reserves Club Championship
23/11/2010 10 7 Hobsons Bay/Yarraville Reserves Club Championship
21/09/2010 13 6 Hobsons Bay/Yarraville Teams Championship
02/11/2010 64 9 MCC Cup Weekender
08/11/2010 24 9 Melbourne Open
20/11/2010 9 9 Noble Park Challengers
20/11/2010 10 9 Noble Park Masters
07/09/2010 33 7 Ranges Club Championship
19/09/2010 35 6 Ranges Spring Break Weekender
03/10/2010 17 6 Victorian Country Championship
21/11/2010 40 7 Victorian Teams Championship (Division 1)
21/11/2010 103 7 Victorian Teams Championship (Division 2)
WA
16/09/2010 8 1 2010 Harris Edwardes 'B' Final
20/10/2010 7 7 2010 Perth Chess Club BRR 'A' division
20/10/2010 8 7 2010 Perth Chess Club BRR 'B' division
20/10/2010 6 5 2010 Perth Chess Club BRR 'C' division
29/08/2010 10 9 2010 WA Closed Chess Championship
22/08/2010 8 7 2010 WA Qualifying/Reserves
03/10/2010 22 6 2010 Willetton Open

Bill Gletsos
01-12-2010, 12:07 AM
Rapid Tournaments Rated
ACT
19/09/2010 37 7 2010 ACT Junior Rapid Championship
19/09/2010 12 7 2010 ACT Junior Rapid Reserves
15/09/2010 27 6 2010 ANU Spring Rapid
05/11/2010 23 7 2010 Amaroo School EOY
19/11/2010 74 7 2010 Curtin Invitational
17/09/2010 52 6 2010 Curtin Primary Term 3
12/11/2010 45 5 2010 Curtin Primary Term 4
11/10/2010 16 6 2010 Namadgi Naturals
11/09/2010 17 7 Street Chess 11 September 2010
16/10/2010 24 7 Street Chess 16 October 2010
23/10/2010 23 7 Street Chess 23 October 2010
30/10/2010 18 7 Street Chess 30 October 2010
04/09/2010 18 7 Street Chess 4 September 2010
06/11/2010 14 7 Street Chess 6 November 2010
09/10/2010 21 7 Street Chess 9 October 2010
NSW
07/09/2010 47 9 2010 St. George Rapid
06/10/2010 21 21 Bobby Fischer Cup 2010
SA
09/11/2010 20 5 Lidums November Allegro 2010
23/11/2010 14 6 November Rapid 2010
30/11/2010 20 5 Summer Allegro 2010
VIC
01/10/2010 21 5 Box Hill Allegro (October)
17/09/2010 23 5 Box Hill Allegro (September)
29/10/2010 16 5 Box Hill Allegro 2 (October)
28/09/2010 11 8 Canterbury Rapidplay Tournament
14/11/2010 71 7 Canterbury Rookies & Queens Cup (November)
10/10/2010 77 7 Canterbury Rookies & Queens Cup (October)
12/09/2010 58 7 Canterbury Rookies & Queens Cup (September)
05/09/2010 35 7 Canterbury Sunday Junior Coaching Group Tournament (Term 3)
07/09/2010 25 7 Canterbury Tuesday Junior Coaching Group Tournament (Term 3)
22/09/2010 30 9 Dandenong Rapidplay Tournament
11/11/2010 18 5 Ranges Thursday Christmas Hamper Rapid
16/11/2010 21 5 Ranges Tuesday Christmas Hamper Rapid

Bill Gletsos
01-12-2010, 01:53 AM
Some regular BB posters ratings:


Ian Rogers - 0 2603?
Smurfo - 0 2488!!
George Xie - 7 2463!!
Solo - 15 2315!!
Erik - 14 2312!!
Igor Goldenberg - 6 2306!!
Guy West - 16 2283!!
Vlad - 41 2273!!
Michael Baron - 0 2265
Tristan Boyd - 0 2261!!
Greg Canfell - 18 2229!!
Leonid Sandler - 4 2213!!
TheRealDeal - 21 2190!!
Duff McKagan - 0 2181!!
Brett Tindall - 9 2180!
Jono - 0 2166
Jason Hu - 0 2162!!
D Dragicevic - 30 2113!!
Chernz - 0 2093!
fireeater - 13 2082!!
Gareth Charles - 1 2054!!
bobby1972 - 1 2039!
macavity - 11 2035!!
BrendanNorman - 0 2022!!
Laura Moylan - 0 1989
Tony D - 0 1987!!
Brian Jones - 4 1968!!
White Elephant - 0 1958?
Goughfather - 12 1957!!
Jason Chan - 0 1951!!
Kerry Stead - 5 1923!!
shan_siddiqi - 0 1917?
paulb - 0 1914!!
Peter Knight - 0 1914?
Lee Jones - 0 1913!
Garrett - 21 1867!!
rob - 6 1860!!
deanhogg - 20 1833!!
JonasMuller - 15 1813!
Ian Rout - 19 1819!!
elevatorescapee - 6 1803!
firegoat7 - 1 1802!
Kevin Bonham - 15 1790!!
Boris - 10 1758
Dougy - 5 1758!
Barry Cox - 5 1757!
Heartbreak Kid - 23 1755!!
Tan the Bdx Man - 0 1753!!
Shaun Press - 10 1732!!
sally94 - 9 1725!!
Nicholas D-C - 7 1724!!
Amiel Rosario - 0 1723!
altecman - 11 1721!
michael.mcguirk - 0 1721!
newlasker - 10 1719!!
charleschadwick - 0 1698
Fenguin - 26 1661!!
Joshua Christensen - 19 1661!!
queenant89 - 4 1650!
phil - 0 1642
maddam12 - 16 1641!!
The_Wise_Man - 0 1639?
PhilD707 - 14 1627!!
whatteaux - 12 1624!!
Candy Cane - 0 1611!
saragossa - 5 1601!
alana - 30 1593!!
Spiny Norman - 5 1576
joergw - 0 1575!!
peteryang - 0 1574
caddict1 - 0 1566
Thunderspirit - 0 1560!
cameronD - 0 1551!
skitterbug - 25 1549!!
The Bennett - 25 1546!!
Kruupy - 0 1549?
Howard Duggan - 0 1538!!
Malfegor01 - 24 1530!!
DavidFlude - 28 1526!!
antichrist - 0 1515??
SHump - 2 1511!!
Trent Parker - 35 1506!!
george - 1 1501!
Alexrules01 - 7 1499!
jbeckman - 13 1491!!
bergil - 9 1488!!
William AS - 0 1484!!
Arrogant-One - 0 1483?
ursogr8 - 1 1481?
JGB - 0 1479
Scott Colliver - 5 1478!
rodmac - 1 1466
glenno9 - 35 1447!!
adamski - 15 1441!!
jabber - 19 1415!
santeb72 - 0 1393??
Phil Bourke - 0 1387!
Paul Sike - 18 1337!!
chesstash - 0 1330!
EGOR - 0 1323
PHAT - 9 1318!!
bunta - 0 1307!
Mokum - 10 1300!!
justaknight - 17 1298!!
mtanner - 2 1281!
watto - 15 1276!!
lost - 8 1276!!
santa - 0 1261
Benny G - 0 1243?
Jaydon - 0 1242?
Eurotrash - 0 1227
Garvin Gray - 0 1193!!
themovingman - 22 1188!!
shelldrake - 0 1132
miranda - 0 1086?
aransandraseg - 0 1062
eclectic - 0 1057!

Garrett
01-12-2010, 06:46 AM
thanks for that Bill.

antichrist
01-12-2010, 07:52 AM
I feel a bit embarrassed - can I just explain that I would be 150 roughly points higher if I did not give queen odds a few times. Will have to earn those points back one day.

ER
01-12-2010, 02:51 PM
Bill once again thanks for the excellent service to the Chess Community! :clap: :clap: :clap:

Ian Rout
01-12-2010, 05:01 PM
ACT players' ratings can now be seen at the ACT ratings page

http://www.ianandjan.com/ian/ratings/

or click the link below to go straight to the list.

Oepty
01-12-2010, 05:35 PM
Thank you Bill for your excellent work again. I am particularly happy because I am fairly certain that I have achieved my highest ever rating. Next goal will be getting it over 1500.
Scott

Adamski
02-12-2010, 10:44 PM
Thanks again for all the work, Bill. And I guess with NSW not having a ratings officer, your ratings workload may even increase next year. But I must quickly reverse the downward trend in my rating. At least I only went down 13points this time.

black
03-12-2010, 12:29 AM
Gary McNamara went down 2 points and is listed as having played no new games.

