PDA

View Full Version : ACF June 2005 Ratings



Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 08:28 PM
The ACF June 2005 rating lists have been sent to the webmaster and State Rating Officers.

For the June 2005 rating period there were 134 Tournaments rated and 10715 games of which 7302 were in the ACF Classic rating system and 3413 were in the ACF Rapid rating system.

Top Players
2648! 7 NSW Rogers, Ian [GM]
2538! 7 QLD Wohl, Aleksander H [IM]
2474!! 11 NSW Lane, Gary W [IM]
2464!! 14 VIC Johansen, Darryl K [GM]
2418!! 14 VIC Smerdon, David C [IM]
2414!! 9 NSW Zhao, Zong-Yuan [IM]
2411!! 14 QLD Solomon, Stephen J [IM]
2405! 0 SA Chapman, Mark [IM]
2399!! 19 VIC Bjelobrk, Igor
2387! 7 SA Tao, Trevor
2374!! 9 VIC Froehlich, Peter [IM]
2369!! 21 VIC West, Guy [IM]
2367!! 24 NSW Xie, George
2358! 0 VIC Sandler, Leonid [IM]
2331!! 0 VIC Depasquale, Chris J [FM]
2327!! 16 NSW Canfell, Gregory J [FM]
2305!! 7 NSW Reilly, Tim [FM]
2297! 0 NSW Feldman, Vladimir [IM]
2296! 0 QLD Caoili, Arianne B [WFM]
2292! 8 NSW Vojvodic, Branislev
2285!! 7 VIC Jordan, Bill [FM]
2285! 14 VIC Baron, Michael [FM]
2249! 0 VIC Levi, Eddy L [FM]
2240!! 8 WA Boyd, Tristan
2240! 0 NSW Cook, Roger S
2240!! 23 VIC Rujevic, Mirko [IM]
2231! 0 VIC Hamilton, Douglas G [FM]
2217!! 5 NSW Tan, Justin
2214!! 13 NSW Rej, Tomek
2202! 0 NSW Scott, Ronald
2197! 7 NSW Flatow, A (Fred) [FM]
2192! 0 VIC Chow, Samuel
2189!! 14 QLD Humphrey, Jonathan
2188! 0 NSW Hirschhorn, Jeremy K
2187!! 14 SA Zaric, Srboljub
2187!! 7 SA Guthrie, Aaron
2184! 0 QLD Sorokina, Anastasia [WIM]
2180! 8 NSW Tindall, Brett [FM]
2180!! 16 NSW Ayvazyan, Armen
2165! 9 NSW Kabir, Ruhul
2164! 17 NSW Koshnitsky, Ngan [WIM]
2157! 7 VIC Booth, Stewart
2154!! 14 WA Lakner, Jay
2151! 9 NSW Berezina - Feldman, Irina [IM]
2149!! 26 VIC Dragicevic, Domagoj
2143!! 20 WA Barber, Haydn J [FM]
2142!! 8 NSW Agulto, Edgardo
2141! 1 NSW Fuller, Maxwell L [FM]
2135! 6 WA Byrne, Stewart J
2132!! 14 VIC Hacche, David J
2125! 0 SA Goldsmith, Alan D
2124!! 11 NSW Goris, Robert
2121!! 18 NSW Charles, Gareth
2120! 4 NSW Samar, Raul
2119! 0 NSW Luchtmeijer, Ton
2110!! 19 VIC Partsi, Dimitry
2109! 0 QLD Abylkassov, Khalimzhan
2108! 3 NSW Bouchaaya, Tony
2107! 0 NSW Halpin, Patrick
2105!! 15 NSW Jones, Brian A [FM]

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 08:29 PM
Top Females
2296! 0 QLD Caoili, Arianne B [WFM]
2184! 0 QLD Sorokina, Anastasia [WIM]
2164! 17 NSW Koshnitsky, Ngan [WIM]
2151! 9 NSW Berezina - Feldman, Irina [IM]
2102!! 16 NSW Moylan, Laura A [WIM]
2071! 6 SA Nguyen, Giang
2050! 0 NSW Eriksson, Ingela
2017!! 10 NSW Dekic, Biljana [WIM]
1801!! 8 NSW Song, Angela
1800! 0 NSW Lane, Nancy L [WIM]
1781! 0 VIC Lee, Michelle
1773!! 14 VIC Szuveges, Narelle S [WFM]
1770! 0 NSW Huddleston, Heather
1767!! 7 VIC Zivanovic, Andjelija
1669!! 29 WA Maris, Natalie A
1660!! 15 ACT Oliver, Shannon
1649!! 14 NSW Harris, Rebecca
1647!! 18 NSW Reid, Vaness
1638! 4 WA Usikov, Anna
1630!! 22 WA Payne, Sophie

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 08:30 PM
Top Under 20
2414!! 18 NSW Zhao, Zong-Yuan
2367!! 19 NSW Xie, George
2296! 18 QLD Caoili, Arianne B
2217!! 19 NSW Tan, Justin
2214!! 18 NSW Rej, Tomek
2192! 17 VIC Chow, Samuel
2071! 19 SA Nguyen, Giang
2069!! 16 NSW Yu, Ronald
2069! 19 NSW Tian, Kuan-Kuan
2049!! 16 NSW Suttor, Vincent
2048!! 18 NSW Zvedeniouk, Ilia
2035!! 10 NSW Song, Raymond
2035!! 15 ACT Wei, Michael
2024!! 18 VIC Bourmistrov, Denis
2016!! 19 VIC Nemeth, Janos
2003!! 17 ACT Jovanovic, Peter
1999!! 18 QLD Wongwichit, Phachara
1999!! 15 VIC Stojic, Dusan
1992! 16 NSW Lubarsky, Kostia
1990!! 13 ACT Ikeda, Junta

