PDA

View Full Version : What is an "Active player?"



PHAT
18-12-2004, 12:22 PM
The ACF posts a list of "Active Players."

What is the definition of an "Active Player?"

I ask this because many of these players have not played for ages, maybe 2 years?

ursogr8
18-12-2004, 12:32 PM
The ACF posts a list of "Active Players."

What is the definition of an "Active Player?"

I ask this because many of these players have not played for ages, maybe 2 years?

Good question Matt.

And on the same page it lists
Victorian junior ratings/Chesskids: David Cordover http://www.iaccess.com.au/chesskid/rating.txt

which concerned me a bit because this is not an affiliated Club, so why does it get ACF recognition on the RATINGS page.

But, given that it doesn't open in my browser I guess it just needs a bit of housekeeping to delete; Bill?


starter

Bill Gletsos
18-12-2004, 01:38 PM
The ACF posts a list of "Active Players."

What is the definition of an "Active Player?"

I ask this because many of these players have not played for ages, maybe 2 years?
As usual you demonstrate your lack of observation.
The very first line of the "Active" list denotes from when the active period starts.

PHAT
19-12-2004, 07:04 AM
As usual you demonstrate your lack of observation.
The very first line of the "Active" list denotes from when the active period starts.

What does "Players Active from 01/Mar/2003" actually mean?

It could mean, only players who started playing from 01-03-03 onwards.

"Active" could have a threashold definition, say, a mean of X games per period.

I put to you that a player who played a 6 round Swiss over a year and a half ago possibly should not be called "active".

JGB
19-12-2004, 07:20 AM
What does "Players Active from 01/Mar/2003" actually mean?

It could mean, only players who started playing from 01-03-03 onwards.

"Active" could have a threashold definition, say, a mean of X games per period.

I put to you that a player who played a 6 round Swiss over a year and a half ago possibly should not be called "active".

It is a fair statement, and I would also like to know the answer to what defines an 'active' player.

We have a player who's status is currently 'active'; he was a nice old chap, a real shame I attended his funeral march last year. Thats the German system for you. ;)

Rincewind
19-12-2004, 08:50 AM
What does "Players Active from 01/Mar/2003" actually mean?

It could mean, only players who started playing from 01-03-03 onwards.

"Active" could have a threashold definition, say, a mean of X games per period.

I put to you that a player who played a 6 round Swiss over a year and a half ago possibly should not be called "active".

I would suspect it means a player who has played any chess whatsoever (1 game) since March rating period or onwards.

The usage of the term "active" is just to determine if they appear on the active list or not. It is preferrable not to have people drop off that list too quickly, hence the 2 year period. It says nothing about rating reliability.

ursogr8
19-12-2004, 07:05 PM
Bill
Any response on the item in the last sentence of post #2?
starter

Bill Gletsos
19-12-2004, 07:54 PM
Bill
Any response on the item in the last sentence of post #2?
starter
No.

ursogr8
19-12-2004, 08:47 PM
Bill
Any response on the item in the last sentence of post #2?
starter


No.

Bit light on from your usual Bill?

Do you mean
> No. It is not your responsibility to corrrect the web-page, or
> No. The line is correct, or
> No. The line is incorrect, but will stay for other reasons, or
> No. And that is all you will get?


starter

WhiteElephant
19-12-2004, 09:49 PM
Can someone help please? Perhaps Bill?

I have recently played 5 rated games after having been inactive for some years. I currently have a ? next to my name in the ACF Rating List.

Are 5 games sufficient for my rating to change or do I have to play more games for this to happen? Will I now have a ! or !! next to my name or does that require more games too?

Thanks.

W.E.

Alan Shore
19-12-2004, 10:13 PM
Can someone help please? Perhaps Bill?

I have recently played 5 rated games after having been inactive for some years. I currently have a ? next to my name in the ACF Rating List.

Are 5 games sufficient for my rating to change or do I have to play more games for this to happen?

Not only is 5 games sufficient but if you have performed quite above or below your rating, expect it to change a lot, as with a '?' RD your current rating will be quite uncertain and those 5 games will have quite some bearing on your new rating.


Will I now have a ! or !! next to my name or does that require more games too?

I seriously doubt you will go from ? direct to ! Most likely you will either stay ? or have neither ? nor ! but a space, indicating a position somewhere inbetween.

Bill Gletsos
19-12-2004, 10:31 PM
Can someone help please? Perhaps Bill?