Sep - 2050!! 16 NSW McNamara, Gary
Dec - 2048!! 0 NSW McNamara, Gary

Is this correct?
Thanks.

antichrist
03-12-2010, 12:44 AM
Gary McNamara went down 2 points and is listed as having played no new games.

Sep - 2050!! 16 NSW McNamara, Gary
Dec - 2048!! 0 NSW McNamara, Gary

Is this correct?
Thanks.
Happened to me a few times, I lost about 10 that way??? Consider it like small account fees at banks even if you make no transactions

Skulte
03-12-2010, 10:34 AM
Consider it like small account fees at banks even if you make no transactions

lol.

Yeah my rapid rating went down 1 point too. Maybe its just bad at maths... 1750 + 0 = 1749

William AS
03-12-2010, 12:21 PM
Thanks Bill. Great job with the ratings, especially the inclusion of 2 very late rapid events from SA. :cool: :clap: :clap:

ER
03-12-2010, 01:15 PM
Hi William since I have you here talking about SA tournaments can we please have a detailed report on 2011 events? I am talking about weekenders! thanks! :)

ER
03-12-2010, 01:23 PM
lol.

Yeah my rapid rating went down 1 point too. Maybe its just bad at maths... 1750 + 0 = 1749

Maybe your rapid rating is not as bad in arithmetic, because in Maths there are certain aspects such as inactivity deviation which the Glicko System takes very seriously! :P

Kevin Bonham
03-12-2010, 03:35 PM
I think when there are changes of just 1 or 2 points with no games played it's more likely because of the effects of reruns when events are received late. Sometimes people only see the initial version and then there is a slight rerun (ie the change actually happened in the previous period) and sometimes there are unfinished games in some event somewhere that are submitted and back-rated later. Even if those games don't involve you there can be a flow-on effect.

A rating doesn't change for inactivity when there are no games played.

ER
03-12-2010, 04:02 PM
...A rating doesn't change for inactivity when there are no games played.
Yes it does! If it doesn't then how can we have a deviation application? Is it purely theoretical to decide some changes if/when the player becomes active again?

Kevin Bonham
03-12-2010, 04:09 PM
Yes it does! If it doesn't then how can we have a deviation application? Is it purely theoretical to decide some changes if/when the player becomes active again?

The rating itself doesn't change but the figures that determine the rate at which the rating goes up and down do.

Bill Gletsos
03-12-2010, 04:10 PM
Gary McNamara went down 2 points and is listed as having played no new games.

Sep - 2050!! 16 NSW McNamara, Gary
Dec - 2048!! 0 NSW McNamara, Gary

Is this correct?
Thanks.Yes.

It is due to previous rating periods being rerun to correct things such as duplicate players, new players from overseas who were not originally identified etc.

Bill Gletsos
03-12-2010, 04:10 PM
Yes it does! If it doesn't then how can we have a deviation application? Is it purely theoretical to decide some changes if/when the player becomes active again?You are wrong.
Kevin is right.

ER
03-12-2010, 04:24 PM
You are wrong.
Kevin is right.

and when you stop playing God get down of your throne and wipe your arse too!

antichrist
03-12-2010, 05:58 PM
and when you stop playing God get down of your throne and wipe your arse too!

I believe Bill has one of those Bidet things with hot air blower - so there smarty pants

Thunderspirit
07-12-2010, 06:28 AM
I've been told there is a slight difference in the numbers between whom is active and who are listed on the percentile placing page on the ACF Website.

Bill/Kevin can you explain this?:hmm:

For the last few years I have been adding up the numbers on the percentile placing page to arrive at a figure of active tournament players in Australia. Over the years the numbers have been steadly dropping, with most lists approximately 50 players a list going from 'active' to 'inactive'. In 2008 when I started there were about 2450 players on the percentile placing and now if my memory serves me correctly this list there is about 2150.

Australian Chess already has some 'fish-bowl' type problems and this can only get worse if the numbers keep dropping, then the enjoyment factor for club players wanting interesting games may decrease further. I don't think the number will ever drop below 2000, but it does show how shaky competitive chess is in Australia.

Anyway signing off...

Ian Rout
07-12-2010, 10:50 AM
I've been told there is a slight difference in the numbers between whom is active and who are listed on the percentile placing page on the ACF Website.

Bill/Kevin can you explain this?:hmm:

For the last few years I have been adding up the numbers on the percentile placing page to arrive at a figure of active tournament players in Australia. Over the years the numbers have been steadly dropping, with most lists approximately 50 players a list going from 'active' to 'inactive'. In 2008 when I started there were about 2450 players on the percentile placing and now if my memory serves me correctly this list there is about 2150.

Australian Chess already has some 'fish-bowl' type problems and this can only get worse if the numbers keep dropping, then the enjoyment factor for club players wanting interesting games may decrease further. I don't think the number will ever drop below 2000, but it does show how shaky competitive chess is in Australia.

Anyway signing off...

I think that if you exclude the Foreign players, and obviously the unrated players, the percentile table reconciles to the active list at 2218.

Thunderspirit
08-12-2010, 05:45 AM
I think that if you exclude the Foreign players, and obviously the unrated players, the percentile table reconciles to the active list at 2218.


The number of 2150 was a guess from memory, so I'm more than happy to accept 2218. I never knew that foriegn players weren't included on list. I was smart enough to work out that unrated weren't included;)

Thanks for info.

Bill Gletsos
18-02-2011, 08:06 PM
As a number of people have been aware, for about the last 24 months the ACF Rating Officers have been testing various systemic changes to further improve predictive accuracy.

As is usual with any systemic change all rating periods from December 2000 thru to December 2010 have been rerun.

These new ratings will be in effect before the calculation and publication of the March 2011 ratings.

One effect of this change is that the average rating of players on the December 2010 list is increased by around 73 points.

Some regular BB posters revised December ratings are:


Ian Rogers - 0 2634?
Smurfo - 0 2546!!
George Xie - 7 2539!!
Solo - 15 2396!!
Erik - 14 2391!!
Igor Goldenberg - 6 2390!!
Guy West - 16 2371!!
Vlad - 41 2361!!
Michael Baron - 0 2320
Tristan Boyd - 0 2341!!
Greg Canfell - 18 2301!!
Leonid Sandler - 4 2301!!
TheRealDeal - 21 2281!!
Duff McKagan - 0 2256!!
Jason Hu - 0 2245!!
Brett Tindall - 9 2236!
Jono - 0 2218
D Dragicevic - 30 2212!!
fireeater - 13 2182!!
Chernz - 0 2160!
Gareth Charles - 1 2151!!
macavity - 11 2137!!
bobby1972 - 1 2132!
BrendanNorman - 0 2108!!
Tony D - 0 2078!!
Brian Jones - 4 2069!!
Laura Moylan - 0 2040
Goughfather - 12 2055!!
Jason Chan - 0 2037!!
Kerry Stead - 5 2019!!
paulb - 0 1998!!
Lee Jones - 0 1993
shan_siddiqi - 0 1992?
White Elephant - 0 1981?
Garrett - 21 1965!!
rob - 6 1951!!
Peter Knight - 0 1946?
deanhogg - 20 1938!!
Ian Rout - 19 1925!!
Peter Abbott - 1 1921!!
JonasMuller - 15 1902!
firegoat7 - 1 1898!
Kevin Bonham - 15 1896!!
elevatorescapee - 6 1886!
Barry Cox - 5 1859!
Boris - 10 1856
Heartbreak Kid - 23 1853!!
Dougy - 5 1845!
Tan the Bdx Man - 0 1838!
Shaun Press - 10 1834!!
newlasker - 10 1829!!
sally94 - 9 1827!!
Nicholas D-C - 7 1822!!
altecman - 11 1821!!
Amiel Rosario - 0 1781!
michael.mcguirk - 0 1780!
Joshua Christensen - 19 1765!!
Fenguin - 26 1764!!
charleschadwick - 0 1759
queenant89 - 4 1753!
maddam12 - 16 1741!!
PhilD707 - 14 1735!!
whatteaux - 12 1713!!
saragossa - 5 1709!
The_Wise_Man - 0 1704?
alana - 30 1695!!
Candy Cane - 0 1689!
phil - 0 1672
Spiny Norman - 5 1665
joergw - 0 1662!!
peteryang - 0 1655
caddict1 - 0 1653
skitterbug - 25 1652!!
The Bennett - 25 1648!!
Thunderspirit - 0 1645!
cameronD - 0 1634!
DavidFlude - 28 1633!!
Howard Duggan - 0 1632!!
Malfegor01 - 24 1631!!
Trent Parker - 35 1611!!
SHump - 2 1610!!
Kruupy - 0 1608?
Alexrules01 - 7 1597!
jbeckman - 13 1597!!
bergil - 9 1594!!
george - 1 1589!
ursogr8 - 1 1588?
Scott Colliver - 5 1572!
William AS - 0 1568!!
rodmac - 1 1567
glenno9 - 35 1550!!
adamski - 15 1547!!
JGB - 0 1543
Arrogant-One - 0 1537?
jabber - 19 1497!
antichrist - 0 1477??
Phil Bourke - 0 1464!
santeb72 - 0 1451??
Paul Sike - 18 1439!!
PHAT - 9 1426!!
chesstash - 0 1414!
Mokum - 10 1405!!
justaknight - 17 1403!!
EGOR - 0 1398
bunta - 0 1390!
mtanner - 2 1384!
watto - 15 1380!!
lost - 8 1375!!
santa - 0 1318
Jaydon - 0 1312?
Eurotrash - 0 1303
Benny G - 0 1291?
Garvin Gray - 0 1290!!
themovingman - 22 1288!!
shelldrake - 0 1207
miranda - 0 1176?
eclectic - 0 1140!
aransandraseg - 0 1136