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 08:30 PM
Top Under 18
2192! 17 VIC Chow, Samuel
2069!! 16 NSW Yu, Ronald
2049!! 16 NSW Suttor, Vincent
2035!! 10 NSW Song, Raymond
2035!! 15 ACT Wei, Michael
2003!! 17 ACT Jovanovic, Peter
1999!! 15 VIC Stojic, Dusan
1992! 16 NSW Lubarsky, Kostia
1990!! 13 ACT Ikeda, Junta
1987!! 16 ACT Oliver, Gareth
1986!! 14 VIC Wallis, Christopher
1983! 17 NSW O'Chee, Kevin
1982!! 14 SA Obst, James
1979!! 13 QLD Ly, Moulthun
1954!! 17 NSW Hu, Jason
1937!! 16 NSW Morris, Michael
1930!! 15 NSW Cronan, James
1919!! 16 VIC Jager, Jesse
1877!! 15 QLD Barnard, Casey T
1872!! 14 QLD Lazarus, Benjamin

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 08:31 PM
Top Under 16
2035!! 10 NSW Song, Raymond
2035!! 15 ACT Wei, Michael
1999!! 15 VIC Stojic, Dusan
1990!! 13 ACT Ikeda, Junta
1986!! 14 VIC Wallis, Christopher
1982!! 14 SA Obst, James
1979!! 13 QLD Ly, Moulthun
1930!! 15 NSW Cronan, James
1877!! 15 QLD Barnard, Casey T
1872!! 14 QLD Lazarus, Benjamin
1856!! 14 VIC Lugo, Ruperto
1853!! 11 VIC Lin, Zhigen Wilson
1829!! 13 VIC Jia, Jing Qu
1820!! 12 NSW Illingworth, Max
1817!! 14 VIC Vijayakumar, Rukman
1808!! 14 WA Donaldson, Thomas
1801!! 12 NSW Song, Angela
1795!! 13 NSW Huang, Justin
1781! 14 VIC Lee, Michelle
1770! 15 NSW Huddleston, Heather

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 08:32 PM
Top Under 14
2035!! 10 NSW Song, Raymond
1990!! 13 ACT Ikeda, Junta
1979!! 13 QLD Ly, Moulthun
1853!! 11 VIC Lin, Zhigen Wilson
1829!! 13 VIC Jia, Jing Qu
1820!! 12 NSW Illingworth, Max
1801!! 12 NSW Song, Angela
1795!! 13 NSW Huang, Justin
1725!! 13 NSW Tse, Jeffrey
1699!! 13 NSW Levin, Joshua
1633!! 12 WA Choong, Yita
1625!! 12 QLD Anderson, Daniel C
1622!! 12 NSW Wu, Edwin
1620!! 13 ACT Hoang, Khoi
1610!! 12 NSW Harris, Benjamin
1579!! 11 NSW Miranda, Adrian
1571!! 10 VIC Morris, James
1551!! 12 ACT Brown, Andrew
1538!! 10 QLD Finke, Kelvin
1531!! 13 VIC Schlossberg, Jonathan

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 08:33 PM
Top Under 12
2035!! 10 NSW Song, Raymond
1853!! 11 VIC Lin, Zhigen Wilson
1579!! 11 NSW Miranda, Adrian
1571!! 10 VIC Morris, James
1538!! 10 QLD Finke, Kelvin
1472!! 11 NSW Xu, William
1444!! 10 VIC Schon, Eugene
1405!! 11 VIC Vijayakumar, Rengan
1394!! 9 ACT Yuan, Yi
1356!! 11 QLD Russell, Luthien
1312!! 10 ACT Chow, Justin
1302!! 11 VIC Dalton, Samuel
1298!! 11 VIC Tang, Jason
1288!! 11 QLD Grigg, Sam
1261! 11 QLD Blundell, Jian
1256!! 11 QLD Lei, Yitao
1228!! 10 VIC Thakur, Udit
1171!! 10 ACT Xing, Edward
1150!! 11 VIC Somaskanthan, Aingaran
1130!! 11 QLD Pedersen-Lee, Lachlan

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 08:33 PM
Top Under 10
1394!! 9 ACT Yuan, Yi
1129!! 9 ACT Guo, Emma
1024! 7 VIC Liu, Yi
987!! 9 ACT McCook, Jake
970!! 8 NSW Tsui, Edison
936!! 9 VIC Lugo, Jerome
928!! 9 ACT Nguyen, Van
888! 8 NSW Lau, Joshua
860! 9 QLD McCarthy, Oliver
854!! 9 VIC Liu, Nicholas

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 08:34 PM
Top Females Under 20
2296! 18 QLD Caoili, Arianne B
2071! 19 SA Nguyen, Giang
1801!! 12 NSW Song, Angela
1781! 14 VIC Lee, Michelle
1770! 15 NSW Huddleston, Heather
1660!! 18 ACT Oliver, Shannon
1649!! 15 NSW Harris, Rebecca
1647!! 15 NSW Reid, Vaness
1630!! 19 WA Payne, Sophie
1476!! 15 QLD Jule, Alexandra
1409! 14 QLD Evans, Amy L
1373! 14 VIC Hickman, Casey
1356!! 11 QLD Russell, Luthien
1335!! 15 ACT Ikeda, Miona
1314! 15 QLD Lyons, Kieran C
1287!! 15 VIC Galiabovitch, Elena
1245!! 12 NSW Soltysik, Adelaide
1242! 15 ACT Eldridge-Smith, Veronique
1218!! 13 QLD Kinder, Jessica
1216!! 13 ACT Oliver, Tamzin L