I have recently played 5 rated games after having been inactive for some years. I currently have a ? next to my name in the ACF Rating List.

Are 5 games sufficient for my rating to change or do I have to play more games for this to happen? Will I now have a ! or !! next to my name or does that require more games too?

Thanks.

W.E.
5 games would be insufficient to get you a ! or a !!, in fact you may not even lose the ?.

WHat is important with regards the changing of the symbol (which after all is just a representation of a range of RD values) is that your need to play a number of players of vatious rating strengths, plus of course it depends on your results. Also if your resulting performance rating is not close to your rating then your rating is unlikely to change from ? with just 5 results.

As an extreme example consider the fact that Ian Rogers beating 10 players all rated 1200 says nothing about the reliability of Ians rating as he could be 2600 or 2300 and still achieve the same results. If Ian just kept only playing and beating 1200 rated players eventually his indicator would go from !! to ! to space etc.

Bill Gletsos
19-12-2004, 10:34 PM
Not only is 5 games sufficient but if you have performed quite above or below your rating, expect it to change a lot, as with a '?' RD your current rating will be quite uncertain and those 5 games will have quite some bearing on your new rating.
Clearly any rating change would be dependant on his results. If he was rated at 1600 and performed at 1590 his rating isnt going to move that much anyway irrespective of his RD and would not drop below 1590 anyway.

Bill Gletsos
19-12-2004, 10:43 PM
Bit light on from your usual Bill?

Do you mean
> No. It is not your responsibility to corrrect the web-page, or
> No. The line is correct, or
> No. The line is incorrect, but will stay for other reasons, or
> No. And that is all you will get?
No.

Bill Gletsos
19-12-2004, 11:58 PM
What does "Players Active from 01/Mar/2003" actually mean?
This was explained on the old ACF BB.
I wont be repeating myself.


It could mean, only players who started playing from 01-03-03 onwards.
It cpuld but it doesnt.


"Active" could have a threashold definition, say, a mean of X games per period.
It doesnt.


I put to you that a player who played a 6 round Swiss over a year and a half ago possibly should not be called "active".
I am not interested in what you think.

ursogr8
20-12-2004, 07:21 AM
Bit light on from your usual Bill?

Do you mean
> No. It is not your responsibility to corrrect the web-page, or
> No. The line is correct, or
> No. The line is incorrect, but will stay for other reasons, or
> No. And that is all you will get?


starter



No.


Your second response is still equally light on Bill?

Can I try some more ideas?
Do you mean
> No. You don't know, or
> No. You don't care about on the ACF ratings page,or
> No. You are comfortable with the GURU getting ACF-advertising for a service he does not appear to be able to give.

starter

Bill Gletsos
20-12-2004, 06:22 PM
Your second response is still equally light on Bill?

Can I try some more ideas?
Do you mean
> No. You don't know, or
> No. You don't care about on the ACF ratings page,or
> No. You are comfortable with the GURU getting ACF-advertising for a service he does not appear to be able to give.
No.

ursogr8
20-12-2004, 07:14 PM
No.

It took you from 10am to 7.22pm to devise this as the appropriate answer? :P

Bill Gletsos
20-12-2004, 07:25 PM
It took you from 10am to 7.22pm to devise this as the appropriate answer? :P
No.

Alan Shore
20-12-2004, 07:35 PM
Starter, how about you post: 'You're a goose if you say No', that may break the trend ;)

ursogr8
20-12-2004, 07:49 PM
Starter, how about you post: 'You're a goose if you say No', that may break the trend ;)

In a bit of a bind BD; I took a resolution not to use that word.
But it is a very astute test you have devised.
Can't bring myself to do it though.

What we have so far is Bill giving a one word answer to posts inviting some useful responses. Four times he has done this. Unheard of in the last 2 years history of the BB.
The question now is this 'Is 4 occasions enough EVIDENCE to declare a behavioural change?' Since Bill was quarantined to the Coffee Lounge he has not been the same. Is 4 enough? Should I induce a fifth ...just to check the hypothesis?

starter

Rincewind
20-12-2004, 07:51 PM
Starter, how about you post: 'You're a goose if you say No', that may break the trend ;)

Maybe Bill would then retort, "I know you are, but what am I?"
Actually, that could be fun. ;)

ursogr8
20-12-2004, 08:01 PM
Maybe Bill would then retort, "I know you are, but what am I?"
Actually, that could be fun. ;)

Baz

As Bill is want to say "Maybe, and maybe not". ;)


starter