Spiny Norman
18-02-2011, 08:48 PM
... the average rating of players on the December 2010 list is increased by around 73 points.

<snip>
Spiny Norman - 5 1665

Well shave my legs and call me Smoothy!

Bill, about 6 years ago I set myself a goal to improve my play and increase my rating up to 1600+ ... at the time it was barely over 1100 ... and tonight I login to find that I've reached my goal ... I've come over all emotional and am not sure how to respond ... :doh: ... :lol: ... I'd like to thank my wife and kids, my parents (without whom I would not be here) ... :eek:

Basil
18-02-2011, 08:53 PM
Well shave my legs and call me Smoothy!
ditto

Oepty
18-02-2011, 10:58 PM
Bill, love my new rating, went up more than the average which is good.
Are the changes to the rating system an attempt to correct for deflation in the ratings?
Scott

Garvinator
18-02-2011, 11:35 PM
I really do not get the point of the changes.

Bill Gletsos
18-02-2011, 11:43 PM
Some junior ratings are:


Max Illingworth - 2363
Bobby Cheng - 2298
Andrew Brown - 2257
Eugene Schon - 2248
Yi Yuan - 2206
Justin Tan - 2168
Laurence Matheson - 2141
Pengyu Chen - 2076
Fedja Zulfic - 2052
Alastair Dyer - 2036
Emma Guo - 1952
Andrew Pan - 1944
Anton Smirnov - 1935
Michael Chan - 1913
Oscar Wang - 1899
Sean Gu - 1831
Karl Zelesco - 1749
Ari Dale - 1722
Zachary Low - 1722
Enoch Fan - 1556

Kevin Bonham
19-02-2011, 12:06 AM
I really do not get the point of the changes.

Well it was explained by Bill: to improve predictive accuracy. That is, after all, what good ratings systems are supposed to do: predict.

The Ratings Officers have come up with some new methods (I am not currently sure of the exact method details, though I know some of the things they were trying) that improve the predictiveness of the system. It just so happens that at the same time these changes lead to a moderate sized average increase, which also has the effect of correcting for a small degree of deflation that has probably occurred over the last decade, and avoiding the need for a general uplift for top-end FIDE parity purposes. I think had these improvements not been found there would have been a FIDE realignment uplift anyway, but this is a much better way to do it. After all, uplifts of an entire ratings pool by a constant amount do not improve predictiveness.


Alastair Dyer - 2036

Alastair stated an ambition to break 2000 in an interview a few years ago when he was in the high 1700s, and now he is there. :clap: :clap: :clap:

Adamski
19-02-2011, 11:14 PM
Hallelujah! I went up from 1441 to 1547! More than the average! Maybe i got more credit for beating Donato Mallari at Rooty Hill, who was unrated when I beat him but has since beat many and is rated over 1800 now I think. One of my better results in a lean 2010 chess-wise.

Kevin Bonham
19-02-2011, 11:52 PM
Generally the more active players will go up more than the average, which is probably also a sign that there was a small amount of deflation in the previous ratings.

Trent Parker
20-02-2011, 09:55 AM
Trent Parker - 35 1611!!

up from 1506....

I for one am not happy.

I think any adjustment to the formula for ratings should be done from now on.... not retrospectively.

Initial response: I will not be playing doeberl, I will not be playing NSW Open, I dont think I'll be playing any rated chess under this, what I feel is over inflated rating.

One main goal of mine was to win a tournament. I feel my only hope is to win a minor. Unless i sandbag my rating I will not be able to play in any minor. To me, besides probably the ACF, find sandbagging unethical.

Call me superficial, call me stupid, call me what you will. I dont care.

I see myself under my initial reaction losing interest in chess and hence chess admin.

We'll see how I feel in a couple of days.

Basil
20-02-2011, 10:05 AM
Call me superficial, call me stupid, call me what you will. I dont care.
Hey there Mr Superficial, how would you feel about the issue if minor tournies became, say, U1700 affairs?

Trent Parker
20-02-2011, 10:37 AM
Hey there Mr Superficial, how would you feel about the issue if minor tournies became, say, U1700 affairs?
That will never happen.

And if it does happen it will be insane.

Doeberl have already advertised an U1200, U1600, U2000 and Premier division. In any other year if a player went over the threshhold the stance would be "bad luck buddy". I cannot see Doeberl changing their tournaments. Players would have entered on the basis that it was an Under 1600 / 2000 tournament. Same goes for SIO same goes for NSWCA NSW Open.

Question: Did Tournaments change their ratings division years ago when the previous 100 points and 70 point "uplifts" occured. I think it was when I was just starting or just before I started playing chess...

I dont think they did and there is no reason for them to now.

Garvinator
20-02-2011, 12:22 PM
I really wish we could hear more from Bill Gletsos about these changes because they make me feel really uncomfortable.

In the tournaments I do get to play in, which is not often, I think I am in one of those butter zones for deflation that is mentioned ie Brisbane and Gold Coast.

Plenty of improving juniors, who then quit or only return to weekenders when they have massively improved so taking points away from other players, usually adults but then quit for good so never giving points back and then a new crop of juniors come through, and so the cycle repeats.

That being said, I do not think my small rating has been impacted that much by it.

I do truly believe I am underrated for my previous rating, but that has nothing to do with the opponents, but more to do with tournament conditions, being a state official being asked questions during tournaments etc.

Trent Parker
20-02-2011, 12:41 PM
Another thing I dont like about making these changes effective since 2000 is that under these conditions there could be rating division winners that should not have been eligible for that division..... We cannot go back and change these tournaments retrospectively......

Desmond
20-02-2011, 12:43 PM
That will never happen.

And if it does happen it will be insane.If memory serves, it happened up here with the Tin Cup around the time of the rating increases a few years back. Used to be u1600, now u1750. Seems to be perfectly sensible response to such a change in the ratings system, no insanity required.

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2011, 12:48 PM
I do truly believe I am underrated for my previous rating, but that has nothing to do with the opponents, but more to do with tournament conditions, being a state official being asked questions during tournaments etc.

I know the problem; it is remarkable how some players will discuss state admin issues with me 5-10 mins before an important game without any apparent concern for any impact on my result. Still, the rating system is simply taking the approach that past performance predicts future performance. If you are a state official being asked questions during tournaments and that is affecting your rating, then the system best predicts your future results by assuming this will continue to be the case. :doh:

Garvinator
20-02-2011, 12:49 PM
If memory serves, it happened up here with the Tin Cup around the time of the rating increases a few years back. Used to be u1600, now u1750. Seems to be perfectly sensible response to such a change in the ratings system, no insanity required.There is a practical affect though. This is being done for the March rating list.

Tournaments that want to be part of the Aus GP still need to stay at under 1600 as that is the gp cutoff, so they can not increase to under 1700.

Had this been done for the December rating list, then everything could change and the gp could be run as all under 1700 events.

Also for us here in Qld, the Qld Open already has its advertising out stating an under 1600 division which matches the Aus GP. We can not change that without foregoing GP status for that division.

So now we have less players available than when we first decided on the format.