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 08:35 PM
Top Seniors
2231! 64 VIC Hamilton, Douglas G
2197! 68 NSW Flatow, A (Fred)
2187!! 65 SA Zaric, Srboljub
2087!! 67 NSW Ghenzer, Charles
2050!! 78 NSW Viner, Phillip J
2037!! 61 NSW Degroen, Mark S
2030!! 62 NSW Capilitan, Romeo
1957! 71 TAS Pavicic, Mile
1952!! 71 NSW Jens, Henk W
1947! 67 NSW Benson, Lachlan
1935!! 68 WA Partis, Michael T
1927! 69 NSW Hutchings, Frank P
1916!! 77 WA Leonhardt, Wolfgang
1866! 62 NSW Winter, George
1852! 70 QLD Mehltreter, Otto
1850! 64 NSW Pilja, Djuro
1835!! 68 NSW Bautista, Elpidio
1834! 61 QLD Lovejoy, David
1824! 73 NSW Creech, Ken E
1824! 72 NSW Lazaridis, Julius

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 08:35 PM
Top Improvers
1154 242 VIC Kenmure, Jamie
1171 180 ACT Xing, Edward
1517 171 QLD Dobson, Ernesto
1532 170 VIC Nour, James
1029 169 QLD Bielenberg, Nathanael
442 141 ACT Clark, Tim
1394 141 ACT Yuan, Yi
1434 122 VIC Glenton, Alan
1601 108 NSW To, Anthony
1614 106 QLD Korenevski, Oleg
1753 105 NSW McGregor, Allan
1006 104 QLD McGarity, Molly
1656 101 NSW Nikolaou, Chris
1444 101 VIC Schon, Eugene
1039 98 QLD Muller, Jonas
1287 97 VIC Galiabovitch, Elena
1551 94 ACT Brown, Andrew
1314 94 QLD Lyons, Kieran C
1403 92 NSW Shaw, Ken
1047 89 VIC Yu, Sally
970 88 NSW Tsui, Edison
1240 88 VIC Potter, Daniel
1136 88 QLD Hunter, Shayne
1860 88 WA Kueh, Michael
2102 85 NSW Moylan, Laura A
1020 84 QLD Bleney, Rebecca
1487 82 VIC Yu, Derek
1778 82 QLD Lester, George E
780 79 QLD Rogers, Jim
1249 78 NSW Watts, Peter

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 08:36 PM
Busiest Players
1609 54 NSW Keuning, Anthony V
1853 54 VIC Lin, Zhigen Wilson
1477 50 NSW Greenwood, Norman
1777 49 ACT Ali, Mosaddeque
1840 39 ACT Grcic, Milan
1391 37 NSW Tracey, Michael J
1444 37 VIC Schon, Eugene
1519 36 NSW Losh, Gary
1988 36 VIC Pyke, Malcolm L
1820 34 NSW Illingworth, Max
1945 34 VIC Dizdarevic, Mehmedalija
1171 33 ACT Xing, Edward
1394 33 ACT Yuan, Yi
1675 33 NSW Rachmadi, Herman
1327 33 VIC Potter, Michael
1240 33 VIC Potter, Daniel
1356 33 QLD Russell, Luthien
1728 32 VIC Kara, Barbaros
1006 31 QLD McGarity, Molly
1825 31 WA Dunlop, Gordon
1581 30 VIC Potter, Matthew
1939 30 WA Maris, Robert
1086 29 ACT Smith, Kayleigh
1432 29 NSW Kresinger, Frank
1487 29 VIC Yu, Derek
1986 29 VIC Wallis, Christopher
1571 29 VIC Morris, James
1302 29 VIC Dalton, Samuel
1154 29 VIC Kenmure, Jamie
1434 29 VIC Glenton, Alan
1669 29 WA Maris, Natalie A
2014 28 NSW Bolens, Johny
1047 28 VIC Yu, Sally
907 28 QLD McGarity, Liam
1592 27 ACT Maguire, Jesse
1367 27 ACT Beltrami, Matthew
1910 27 NSW Ingram, Ben W
1634 27 NSW Soto, Leopoldo
1129 27 ACT Guo, Emma
974 27 SA Eustace, Sophie