Desmond
20-02-2011, 01:00 PM
There is a practical affect though. This is being done for the March rating list.

Tournaments that want to be part of the Aus GP still need to stay at under 1600 as that is the gp cutoff, so they can not increase to under 1700.

Had this been done for the December rating list, then everything could change and the gp could be run as all under 1700 events.

Also for us here in Qld, the Qld Open already has its advertising out stating an under 1600 division which matches the Aus GP. We can not change that without foregoing GP status for that division.

So now we have less players available than when we first decided on the format.I would have thought that qualification for u1600 GP points would use a rating at the start of the year, and if your rating increased over the threshold later it wouldn't matter. Otherwise you'd have people getting points in one rating period, not in the next etc.

Trent Parker
20-02-2011, 01:17 PM
If memory serves, it happened up here with the Tin Cup around the time of the rating increases a few years back. Used to be u1600, now u1750. Seems to be perfectly sensible response to such a change in the ratings system, no insanity required.

Thats one in how many tournaments?


I would have thought that qualification for u1600 GP points would use a rating at the start of the year, and if your rating increased over the threshold later it wouldn't matter. Otherwise you'd have people getting points in one rating period, not in the next etc.

This is correct Boris but points for the U1600 Division are gained in the U1600 divisional tournaments which all those in the 1500's which now probably find themselves in the 1600's are now not elligible for, hence little points can be accumulated.

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2011, 01:26 PM
I would have thought that qualification for u1600 GP points would use a rating at the start of the year, and if your rating increased over the threshold later it wouldn't matter.

This is also my understanding of how GP ratings divisions have long operated. I remember a case back in 2001 when an unrated player (as of start of year) was very foolishly allowed to be eligible for the U1600 prize. Turned out he was 2000-ish strength and ended up costing the ACF over $500 as we had to pay him his prize and also move the other prizewinners up a place.

Garvinator
20-02-2011, 01:38 PM
I would have thought that qualification for u1600 GP points would use a rating at the start of the year, and if your rating increased over the threshold later it wouldn't matter. Otherwise you'd have people getting points in one rating period, not in the next etc.It does.

But with the uplifts some players have now moved above 1600 ie Trent and can not play in Under 1600 events ie NSW Open Under 1600 division for him.

I really think these changes should have been made to be brought out for the December period as it seems to affect a lot of people.

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2011, 02:40 PM
What the new ratings are actually showing is that those in Trent's situation are actually stronger than 1600 and have only remained eligible for U1600 events because the small degree of apparent deflation in the existing ratings has muted the measurement of their improvement in playing strength, thus leaving a number of players in the U1600 bracket who actually wouldn't have still been there without that small deflationary effect.

In terms of the GP those who are really affected are those who are still U1600 because they have had to compete with notional U1600s who were actually stronger. But (i) all the still-U1600s are affected by this equally and (ii) if the now-1600+ers are being moved up early in the year and hence unable to score points from U1600 divisions, the now-1600+ers probably won't be a factor for U1600 prizes anyway.

That's assuming the GP points will continue to be calculated using the ratings as released in late 2010 rather than the current rerun of those ratings, and I'm not sure of the answer to that question yet.

Trent Parker
20-02-2011, 02:53 PM
OK then Lets Run each Year's GP results again and see what changes are then..... shall we?

I would like to Know what Johnathen Shen's march 2007 rating would be as well as mine.

I think the only deflationary trends in The original rating system is that lower rated improving juniors are beating higher rated players and then those players are possibly beating other higher rated players and so on and so
when there was discussion of ratings changing I thought it would be a minor adjustment..... not retrospective over 10 years of play......

I now have as much trust in the ACF master Ratings as I have always had in the Rapid Ratings - None.

Desmond
20-02-2011, 03:01 PM
Thats one in how many tournaments?1 more than "never...insane" etc. Not my fault if the rest of country is tardy in following Qld example. ;)

Garvinator
20-02-2011, 03:49 PM
That's assuming the GP points will continue to be calculated using the ratings as released in late 2010 rather than the current rerun of those ratings, and I'm not sure of the answer to that question yet.Since the 'new' ratings are altered December 2010 ratings, I think the ratings of everyone for the Aus GP will need to be updated. In fact this should probably be done as a matter of urgency.

Brian Jones?????

Denis_Jessop
20-02-2011, 04:06 PM
That will never happen.

And if it does happen it will be insane.

Doeberl have already advertised an U1200, U1600, U2000 and Premier division. In any other year if a player went over the threshhold the stance would be "bad luck buddy". I cannot see Doeberl changing their tournaments. Players would have entered on the basis that it was an Under 1600 / 2000 tournament. Same goes for SIO same goes for NSWCA NSW Open.

Question: Did Tournaments change their ratings division years ago when the previous 100 points and 70 point "uplifts" occured. I think it was when I was just starting or just before I started playing chess...

I dont think they did and there is no reason for them to now.

When the 150 points uplift was made some years ago, the cut-off for the Australian Championship was adjusted to take it into account.

DJ

Trent Parker
20-02-2011, 04:14 PM
Question: does anyone know of any other sporting/recreation organisations who rate their players/teams retrospectively when a rating calculation change is implemented? I cannot currently find any on the internet.

Garvinator
20-02-2011, 04:28 PM
Question: does anyone know of any other sporting/recreation organisations who rate their players/teams retrospectively when a rating calculation change is implemented? I cannot currently find any on the internet.Almost no sporting body uses a rating system. They all use ranking systems.

Trent Parker
20-02-2011, 04:32 PM
Almost no sporting body uses a rating system. They all use ranking systems.


Same crap different smell....

they still use numbers to determine their rankings

Garvinator
20-02-2011, 05:47 PM
I wonder, would there be such a push back if there was no under 1600 divisions and instead all organisers used one division swiss or accelerated pairings with no pre-announced division cut off?

Desmond
20-02-2011, 06:11 PM
Same crap different smell....

they still use numbers to determine their rankings
Do ranking systems need to think about deflation and parity with other ranking systems. Nup.

Basil
20-02-2011, 06:19 PM
Hey Trent, have we been dudding the real U1500s for years!?

Trent Parker
20-02-2011, 06:26 PM
I dont think so..... I never seem to place anywhere but my goal is to.

{edit} Was to

Oepty
20-02-2011, 06:37 PM
Is there going to be a full list of the revised December 2010 ratings released and put on the ACF website?
Scott

Rincewind
20-02-2011, 06:41 PM
Is there going to be a full list of the revised December 2010 ratings released and put on the ACF website?
Scott

I didn't think so. Given the closeness of the March ratings I expect new ratings would be published then. The recalculated December ratings here are probably just to get a taste of the new calibration.

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2011, 06:50 PM
Since the 'new' ratings are altered December 2010 ratings, I think the ratings of everyone for the Aus GP will need to be updated.

This didn't happen with any of the previous uplifts/reruns. People just stayed where they were at the start of the year. Although new ratings have been calculated, it doesn't look like a full set of new ratings will be released until the March 2011 list.

Oepty
20-02-2011, 07:03 PM
I didn't think so. Given the closeness of the March ratings I expect new ratings would be published then. The recalculated December ratings here are probably just to get a taste of the new calibration.

I do not think it is fair that some people, me included, get to know what their revised December 2010 ratings are, it should be everyone or no one. As it cannot be no one then it should be everyone. I had assumed they were going to be released but when they had not appeared thought I would ask.
Scott

Garvinator
20-02-2011, 07:47 PM
This didn't happen with any of the previous uplifts/reruns. People just stayed where they were at the start of the year. Although new ratings have been calculated, it doesn't look like a full set of new ratings will be released until the March 2011 list.Was this because it was actually discussed and decided not to, or because no discussion was held by the ACF?

I strongly suspect the latter.

Bill Gletsos
20-02-2011, 07:52 PM
I would like to Know what Johnathen Shen's march 2007 rating would be as well as mine.His published March 2007 was 1579 and yours was 1483.
Under the new ratings his would have been 1546 and yours 1502.

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2011, 08:07 PM
Was this because it was actually discussed and decided not to, or because no discussion was held by the ACF?

I strongly suspect the latter.

I can't recall what went on back in 2000 (150 point uplift) and my email records only go back to a few months after it happened. For 2004 the 70-point FIDE parity uplift was widely discussed here but I can't find any evidence that anyone here even discussed possible impacts re the GP.

I think the reason for that is that the GP was in a difficult condition about that time; it went through quite a few changes of personnel and results were often not collated and released until after the year had finished. Norm Braybrooke resigned in 2003 and was replaced by Robert Keast in 2004 who started with a lot of energy then had to stop, and was then replaced by ... you! Actually you may well have had some dealings with this issue at the time.

Bill Gletsos
20-02-2011, 08:17 PM
up from 1506....Your published December 2006 rating was 1492. Do you really believe that over 4 years later and 450+ games you are only a 14 point better player.

Garvinator
20-02-2011, 08:34 PM
Robert Keast in 2004 who started with a lot of energy then had to stop, and was then replaced by ... you! Actually you may well have had some dealings with this issue at the time.I am sorry, I do not recall anything from that time ;) ;) ;)

There was no discussion of this issue at that time that I can recall.

Btw, I notice that fg7 is now rated above you KB :lol: :uhoh:

sleepless
20-02-2011, 08:37 PM
Thanks for doing the review Bill. Now that Trent's out of the way I'm set to win all those tournaments he can't enter. ;)

Denis_Jessop
20-02-2011, 09:06 PM
I am sorry, I do not recall anything from that time ;) ;) ;)

There was no discussion of this issue at that time that I can recall.

Btw, I notice that fg7 is now rated above you KB :lol: :uhoh:

Garvin

The issue of adjusting the Glicko 2 system to maintain its accuracy (or words to that effect) was discussed in the ACF Council some time ago (before you were a member) and a resolution passed which still stands allowing the Ratings Officers to make modifications, as I recall. I don't have the actual resolution before me but could probably find it if necessary.

DJ

Garvinator
20-02-2011, 09:18 PM
Garvin

The issue of adjusting the Glicko 2 system to maintain its accuracy (or words to that effect) was discussed in the ACF Council some time ago (before you were a member) and a resolution passed which still stands allowing the Ratings Officers to make modifications, as I recall. I don't have the actual resolution before me but could probably find it if necessary.

DJSheesh, it is amazing how many people have completely missed the boat about what I am banging on about. Now you have done it as well Denis.

I am not challenging the ACF rating officers ability to make decisions about the ACF rating system, or claiming that nothing was discussed on that matter when I know it has been.

What I have been saying is, now we have new 2010 ACF December ratings, that the ratings that are set for each player in the 2011 YULGILBAR-THINK BIG AUSTRALIAN CHESS GRAND PRIX should be changed to match the adjusted 2010 ACF December ratings.

I asked if the issue of resetting Aus GP ratings was discussed when previous uplifts have occurred. I also said that I doubted it.

I wonder if this will ever even be discussed by the ACF council/executive.

Bill Gletsos
20-02-2011, 09:33 PM
Is there going to be a full list of the revised December 2010 ratings released and put on the ACF website?
ScottNo.
I simply posted the ones I did because they covered a wide area of the rating pool and were indicative of the changes.

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2011, 09:40 PM
Btw, I notice that fg7 is now rated above you KB :lol: :uhoh:

He was on the original December 2010 list too, by 12 points, and rightly so after one mediocre and one mostly bad result in the last ratings period. The revised list narrows it to 2.

I should do a historical graph of it sometime. Once upon a time he was way ahead of me but at some point a strange attractor function has developed so that if one of us loses or gains points the other's rating tends to move to match it. :lol:


I wonder if this will ever even be discussed by the ACF council/executive.

Well it will very likely be discussed at the next Council meeting at least, if somebody asks the Secretary to put it on the agenda (hint, hint).

Garvinator
21-02-2011, 12:42 AM
Well it will very likely be discussed at the next Council meeting at least, if somebody asks the Secretary to put it on the agenda (hint, hint).What is the point of having to wait till April to discuss something that can be done by email now?

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2011, 01:06 AM
What is the point of having to wait till April to discuss something that can be done by email now?

Then do it, if you want to. Absolutely nothing to stop anyone on Council from discussing anything they like with the rest of Council by this method at any time.

The one limitation of email discussion is that motions are more or less pointless unless consensus is established before they are moved.

Trent Parker
21-02-2011, 04:01 PM
His published March 2007 was 1579 and yours was 1483.
Under the new ratings his would have been 1546 and yours 1502.

Interesting so under the new calculations I've gone upwards over 109 points in the last 3 3/4 years.... interesting.....


Your published December 2006 rating was 1492. Do you really believe that over 4 years later and 450+ games you are only a 14 point better player.

Yup! I had a high point of I think it was something like 1553 and I have had several bad results since.

I have had several bad tournaments since then with only some minor successes in open tournaments....

I have been unhappy with my game for a long time with moments in this years ADW and last years RE weekender but I dont think those would be enough to cover the write off of my Tuggeranong vikings weekender tournament...... My rating has been decreasing due to losing to lower players..... not due to deflation

The Bennett
21-02-2011, 04:14 PM
up from 1506....

I for one am not happy.

I think any adjustment to the formula for ratings should be done from now on.... not retrospectively.

Initial response: I will not be playing doeberl, I will not be playing NSW Open, I dont think I'll be playing any rated chess under this, what I feel is over inflated rating.

One main goal of mine was to win a tournament. I feel my only hope is to win a minor. Unless i sandbag my rating I will not be able to play in any minor. To me, besides probably the ACF, find sandbagging unethical.

Call me superficial, call me stupid, call me what you will. I dont care.

I see myself under my initial reaction losing interest in chess and hence chess admin.

We'll see how I feel in a couple of days.
Now i know that this post is a little old Trent but I for one cannot understand the concept....Why not just play the doeberl major?? In ANY tournmaent you play in you must play to win the tournmanet no matter what the competition is like otherwise there is no point in playing at all. So it doesn't matter whether you play a minor, major or even a world championship, you must play to win the tournament.

This is of course just my opinion,

MB

Trent Parker
21-02-2011, 04:30 PM
Thats right I cant achieve my goals so I aint playing at alll.

The Bennett
21-02-2011, 09:22 PM
.....so you'd rather not play so you can give urself a 0% chance instead of a plausible chance?

Garvinator
21-02-2011, 10:22 PM
.....so you'd rather not play so you can give urself a 0% chance instead of a plausible chance?I think it is also about cost benefit analysis. Trent, and others would rather play in events where they feel they are playing people of similar ability and have even chances to win, rather than playing in events where they are bottom seeds and will spend the first three or four rounds getting crushed most of the time.

It is one of the oddities of the sport that throws players of all standards into the same tournament in the same division, or at least only divides them minimally.

I can think of no other sport that does this.

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2011, 10:29 PM
It is one of the oddities of the sport that throws players of all standards into the same tournament in the same division, or at least only divides them minimally.

I can think of no other sport that does this.

I immediately thought of distance running (plenty of local marathons and half-marathons where average shufflers line up alongside world elite) and a few minutes later thought of the Sydney-Hobart yacht race (maybe not quite the same since the yachts have to meet strict requirements, but a very wide spread of skill, competitiveness and motivation) I'm sure there would be more. Of course, these things will have their equivalents of "ratings prizes".

Rincewind
21-02-2011, 10:36 PM
I immediately thought of distance running (plenty of local marathons and half-marathons where average shufflers line up alongside world elite) and a few minutes later thought of the Sydney-Hobart yacht race. I'm sure there would be more. Of course, these things will have their equivalents of "ratings prizes".

Most athletics and swimming events at the Olympic level effectively do this. Of course competitors have to qualify for their country which makes them some degree better than complete amateur although some countries have very low bars - the Equatorial Guinea swim team comes to mind. Regardless, in many events there are scores of athletes with no real chance of a medal (or even a spot in the final) and only competing for national pride and to be "an Olympian". Generally no rating prizes on offer.

The Bennett
21-02-2011, 11:16 PM
I think it is also about cost benefit analysis. Trent, and others would rather play in events where they feel they are playing people of similar ability and have even chances to win, rather than playing in events where they are bottom seeds and will spend the first three or four rounds getting crushed most of the time.


I can agree to this, however, Trent with the new inflated rated really shouldnt be towards the bottom of the field in the doeberl and NSW open. I also believe that Trent has the potential to beat some very strong players and could learn a lot more if he played against these higher players and got a good game out of it, and I doubt he'll get crush within 10 moves so either way it would be a good learning experiance.

Cheers,

MB

Garvinator
22-02-2011, 01:00 AM
I immediately thought of distance running (plenty of local marathons and half-marathons where average shufflers line up alongside world elite) and a few minutes later thought of the Sydney-Hobart yacht race (maybe not quite the same since the yachts have to meet strict requirements, but a very wide spread of skill, competitiveness and motivation) I'm sure there would be more. Of course, these things will have their equivalents of "ratings prizes".I realised after posting that probably the best example is golf, as in the local Saturday competition that almost all golf clubs have.