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 08:37 PM
Normal Tournaments Rated
ACT
08/04/2005 48 1 2005 ACT Adults vs Juniors
08/04/2005 10 1 2005 ACT Adults vs Juniors Reserves
15/05/2005 21 6 2005 ACT Women and Girls
06/03/2005 15 6 2005 Autumn Weekender
06/03/2005 21 6 2005 Autumn Weekender U1000
11/03/2005 51 7 2005 Belconnen Open
04/05/2005 24 7 2005 Canberra CC Championship
09/03/2005 17 5 2005 Canberra Cup
28/03/2005 61 7 2005 Doeberl Cup Major
28/03/2005 78 7 2005 Doeberl Cup Minor
28/03/2005 66 7 2005 Doeberl Cup Premier
23/05/2005 30 7 2005 Tuggeranong CC Championship
07/03/2005 21 5 2005 Woden Cup
01/04/2005 60 1 ACT North vs South
NSW
16/05/2005 16 7 2005 Canterbury Club Championship
10/03/2005 22 9 2005 City of Sydney Open
10/03/2005 32 9 2005 City of Sydney Under 1700
15/05/2005 34 7 2005 NSWCA May Weekender
15/03/2005 19 9 2005 Wollongong-Handicap
17/05/2005 76 1 Big Boards First Leg St. George v North Sydney 2005
13/03/2005 22 6 Dubbo RSL Open 2005
22/05/2005 13 2 Dubbo-Gunnedah Match
26/04/2005 2 1 Gosford Numero Cinque 2005
26/04/2005 4 3 Gosford Numero Due 2005
26/04/2005 3 3 Gosford Numero Quarttro 2005
26/04/2005 3 3 Gosford Numero Tre 2005
26/04/2005 4 3 Gosford Numero Uno 2005
11/04/2005 26 9 Henry Greenfield Cup 2005
01/05/2005 28 7 Laurieton May Open 2005
03/05/2005 42 1 Little Board North Sydney v Manly 2005
17/05/2005 12 1 Little Boards First Leg St. George v St. George 2005
24/05/2005 12 11 Manly Club Champs A Grade 2005
24/05/2005 12 11 Manly Club Champs B Grade 2005
24/05/2005 12 11 Manly Club Champs C Grade 2005
29/05/2005 33 6 Mingara May Major 2005
02/05/2005 20 1 Mingara Versus the world
19/04/2005 11 11 North Sydney 2005 Candidates
19/04/2005 12 11 North Sydney 2005 Championship
19/04/2005 11 11 North Sydney 2005 Reserves A
19/04/2005 11 11 North Sydney 2005 Reserves B
19/04/2005 11 11 North Sydney 2005 Reserves C
05/04/2005 9 9 North Sydney 2005 Reserves D1
05/04/2005 9 9 North Sydney 2005 Reserves D2
27/04/2005 9 9 Ryde Eastwood Prelim A 2005
13/04/2005 8 7 Ryde Eastwood Prelim B 2005
13/04/2005 8 7 Ryde Eastwood Prelim C 2005
26/04/2005 10 9 St. George Club Champs 2005 Championship Division
26/04/2005 10 9 St. George Club Champs 2005 Division 2
03/05/2005 11 11 St. George Club Champs 2005 Division 3
03/05/2005 11 11 St. George Club Champs 2005 Division 4
03/05/2005 6 10 St. George Club Champs 2005 Division 5
03/05/2005 6 10 St. George Club Champs 2005 Division 6
28/03/2005 29 7 Sydney Easter Cup 2005
05/05/2005 28 10 Sydney WSCP A Division 2005
02/05/2005 34 10 Sydney WSCP B Division 2005
04/05/2005 44 10 Sydney WSCP C Division 2005
18/04/2005 20 7 Wyong Shire Cup 2005
QLD
31/03/2005 33 9 2005 City of Brisbane Championship
02/05/2005 51 7 2005 Peninsula Open
23/02/2005 15 7 2005 Redcliffe Summer Swiss
05/05/2005 24 5 BCC Summer Swiss 2005
28/03/2005 43 6 Brisbane Open 2005
17/04/2005 49 7 Gold Coast Junior Championships 2005
22/03/2005 30 8 Junior Masters 010205
08/03/2005 21 6 Presidents Challenge 2005
10/04/2005 12 6 Queensland Women's Championship 2005
SA
15/05/2005 21 7 Adelaide Cup 2005
22/03/2005 30 7 SA Championship 2005
TAS
14/03/2005 29 7 Tasmanian Championship 2005
VIC
18/03/2005 96 7 2005 Box Hill Autumn Cup
31/03/2005 10 5 2005 Croydon Tal Tournament
04/05/2005 51 5 2005 Dandenong Easter Cup
23/03/2005 52 8 2005 Dandenong Summer Swiss
07/04/2005 20 9 2005 Elwood Open
19/04/2005 24 5 2005 Hobsons Bay/Yarraville CJS Purdy Cup
22/05/2005 25 5 2005 Hobsons Bay/Yarraville Open
25/04/2005 24 7 2005 MCC Anzac Day Weekender
11/04/2005 34 9 2005 Melbourne Club Championship
06/05/2005 16 6 Albury Rated Tournament 2005
14/03/2005 105 7 Ballarat Begonia Open 2005
10/03/2005 15 7 Ballarat Spielvogel Memorial 2005
29/03/2005 38 8 Box Hill New Season Swiss 2005
15/05/2005 78 8 Victorian Junior Under 12 Championship 2005
01/05/2005 37 8 Victorian Junior Under 18 Championship 2005
WA
05/02/2005 3 3 2004 Fremantle Club Championship 2004 Play-Off part 1
05/02/2005 3 3 2004 Fremantle Club Championship 2004 Play-Off part 2
01/04/2005 3 2 2004 Womens Championship Part 1
01/04/2005 3 2 2004 Womens Championship Part 2
11/05/2005 8 1 2005 Harris Shield Final
14/04/2005 10 9 2005 Metro Club Championship A Division
28/04/2005 12 11 2005 Metro Club Championship B Division
28/04/2005 12 11 2005 Metro Club Championship D Division
14/04/2005 10 9 2005 Metro Club Championship E Division
09/03/2005 15 6 2005 Midland Club Championship
28/04/2005 12 11 2005Metro Club Championship C Division
28/02/2005 11 7 ChartZylstra 2005
25/04/2005 15 6 Gufeld Cup 2005
29/04/2005 9 2 Harris 2005 Division A
29/04/2005 22 3 Harris 2005 Division B
29/04/2005 10 2 Harris 2005 Division C
28/03/2005 20 7 Kingsley Open 2005
12/03/2005 32 6 South West Open 2005