In those comps playing standard differ from scratch handicappers to people on 27 to 36.

The biggest difference between a lot of sports and chess is that even though you might lose by plenty ie golf (you finish midfield and lose by 10 shots overall) there are still highlights in that round, a good shot, a decent score on a hole, even though overall you were probably outclassed by many players.

In chess there is no such mini milestones, or even if you feel there are, they are usually wiped away by one blunder, which undoes all those little highlights.

All that really matters is the end result.

Garvinator
22-02-2011, 01:05 AM
I can agree to this, however, Trent with the new inflated rated really shouldnt be towards the bottom of the field in the doeberl and NSW open. I also believe that Trent has the potential to beat some very strong players and could learn a lot more if he played against these higher players and got a good game out of it, and I doubt he'll get crush within 10 moves so either way it would be a good learning experiance.It is a nice feeling to play in some tournaments where you feel like you have a chance of winning a division, rather than just some lucky rating prize.

Also, if a person is going to travel a long way and incur quite a cost, what is the real difference between going to a different club in your own city, compared to playing the same rated people 100's of kms away?

I certainly would not spend $100's just to play in a single division swiss where all I am generally going to do is yo-yo for many rounds. With a 1600 rating, Trent would be right in the middle somewhere and have it even worse.

Basil
22-02-2011, 08:23 AM
OK that's more than enough girls.

All this talk about about being denied rating pool prizes is fine ...

However, it has been determined that ratings deflation has occurred and, like it or not, you now no longer qualify for ratings prizes below your strength. That is what 1600+ players have endured before you, and now it's your turn.

If it helps you get through the night, think of it as that you've had a free run at prizes you shouldn't have had, and been denying others.

Please move along and cork it!

black
22-02-2011, 10:31 AM
Sounds like the new calculations are official?! Is there a place to view the updated list?

Oepty
22-02-2011, 11:16 AM
Sounds like the new calculations are official?! Is there a place to view the updated list?

Nowhere. The updated list is not going to be released, only the ratings posted in this thread are going to be displayed anywhere. A bit of a strange way of doing things but we don't get to see much of how the rating system works, a pity.
Scott

ER
22-02-2011, 11:19 AM
OK that's more than enough girls.

All this talk about about being denied rating pool prizes is fine ...

However, it has been determined that ratings deflation has occurred and, like it or not, you now no longer qualify for ratings prizes below your strength. That is what 1600+ players have endured before you, and now it's your turn.

If it helps you get through the night, think of it as that you've had a free run at prizes you shouldn't have had, and been denying others.

Please move along and cork it!

Nice to see Howie in good form! :clap: Maybe Arsenal's latest heroic draw vs that team (what's their name again?) helped lift his spirits! :P
NOW C'monnnnnnnnn!!!
Play chess, forget about silly ratings and enjoy the game!
I agree 100% with Duggan!

black
22-02-2011, 05:16 PM
Nowhere. The updated list is not going to be released, only the ratings posted in this thread are going to be displayed anywhere. A bit of a strange way of doing things but we don't get to see much of how the rating system works, a pity.
Scott

That sounds too strange to be true. I hope you're wrong.

Rincewind
22-02-2011, 05:26 PM
That sounds too strange to be true. I hope you're wrong.

The December 2010 ratings published on the ACF website are the official ratings for that period. I think a publication of the entire rating list for December 2010 with the new calculations would cause more confusion than anything else.

The new calculations will be used for the March 2011 ratings which should be published in the usual way on the ACF website shortly after the 28 February - depending on ACF webmaster availability, etc.

black
22-02-2011, 06:57 PM
So the rating change being discussed is just theoretical at the moment, and not being used until after the new list (with these calculations) is released in March?

ER
22-02-2011, 07:35 PM
So the rating change being discussed is just theoretical at the moment, and not being used until after the new list (with these calculations) is released in March?

I 'd prefer "unofficial" for the exact moment the ratings were published rather than theoretical!
As for the March ratings list, the figures shown will be adjusted to the players' performances, if any, in tournaments they participated in and sent to the ratings officer on deadlines provided.
That's my understanding anyway!

Kevin Bonham
22-02-2011, 07:40 PM
The March ratings will use the adjusted December ratings as their starting point. Tournaments processed in the current rating period will be rated from that starting point. So just because an expected rating of X has been calculated for a player doesn't mean they will ever actually officially have that rating. There could be players whose temporarily recalculated rating is over certain cutoffs but whose actual official March 2011 rating is under them, for instance. (Not wanting to get the hopes up of anybody hoping for this!) On the other hand there will be players whose ratings have been recalculated and who have since performed above their recalculated ratings, and their ratings will go up even more!

Basil
22-02-2011, 07:57 PM
Or in the case of Trent, ratings will be fixed at 1751 for life :D

black
22-02-2011, 09:02 PM
The March ratings will use the adjusted December ratings as their starting point.

I overlooked where you had already said "These new ratings will be in effect before the calculation and publication of the March 2011 ratings."

Sorry for making you repeat yourself.

I was so confused about keeping this list private until I realsed how close we are to the intended final product. The months are moving too quickly.

Curious to see the new list. Thanks for the reply.

Ninja
22-02-2011, 09:25 PM
(Not wanting to get the hopes up of anybody hoping for this!) !
Personally I wonder why anyone cares?
The point of a rating system is to compare yourself to someone else or to have an idea of the comparative strength of a particular player. The number one requirement for either of these two things to happen is a system that is transparent and that players are able to trust.

The one consistent comment that seems to be made by higher rated players (2000+) when discussing ratings is that their ACF rating means nothing and they do not care about it. Clubs are also starting to notice that the only way to get a good turnout of higher rated players is to FIDE rate their events.

Sadly for everyone that wishes to rave about Glicko (2) vs ELO, it has nothing at all to do with the technical side of the calculation. It is purely that one is transparent and is seen as trusted and understood whilst the other is more about a secret formula whose creators are scared to let out into the public in case it proves that the current ratings system has more to do with dart boards that maths as quite a few people suspect. It is easy to sit back and say trust me, trust me, but more and more players seem not to care.

It is also interesting to note that the Guru has now made his rating system available at no charge to anyone that wants to use it. All the things that the ACF ratings are not. Transparent, real time, online and easy to understand. There are still some bugs and he may have shot himself in the foot by not fixing them before releasing it and not cleaning up the errors in the database, but I still wonder how long it will be before more clubs decide that there is no need for ACF ratings at all. Imagine that, the legacy of Glicko and and all those precious secrets may just turn out to be the Guru supplying rating services to 90% of the country. The thought of that may be enough to have others following Trent out the door :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
22-02-2011, 10:42 PM
Personally I wonder why anyone cares?

Some people care because it affects their eligibility for tournaments.


The point of a rating system is to compare yourself to someone else or to have an idea of the comparative strength of a particular player. The number one requirement for either of these two things to happen is a system that is transparent and that players are able to trust.

Whether those things are actually as paramount as you claim or not, those are actually two different things that are often at cross purposes. To put it simply, many people don't trust systems that they can see don't work, no matter how transparent they are.


The one consistent comment that seems to be made by higher rated players (2000+) when discussing ratings is that their ACF rating means nothing and they do not care about it.

Actually the most consistent comment is silence. The vast majority of 2000+ers don't comment either way. Also, the 2000+ers who don't like Glicko tend to be the 45+ demographic whose ratings might be higher under ELO. Haven't noticed too many complaints from the teenage hotshots whose ratings under national ELO would be 100+ points lower.


Clubs are also starting to notice that the only way to get a good turnout of higher rated players is to FIDE rate their events.

Sure, but not necessarily anything to do with quality of rating system. Players need FIDE ratings for FIDE titles, and even players who have FIDE titles already know that the availability of FIDE points therefore means more entrants and hence a bigger prizepool. Also, fast-improving juniors whose ratings even Glicko can't keep up with, often have higher FIDE ratings because a FIDE rating is so strongly defined by first performances.


It is purely that one is transparent and is seen as trusted and understood [..]

ELO - trusted? I don't think so. Even FIDE distrust their own system to the point that they've sponsored a competition to find a superior replacement. It looks rather likely that whatever wins that competition won't be an easy system to understand. FIDE could well end up eventually switching to a system that's notionally transparent but way beyond most players' understanding.


whilst the other is more about a secret formula whose creators are scared to let out into the public in case it proves that the current ratings system has more to do with dart boards that maths as quite a few people suspect.