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 08:37 PM
Rapid Tournaments Rated
ACT
02/04/2005 26 9 2005 ACT Girls Allegro
10/05/2005 43 7 2005 ACT Girls Secondary
31/03/2005 21 9 2005 ACT Souths Term 1
10/04/2005 21 7 2005 April Development Squad
20/04/2005 36 7 2005 April Girls Development Day
01/04/2005 14 7 2005 Term 1 Norths Rapid
12/03/2005 20 7 Street Chess 12 March 2005
16/04/2005 18 7 Street Chess 16 April 2005
19/02/2005 12 7 Street Chess 19 Feb 2005
19/03/2005 20 7 Street Chess 19 March 2005
02/04/2005 12 7 Street Chess 2 April 2005
23/04/2005 14 7 Street Chess 23 April 2005
26/02/2005 18 7 Street Chess 26 Feb 2005
26/03/2005 10 7 Street Chess 26 March 2005
05/03/2005 12 7 Street Chess 5 March 2005
09/04/2005 18 7 Street Chess 9 April 2005
NSW
24/04/2005 76 7 2005 NSW Teams Challenge Individual
17/04/2005 41 7 City Of Sydney Rapid
16/05/2005 28 7 SU Rapid Play Championships 2005
QLD
25/02/2005 17 6 2005 Somerville House Invitational - A Grade
18/03/2005 32 7 Brisbane High Schools Champ Grade Rd 1
17/03/2005 48 7 Brisbane Primary Schools Champ Grade Rd 1
13/03/2005 85 7 Gold Coast Active, March 2005
15/05/2005 72 6 Gold Coast Rapid Championship
22/04/2005 51 6 IGS Pre-Season Tournament 2005
SA
19/04/2005 24 5 April Allegro 2004
12/04/2005 19 6 April Rapid 2005
29/03/2005 22 5 March Allegro 2005
VIC
15/04/2005 66 10 Box Hill Friday Allegro (April) 2005
19/04/2005 27 9 Box Hill Tuesday Allegro (April) 2005
17/04/2005 54 7 Whitehorse Rookies & Queens Cup (April) 2005
20/03/2005 51 7 Whitehorse Rookies & Queens Cup (March) 2005

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 09:03 PM
Some regular BB posters ratings:

Ian Rogers - 7 2648!
George Xie - 24 2367!!
Greg Canfell - 16 2327!!
jeffrei - 0 2278
Tristan Boyd - 8 2240!!
DuffMckagan - 0 2202!
Gareth Charles - 18 2121!!
Brian Jones - 15 2105!!
Ronald Yu - 7 2069!!
bobby1972 - 0 2067!!
Lee Jones - 14 2037!!
paulb - 7 2016!
Goughfather - 14 2002!!
Jason Chan - 13 1982!!
Jason Hu - 0 1954!!
Kerry Stead - 8 1950!!
rob - 30 1939!!
Kevin Bonham - 7 1932!!
firegoat7 - 0 1926!!
Ian Rout - 16 1901!!
AES - 7 1884!
Barry Cox - 9 1851!!
David Richards - 0 1792
Shaun Press - 12 1715!
George Howard - 0 1667
The_Wise_Man - 18 1656!!
Bruce Dickinson - 7 1651!
Candy Cane - 18 1647!!
Amiel Rosario - 7 1643!!
starter - 0 1638!
JGB - 14 1576
antichrist - 0 1492
Trent Parker - 25 1489!!
Paul Sike - 24 1450!!
Recherché - 14 1417!!
Scott Colliver - 0 1394
Adelandre - 0 1367!
Matt Sweeney - 27 1300!!
Garvin Gray - 18 1112!!

Thunderspirit
31-05-2005, 06:59 AM
Some regular BB posters ratings:

Ian Rogers - 7 2648!
George Xie - 24 2367!!
Greg Canfell - 16 2327!!
jeffrei - 0 2278
Tristan Boyd - 8 2240!!
DuffMckagan - 0 2202!
Gareth Charles - 18 2121!!
Brian Jones - 15 2105!!
Ronald Yu - 7 2069!!
bobby1972 - 0 2067!!
Lee Jones - 14 2037!!
paulb - 7 2016!
Goughfather - 14 2002!!
Jason Chan - 13 1982!!
Jason Hu - 0 1954!!
Kerry Stead - 8 1950!!
rob - 30 1939!!
Kevin Bonham - 7 1932!!
firegoat7 - 0 1926!!
Ian Rout - 16 1901!!
AES - 7 1884!
Barry Cox - 9 1851!!
David Richards - 0 1792
Shaun Press - 12 1715!
George Howard - 0 1667
The_Wise_Man - 18 1656!!
Bruce Dickinson - 7 1651!
Candy Cane - 18 1647!!
Amiel Rosario - 7 1643!!
starter - 0 1638!
JGB - 14 1576
antichrist - 0 1492
Trent Parker - 25 1489!!
Paul Sike - 24 1450!!
Recherché - 14 1417!!
Scott Colliver - 0 1394
Adelandre - 0 1367!
Matt Sweeney - 27 1300!!
Garvin Gray - 18 1112!!

So Bill.... Don't I post enough?? :evil:

eclectic
31-05-2005, 07:31 AM
So Bill.... Don't I post enough?? :evil:


Some regular BB posters ratings:

You're not regular, mate, you're downright :crazy: !!

;)

eclectic

Spiny Norman
31-05-2005, 08:02 AM
Some regular BB posters ratings:

What about me? It isn't fair. I've had enough, now I want my share,
Can't you see! I wanna live, But you just take more than you give ...
What about meee-a-eee, ... :boohoo:

Spiny Norman
31-05-2005, 08:03 AM
Don't forget ElevatorEscapee too ... ;)

eclectic
31-05-2005, 08:57 AM
i noticed that in the top women listings narelle szuveges has a WFM beside her name but in the recent victorian open blurb referred to by starter

this is not a ucj link (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/vicchess/2005_vic_open_news.htm)

she is a WIM

which is it?

eclectic

jenni
31-05-2005, 10:46 AM
i noticed that in the top women listings narelle szuveges has a WFM beside her name but in the recent victorian open blurb referred to by starter

this is not a ucj link (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/vicchess/2005_vic_open_news.htm)

she is a WIM

which is it?

eclecticNarelle got a WIM from the Zonal in February and Angela and Shannon got WFM titles, but these have not been ratified by FIDE as yet (or at least I don't believe they have - I am sure Shannon would have told me if her title was official).

Bill Gletsos
31-05-2005, 10:55 AM
Narelle got a WIM from the Zonal in February and Angela and Shannon got WFM titles, but these have not been ratified by FIDE as yet (or at least I don't believe they have - I am sure Shannon would have told me if her title was official).Correct and I dont allocate titles to the ACF rating list until they are ratified by FIDE.