Oh really? Maybe those thinking that might like to demonstrate their dart-board-expose skills with reference to Glicko-1 first (see links to the math at http://www.glicko.net/ratings.html). They'll find that a considerably easier exercise than scrutinising Glicko-2, let alone the ACF's implementation of it, but let's see if even one of these "quite a few people" can get out of the toddlers' pool of Glicko-criticism first before taking the above nonsense seriously.

ELO-fetishists might also like to explain why their system performed so badly compared to others in a recent rating system contest.

The Ratings Officers have long taken the point that releasing full details of the system is pointless since very few people will have the ability to replicate it, and it's not a system where people will be able to easily calculate their own ratings. Thus, the most likely result of releasing the details would just be a lot of people writing in with false claims of errors based on misunderstandings.

What is interesting is that the switch from the "transparent"(ly bogus) ELO to Glicko didn't lead to any increase in the number of people writing in to say their rating was wrong or to ask to have something checked.


It is easy to sit back and say trust me, trust me, but more and more players seem not to care.

Actually indifference will always be the general response to any debate about ratings systems, except when ratings systems become clearly ludicrous. The single biggest issue in public opinion about ratings systems is how they handle improving juniors. Glicko does this much better than ELO, and attempts to correct it in ELO tend to bring their own problems. If we switched back to ELO and people saw how terribly ELO handles low-level juniors (who FIDE have not had to worry about too much while they've been below the FIDE ratings floors) we would be getting far more complaints than we are now.

As for David's rating system, I am keeping out of that discussion for now (and abstaining from related ACF motions when they arise) because of commercial conflict of interest.

Rincewind
22-02-2011, 10:57 PM
As for David's rating system, I am keeping out of that discussion for now (and abstaining from related ACF motions when they arise) because of commercial conflict of interest.

If we are talking about tornelo then you are just talking about a web front end to an Elo rating system. It will work as well as Elo used to work before, but it would be a backward step for Australian ratings.

Bill Gletsos
22-02-2011, 11:25 PM
The announcement in post #39 was an attempt to inform people of the planned change to the rating system that would be reflected in the 2011 March ACF ratings.

To this end I published the ratings of some chesschat posters as they were indicative of the change.

As mentioned in post #39 I said that we had tried various systemic changes. Virtually all the changes we tested were more predictively accurate than the current system.

The details I announced in post #39 was based on the one that was the most predictively accurate at that time.

However in hindsight that announcement was premature as testing was still continuing.

Since then a change that leads to greater predictive accuracy has emerged. Further testing of possible changes will continue.

As predictive accuracy is the main aim of a rating system the one that will be implemented prior to the calculation of the 2011 March ratings is the one that is most predictively accurate. A noticeable average increase is still expected.

As such all ratings in posts #39 and #44 should be ignored as should an expectation of an average increase of 73 points.

I apologise for any confusion my premature announcement will have caused.

No publication of recalculated December 2010 ratings will be made.

The announcement of the average rating increase will be made at the time of the publication of the 2011 March ACF ratings on 1st March 2011.

Gattaca
23-02-2011, 01:28 AM
1. Bill deserves credit for trying to improve the Glicko 2 system.

2. Bill deserves criticism for his overly zealous defence of the Glicko in the past when people such as Ian Rogers, Peter Parr and myself pointed out some of its shortcomings. He should have admitted at the time that it wasn't perfect in practice, despite its claimed 'mathematical perfection', and tried to improve it as he is now doing.

3. Bill was silly to publish post 39 when testing was still in progress. It's going to cause distress to some people when their shiny new rating is snatched away.

4. Good on him for frankly admitting to and apologising for that silliness.

5. The main reason for leading Australian players over 45 generally disliking the Glicko was clearly articulated as being its excessive volatility. I for one do not like seeing top players (or any others for that matter) yo-yo-ing up and down because of their most recent couple of results, when their strength is not changing much. Like many of my peers, I want a rating system to reflect the strength of 'mature' players (ones whose understanding of the game is relatively stable) over what we believe is a more representative sample, with less emphasis on their very recent form. Form waxes and wanes too much, and a system based heavily on form is too frenetic, producing too narrow a snapshot of a players strength.

6. The Elo system had a major problem with the perennial under-rating of juniors and Glicko 2 is perhaps better from that one particular viewpoint. However, Glicko sacrifices in other areas to address the under-rating issue... and still fails to solve it. I believe there were amendments to Elo that could have addressed that problem without creating the excessive volatility problem of Glicko amongst players who are essentially stable strength-wise. I have publicly submitted one idea several times, but I don't want to keep revisiting it when it appears we are looking to the future and trying to get Glicko 2 working better.

7. I don't agree that the rating system formula should be kept secret just because if it is published it might lead to silly questions or ill founded challenges. Transparency in something as important as the ratings, where money and prestige can be on the line, for example in Olympiad or other international selections, is desirable. If having the 'great unwashed' submitting foolish questions or complaints is really a major problem then the ACF should at least appoint a group of mathematicians and other interested parties, including some leading chessplayers (who have the most to gain or lose), who are given access to the formula and more importantly the reasoning behind it, and can keep the National Ratings Officer and any assistants accountable.

I say this because the ratings are the property of the chessplayers of Australia and are not a personal fiefdom. The ACF represents the State Associations, who in turn represent their members, the clubs and their players. The ACF has the final say on all aspects of the rating system, although in practice the Ratings Officer will always be given considerable license to make decisions and implement changes, as is reasonable. I believe that the ACF should be proactive in keeping tabs on what changes are being made, why, and how. Issues like retrospectivity should be solidly within the purview of the ACF, not left to the NRO alone. Perhaps more to the point, the ACF should convey to the chess community what decisions are being taken about the rating system, so that the people who elect them know that they are not asleep at the wheel on this most important responsibility. By the way, I really liked the fact that the ACF newsletter had a link to this thread.

8. Overall I'm heartened by Bill's revision of the system and I think the rating system could achieve greater credibility quite quickly if the changes implemented are good. I do think the question of transparency is an important one. It's the old principle of justice not just needing to be done but being seen to be done.

With any such mathematical system it's not so much about the maths, (the numbers are most likely to get crunched accurately), it's the set of rules and parameters that created those numbers that need scrutiny. With Elo a Ratings Officer could drastically alter the finished product just by tweaking the K factor of a particular sub group, maybe deciding arbitrarily that players who had played no tournament games for a year would be given a K factor twice as high as in the past, or whatever. I'm sure it's the same with Glicko 2.

For example, it is being said that the changes being planned will improve predictive accuracy. It would be nice if that was further defined. Will Glicko better predict a players score against another in a match, or their performance rating over the next 20 games, or over the next 50 games? Will it just predict everything about future performance better? How so? That would be a big claim.

To summarise... happy that Bill is trying to improve the system, would like greater transparency about the aims and assumptions behind the formula, don't like any appearance of a private fiefdom, believe that if the mooted changes correct some of the deficiencies of Glicko that the system could gain credibility quickly.

Just my 8 bobs worth. :)

Garvinator
23-02-2011, 04:59 AM
At the moment all I am really interested in what has occurred to make the changes necessary.

Secondly, and I think more importantly, why could these changes not wait till the 2011 December rating list, when then tournament organisers and state associations would have more of a chance to deal with the changes and plan accordingly, instead of having the situation now where quite a few players are going to be moved up out of division groups after tournament details have already been announced.

I know of one player up here who has already booked flights to Sydney for the NSW Open Under 1600 and now may be ineligible to play in that division.

ER
23-02-2011, 05:51 AM
I am making a print out of Gattaca's posting since it is indeed the most serious piece of ratings critique I 've ever seen published anywhere! I am going to go and read it down at Albert Park Lake in peace!
I will study it further during my short QLD break! See you Monday!

that Caesar guy
23-02-2011, 09:34 AM
Even if I played absolutely terribly over the rating period, do I still go up? Because if that's the case, I'm all for it! :D

Oepty
23-02-2011, 09:54 AM
The announcement in post #39 was an attempt to inform people of the planned change to the rating system that would be reflected in the 2011 March ACF ratings.

To this end I published the ratings of some chesschat posters as they were indicative of the change.

As mentioned in post #39 I said that we had tried various systemic changes. Virtually all the changes we tested were more predictively accurate than the current system.

The details I announced in post #39 was based on the one that was the most predictively accurate at that time.

However in hindsight that announcement was premature as testing was still continuing.

Since then a change that leads to greater predictive accuracy has emerged. Further testing of possible changes will continue.

As predictive accuracy is the main aim of a rating system the one that will be implemented prior to the calculation of the 2011 March ratings is the one that is most predictively accurate. A noticeable average increase is still expected.

As such all ratings in posts #39 and #44 should be ignored as should an expectation of an average increase of 73 points.

I apologise for any confusion my premature announcement will have caused.

No publication of recalculated December 2010 ratings will be made.

The announcement of the average rating increase will be made at the time of the publication of the 2011 March ACF ratings on 1st March 2011.

Bill. Thankyou you very much for your hard work and your efforts in improving the system.
Scott

Rincewind
23-02-2011, 10:48 AM
I am making a print out of Gattaca's posting since it is indeed the most serious piece of ratings critique I 've ever seen published anywhere! I am going to go and read it down at Albert Park Lake in peace!
I will study it further during my short QLD break! See you Monday!

I agree it was on the whole a good well thought out post. I don't agree with all of the things said but I certainly agree with a good part of it.

My main points of disagreement are


6. The Elo system had a major problem with the perennial under-rating of juniors and Glicko 2 is perhaps better from that one particular viewpoint. However, Glicko sacrifices in other areas to address the under-rating issue... and still fails to solve it. I believe there were amendments to Elo that could have addressed that problem without creating the excessive volatility problem of Glicko amongst players who are essentially stable strength-wise. I have publicly submitted one idea several times, but I don't want to keep revisiting it when it appears we are looking to the future and trying to get Glicko 2 working better.

This seems to be based on a assumption that we know these players are stable and thus Glicko is obviously wrong. However this is a perception and has not been shown with evidence. Glicko has a number of parameters that would affect the volatility of particular rating there is a system parameter defining the aging of the rating and there is the individual players volatility (a part of Glicko-2) which is effectively a part of the players rating. I haven't been privy to the supporting data but I understand Bill and Graham have spent a lot of effort getting the system parameters as best tuned as possible for the ACF rating system and until I see at least some effort it substantiating the negative side of the volatility argument a dispassionate observer would have to conclude that one explanation is that perhaps perceptions of a volatility issue are simply mistaken.


7. I don't agree that the rating system formula should be kept secret just because if it is published it might lead to silly questions or ill founded challenges. Transparency in something as important as the ratings, where money and prestige can be on the line, for example in Olympiad or other international selections, is desirable. If having the 'great unwashed' submitting foolish questions or complaints is really a major problem then the ACF should at least appoint a group of mathematicians and other interested parties, including some leading chessplayers (who have the most to gain or lose), who are given access to the formula and more importantly the reasoning behind it, and can keep the National Ratings Officer and any assistants accountable.

I agree on the access to information front. I spent some time lobbying Bill to publish the RD and volatility data. At present only an RD indicator (!!, !, etc) is published and no volatility is published. I would still like to see these things published.

However I would add that the basis for the system (the standard Glicko-2) system is in the public domain and available to anyone interested enough to do some reading. Bill has also been quite helpful to me in understanding how the system works. And so I don't see the ACF rating system as a some kind of huge secret. Technical details on the ACF ratings are calculated* means it is not possible for individual or state ratings officers to predict rating adjustments or even check rating adjustments post hoc for potential systematic errors. Reasonable estimate calculations may be performed so that glaring errors can be identified. However I can't say that I have had too many queries on this front in my time (practically 2 years) as NSW state ratings officer.


* Not because these details are secret, but because the rating adjustment effectively if a function of every result in a rating period. Not just the results of the one individual. This effectively means a precise calculation would involve rerunning the entire rating period which is not practical.

Kevin Bonham
23-02-2011, 09:17 PM
A fair few comments in response to Gattaca's post. I feel a bit responsible for some of the content since my displeasure at a couple of the really silly anti-Glicko posts that appeared on the forum yesterday caused me to dish out a few comments with cheapo-laden implications that I probably should have been more careful to avoid. :D

The Ratings Officers have been frequently working to improve and refine the Glicko system since it was first introduced, and a lot of work has been done and many small refinements have been added along the way. I don't recall any claims that Glicko was mathematically perfect, simply that it was a significant improvement on the previous system.

Also, changes that are made to the system aren't evidence that the critics were right all along, except in cases where the changes actually reflect those criticisms. A (fairly rare) instance of the latter was when it was accepted that the system was treating the ratings of top players in too volatile a manner for some practical purposes, and the volatility at the top of the list was reduced.

The funny thing with volatility is that volatile ratings may look strange but do predict performance better than those that change slowly. I think the reason for this is that if the system knocks points off a "stable" strength player for being out of form, they will probably still be out of form when they next play as well. But that's not the shortest bow to draw when doing something like selections where the event a player's being selected for could be very different in nature to what they've been losing a pile of points in recently, so there are a few reasons why I'm glad that decision to scale it back was made. Especially an issue for the ACF quick selection method - good human selectors in my experience will usually spot when a particular rating isn't quite right and ignore it, but the quick selection method doesn't have that luxury.

I don't mind the idea of a committee of mathematically minded people and interested leading players reviewing the ratings system, except that if they were actually holding the Ratings Officers accountable by having the power to alter the system that would be a disaster. Ratings systems shouldn't be designed by committee, especially not if the committee includes members with divergent views on the objectives of the product. An advisory committee would be OK - I suspect its primary function would actually end up being communication though (since if it's advising the ACF which is then meddling in the system that's the same design-by-committee issue again).

I think it would be very good in public relations terms to have a summary paper on the ACF ratings page that explained in relatively simple language how the ACF system worked and what sort of things it took into account, without necessarily including all the smallest details.

By the way the ACF Council does have full overview of changes that are made - there is a standing motion authorising the Ratings Officers to make whatever changes are necessary to improve the system but the changes that are made or are being explored are reported to Council, so there is always the opportunity for Council to move a motion negating them if required. I will often ask questions about upcoming changes if I'm not immediately sure of the basis for them.

As for predictive accuracy, what a rating system is supposed to predict is the player's score against a given field while they are holding that rating (and not years down the track or ago). There are then various different ways of assessing the error level of each different set of rating assumptions, by looking at how well that system implemented using part of the data set would predict the rest of it. In the Sonas rating system contests currently in progress, two error-assessment methods, root mean square error and binomial deviance, have been used. The Ratings Officers are using both of these to compare systems. Compared to the difference between ELO and Glicko-2, the changes that have been made to Glicko-2 are pretty minor in terms of how much they improve the result. Indeed the difference between the version Bill announced prematurely and the subsequent sub-revision relates only to a certain rather rare event and only improves predictability by a trivial amount.

Garvinator
23-02-2011, 09:44 PM
By the way the ACF Council does have full overview of changes that are made - there is a standing motion authorising the Ratings Officers to make whatever changes are necessary to improve the system but the changes that are made or are being explored are reported to Council, so there is always the opportunity for Council to move a motion negating them if required. I will often ask questions about upcoming changes if I'm not immediately sure of the basis for them.

Compared to the difference between ELO and Glicko-2, the changes that have been made to Glicko-2 are pretty minor in terms of how much they improve the result.

Indeed the difference between the version Bill announced prematurely and the subsequent sub-revision relates only to a certain rather rare event and only improves predictability by a trivial amount.
Hello Kevin,

I have chopped a fair bit of your reply to Gattaca to focus on a question I have. It seems from the bit that I have left quoted that you have quite a bit of 'inside' information on this matter. I take it that this came from Bill G ;) but I am wondering if this information was just passed onto you, or the rest of the ACF executive as in general update correspondence?

Kevin Bonham
23-02-2011, 10:56 PM
Garvin - of the paragraphs you cite:

Second and third paragraphs - this is stuff I have been discussing with Bill very recently as I am one of the people he will bounce ideas off in order to get feedback. (I'm not a mathematician, but I am a scientist (and political scientist of sorts!) with experience in projections and modelling and an early mathematical background, so I can be of some use now and then.)

First paragraph - it was advised to the full Council at the January meeting in general terms that the Ratings Officers were looking at possible changes to improve predictiveness and would go ahead with those changes if they did create improvements. Bill then informed the ACF Exec on 9 Feb that changes would occur and of the general nature of the changes. That said, I didn't have any special knowledge of the likely size range of increases or indeed what changes might have produced them until after the expected increases were posted.