Bill Gletsos
31-05-2005, 12:01 PM
So Bill.... Don't I post enough?? :evil:Sorry Lee, I just used an old list of BB posters for that.

Liberace - 1 1645!!
Frosty - 4 1261?
ElevatorEscapee - 7 1799!
pax - 0 1740

Spiny Norman
31-05-2005, 12:35 PM
Frosty 1261? ... ElevatorEscapee 1799!

It seems I might be fighting out of my weight division! :doh:

ursogr8
31-05-2005, 02:15 PM
It seems I might be fighting out of my weight division! :doh:

hi Frosty

Either you are out of your weight division or you may have found one of those over-rated seniors that are the flip-side of under-rated juniors. ;)


Bill

Thanks for all your lists. It might pay you to double check the BUSIEST player list for truncation..........just something I read on UCJ. ;)

regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
31-05-2005, 02:52 PM
Bill

Thanks for all your lists. It might pay you to double check the BUSIEST player list for truncation..........just something I read on UCJ. ;)

regards
starterYes, I saw the comment. In all the years I have been doing the ratings its the first time someone has complained about not being on the busiest list.
I thought it was rather petty and childish.

The Busiest list only lists the top 40 players based on games played. It simply sorts the players based solely on games played. This is how the list has been produced since it was introduced back in the late 80's.
The order of players on the same number of games is entirely random. As such players in positions 41-xx could also have the same number of games as player 40 but are not listed.

I have no intention of changing it.

Bill Gletsos
31-05-2005, 03:09 PM
An error has been found in a Victorian event where a player already on file was added to the master file due to the name being spelt incorrectly.

A similar error was discovered last night with the Doeberl Cup Minor. Note this was my problem not the ACT Rating Officers as I coded the Doeberl additions for non ACT players. This was corrected and a new set of reports distributed last night.

When I get home I will correct the Vic event and create a new set of reports.
Paul B is aware of this and will post these to the ACF website.

Bill Gletsos
31-05-2005, 03:24 PM
From the recent FIDE & ACP meeting I noticed the following.


FIDE is willing to improve the current Elo rating system, e.g. to make it more dynamic. The ACP agreed and proposed that inactive players should lose rating points.

Spiny Norman
31-05-2005, 05:04 PM
Either you are out of your weight division or you may have found one of those over-rated seniors that are the flip-side of under-rated juniors. ;)

I think the former ... my position is deteriorating fairly rapidly now. :(

Thunderspirit
01-06-2005, 12:09 AM
You're not regular, mate, you're downright :crazy: !!

;)

eclectic

Ok I'm crazy... and you are.... what... Well adjusted?? :wall:

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2005, 12:28 AM
June 2005 ratings are up on the ACF website

eclectic
01-06-2005, 05:35 AM
June 2005 ratings are up on the ACF website

Does somewhere still do those ratings graphs or does that come under unsolicited commercial promotion?
poor font
hey, liberace, when you come back, learn to read between the lines, you jerk!!
;)
eclectic

Spiny Norman
01-06-2005, 07:49 AM
June 2005 ratings are up on the ACF website

Thanks Bill, good job!

Trent Parker
01-06-2005, 12:22 PM
September 1310
December 1367
March 1434
June 1489

I"m hungry for an U1600 tournament win at NSW Open... :lol:

EGOR
01-06-2005, 12:25 PM
September 1310
December 1367
March 1434
June 1489

I"m hungry for an U1600 tournament win at NSW Open... :lol:
I'm planning to beat you for it! :D

Gringo
01-06-2005, 12:34 PM
Maybe next year, Trent ........

Spiny Norman
01-06-2005, 02:01 PM
September 1310
December 1367
March 1434
June 1489

Very solid improvement TCN, well done ... I'm hoping to follow in your footsteps ...

auriga
01-06-2005, 03:25 PM
Does somewhere still do those ratings graphs or does that come under unsolicited commercial promotion? eclectic

have a look at the post in the thread 'acf ratings - improved presentation' i just posted.
the page is still there at:

http://www.chessaustralia.com.au/index.cfm?p=ratings

however, it's all experimental so all the code/data is just that and not acf official or anything.

Garvinator
03-06-2005, 02:11 AM
Time for the usual quarterly question. Bill, Do you know when the sp files for importing players will be ready to be used?

ursogr8
03-06-2005, 12:58 PM
The ACF June 2005 rating lists have been sent to the webmaster and State Rating Officers.
<snip>


Bill

Thanks for all that.
The ratings are in good hands (sender and receiver ;) ).

regards
starter

Paul S
03-06-2005, 05:14 PM
Bill

Thanks for all that.
The ratings are in good hands (sender and receiver ;) ).

regards
starter

Yes, Bill has done (and still does do) an EXCELLENT job with the ratings!!!

While me and Bill have our disagreements from time to time, I consider that Australian chess is fortunate to have someone like Bill who devotes many VOLUNTARY hours of work to the Australian chess rating system!

Well done, Bill! :clap: :clap: :clap:

firegoat7
07-06-2005, 02:01 AM
Yes, Bill has done (and still does do) an EXCELLENT job with the ratings!!!



Your a crock Gletsos. Tino Fulgenzi gets a new rating of 1600, from less then a dozen games, after a fair hiatus, despite previously being 1900-2000. Another MCC players get discouraged from OTB by the Glicko system.

Resign Gletsos, you hack, you have wrecked OZ chess with your glicko rubbish, vandalism

Cheers FG7

Bill Gletsos
07-06-2005, 10:46 AM
Your a crock Gletsos. Tino Fulgenzi gets a new rating of 1600, from less then a dozen games, after a fair hiatus, despite previously being 1900-2000.He last played in Sept 1997 and was rated 1895. Prior to that he had played 9 games in early 1993 and prior to that back in 1988. In April 2000 he recived the 150 point uplift for a rating of 2044.

In this rating period his results were:
beat a 1684, 1248,1619 and 1612, drew with a 1730 and 1521 and lost to a 1732, 1707 and 1609.
That equates to a performance rating of 1645.

His new rating is 1665 not 1600 as claimed by you.
This is in line with his demonstrated current strength.


Another MCC players get discouraged from OTB by the Glicko system.Perhaps he should worry less about his rating and focus more on his play.
If he really is a 1900-2000 strength player then his future results should bve able to demonstrate this.

Resign Gletsos, you hack, you have wrecked OZ chess with your glicko rubbish, vandalismThe aim of a rating system is to show the current strength of a player based on their recent results not their rating based on past glories from 1 year, 5 years or 10 years ago.

rob
07-06-2005, 02:20 PM
Your a crock Gletsos. Tino Fulgenzi gets a new rating of 1600, from less then a dozen games, after a fair hiatus, despite previously being 1900-2000. Another MCC players get discouraged from OTB by the Glicko system.

Resign Gletsos, you hack, you have wrecked OZ chess with your glicko rubbish, vandalism

Cheers FG7

Sounds like someone has lost the plot. The evidence presented by Bill demonstrates that the player doesn't deserve to be any higher rated. Current strength for current tournaments to compare currently active players seems appropriate. Players can always point to old rating lists, magazines to show their historic highs. I will probably drop below 1900 in September and guess what, I deserve to.

Spiny Norman
07-06-2005, 02:56 PM
Players can always point to old rating lists, magazines to show their historic highs.

I was "fairly sure" that when I stopped playing, back in the 80's (!), that my rating was mid-1300's, but when re-starting I was a lowly 1100-odd.

Of course, I coulda bin mistaked about me ol' rating ... early onset senility and all that ...

The advice to focus on playing well is sensible. Recent results should see me back in the mid-1300's or thereabouts by next quarter with a bit of luck (have recently beaten a 1500+ and drawn with a 1700+).

firegoat7
07-06-2005, 03:35 PM
The evidence presented by Bill demonstrates that the player doesn't deserve to be any higher rated.
Quite right, if you measure tounament results with a scientific mindset, but of course lets conveniently forget about the fact that historically speaking , Fulgenzi has probably played well over 200 chessgames and that upon return he loses 400 points immediately for less then 12!



Current strength for current tournaments to compare currently active players seems appropriate. Yes its very current....which is of coarse very debateble when measuring chess strength. Human beings are not after all machines...they tend to fall ill, go in and out of employement...get a new job working 12 hours a day with chess suffering...suffer from depression, family problems etc etc. Why are people so obsessed for the latest up to date rating...especially when you consider that Australia suffers from a lack of strong players in the 1900-2200 range. How much do u want these people to suffer, rating wise, for being rusty. How does this encourage them to play chess?


Players can always point to old rating lists, magazines to show their historic highs. I will probably drop below 1900 in September and guess what, I deserve to.
You may deserve it. That is not the issue. The issue is does Fulgenzi deserve to be re-rated 400 points below his level of playing from before based on 1 rating period.

Think about it Rob, Mike Woodhams won an olympic medal in chess...did you see what they did to his rating when he returned to chess? How can any 'old' player be optimistic when chess access is measured by rating and the first thing you want to do to somebody returning from chess is to put the boot in immediatly.

Cheers fg7
P.S Fulgenzi is not a 1650 player, he is just rusty. How will you get him back to the board, for the benefit of chess?

firegoat7
07-06-2005, 03:46 PM
Gletsos,


In April 2000 he recived the 150 point uplift for a rating of 2044.

Why do u keep mentioning the stupid 150 points. Nobody asked for them. Furthermore, they mean nothing about whether a player is overated by 150 points or not, they were designed to stabilise your system....the same system that seems to think its fine to place someone at 2050 then move them to 1650.
The system that immedately penalises anybody who takes a break from chess, or even worse rewards them for it with those ridiculous 'K' factors, and rting point suppliments as judged by you.

Cheers Fg7
P.S forget about the rating system its a crock- have a look at japanese GO- its the way to go!

Bill Gletsos
07-06-2005, 04:01 PM
Gletsos,

Why do u keep mentioning the stupid 150 points. Nobody asked for them.Incorrect. Under the old ELO system there had been a stead discrfpancy between ACF and FIDE ratings. The 150 points was to bring them into some sort of alignment.

Furthermore, they mean nothing about whether a player is overated by 150 points or not, they were designed to stabilise your system....the same system that seems to think its fine to place someone at 2050 then move them to 1650.Again totally incorrect.
The 150 points had nothing to do with the current Glicko system and were added in April 2000 which was under the Elo system. The Glicko wasnt introduced until Dec 2000.

The system that immedately penalises anybody who takes a break from chess, or even worse rewards them for it with those ridiculous 'K' factors, and rting point suppliments as judged by you.No it rates players based on their current form, not on games played 7 years ago.

firegoat7
07-06-2005, 07:20 PM
Ok Bill,

I will call a truce, lets look at it like this.

1) Do you agree that losing 400 points, basically in 1 rating period, would be discouraging to a chessplayer?

2) Do you support a rating system that allows this to happen?

3) Is discouraging chessplayers a negative for tournament participation?

Cheers fg7

Bill Gletsos
07-06-2005, 07:41 PM
Ok Bill,

I will call a truce, lets look at it like this.Nice try at a set of leading questions.
Unfortunately Darth Firegoat7 I'm not easily led. :hand:


1) Do you agree that losing 400 points, basically in 1 rating period, would be discouraging to a chessplayer?Not is the player is being objective and especially not if they havent played for many years.


2) Do you support a rating system that allows this to happen?Obviously yes as the rating system should reflect their current strength.


3) Is discouraging chessplayers a negative for tournament participation?Depends why they are discouraged. After all many things might discourage a player. They should be able to realise that they performed badly and not worry what their rating is. If their egos will not permit such rationality then that is their problem not that of the rating system.
The system is there to cater form the majority of players not those with fragile egos.

firegoat7
08-06-2005, 12:24 AM
I will repeat this question.

1) Do you agree that losing 400 points, basically in 1 rating period, would be discouraging to a chessplayer?

Lets look at these questions

Is the player being objective if they have not played for years probably not, which begs the question
Given that OZ chess needs these players....Is an objective rating needed for somebody who has returned to the game after such a long break?

2) Do you support a rating system that allows this to happen?

yes

? Why should the rating system reflect their current strength. Are these types of players not different, especially the ones who have had big breaks?
Should n't they be eased back into the system with a little more compassion?

3) Is discouraging chessplayers a negative for tournament participation?


They should be able to realise that they performed badly and not worry what their rating is.
Show me a chess player who doesn't care about their rating.




If their egos will not permit such rationality then that is their problem not that of the rating system.
Well you are correct, its not a rating system problem, but it is a chess participation problem.


The system is there to cater for the majority of players not those with fragile egos. This is not true, the system, like all systems has its strengths and weaknesses. To blame individuals for having fragile egos, when clearly it seems to affect most semi-retired players misses the point.

The majority will be catered for if the weaknesses are removed from the system. The last thing australian chess needs is to discourage experienced players from returning to chess....you need to find ways to prevent these falls from grace from being so brutal. I believe that somehow their old ratings and the new performances hold the key to these problems, but one thing is sure.....Glickos ideas miss the point of chess. Its not about objectifying a moment in time as a rational point. It ought to be about participation.

I think Glickos premise is just wrong. Does his equations deny history or is this just a particular Australian bent?

Cheers FG7
P.S Japanese Go is the way to go, have a look at its system,for rating players.

Bill Gletsos
08-06-2005, 12:33 AM
I will repeat this question.

1) Do you agree that losing 400 points, basically in 1 rating period, would be discouraging to a chessplayer?

Lets look at these questions
probably not, which begs the question
Given that OZ chess needs these players....Is an objective rating needed for somebody who has returned to the game after such a long break?Yes. Their oppoents deserve them to have a rating reflective of their current strength not their strength from years past.

2) Do you support a rating system that allows this to happen?

? Why should the rating system reflect their current strength. Are these types of players not different, especially the ones who have had big breaks?
Should n't they be eased back into the system with a little more compassion?No. The aim of a rating system is to show a players current strength, not their strength from years ago.

3) Is discouraging chessplayers a negative for tournament participation?

Show me a chess player who doesn't care about their rating.


Well you are correct, its not a rating system problem, but it is a chess participation problem.
This is not true, the system, like all systems has its strengths and weaknesses. To blame individuals for having fragile egos, when clearly it seems to affect most semi-retired players misses the point.Not at all. If the semi-retired players current strength is weaker than before then the rating should show this.

The majority will be catered for if the weaknesses are removed from the system. The last thing australian chess needs is to discourage experienced players from returning to chess....you need to find ways to prevent these falls from grace from being so brutal. I believe that somehow their old ratings and the new performances hold the key to these problems, but one thing is sure.....Glickos ideas miss the point of chess. Its not about objectifying a moment in time as a rational point. It ought to be about participation.You are missing the point. participation should be about participating and the love of the game, not what your rating is.

I think Glickos premise is just wrong. Does his equations deny history or is this just a particular Australian bent?His equations reduce the impact of results from years back. We follow Glickmans equations.

firegoat7
08-06-2005, 12:53 AM
You are missing the point. participation should be about participating and the love of the game, not what your rating is.

If this was the point Bill, then why would chessplayers need ratings?



His equations reduce the impact of results from years back. We follow Glickmans equations.
I understand this.
The thing is...why is this a good thing? Why do we have to believe Glickman? Why does Glickman want to deny history in chess? Why should we listen to him? What is so convincing about his premises? Only a fool would believe that somebody who hasn't played chess for years is the same as a newbie. Granted the newbie might have talent, but an older player has experience, just little form.

It was ljubojevic who claimed that if you give up chess for a while it takes about a year to get back into the swing of it. I think generally this claim is true...so why would we want to discourage chessplayers by listening to glickman?

Cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
08-06-2005, 01:02 AM
If this was the point Bill, then why would chessplayers need ratings?Ratings serve a number of purposes. Participation just isnt one of them.

I understand this.
The thing is...why is this a good thing? Why do we have to believe Glickman? Why does Glickman want to deny history in chess? Why should we listen to him? What is so convincing about his premises? Only a fool would believe that somebody who hasn't played chess for years is the same as a newbie. Granted the newbie might have talent, but an older player has experience, just little form.Then once their form returns if it ever does this will be reflected in their rating. Their previous strength however may never return.

It was ljubojevic who claimed that if you give up chess for a while it takes about a year to get back into the swing of it. I think generally this claim is true...so why would we want to discourage chessplayers by listening to glickman?Well ljub seems to be making Glickmans point. If it takes a year to get your form back then your rating should drop down to your current strength and go back up to your previous strength when your form returns. The longer you have been inactive the weaker you are likely to be.

Also the guy rated 2000 peformed around 1650. If he had performed at 2100 his rating would have gone up. I doubt you would be complaining then.

Also you should note that the Association of Chess Professionals have suggested to FIDE that FIDE ratings should be more dynamic and that inactive players should lose rating points. FIDE apparently agree.

firegoat7
08-06-2005, 01:14 AM
Ratings serve a number of purposes. Participation just isnt one of them.


Well from where I see it, you ought to figure out how it becomes part of it...clearly rating needs to reflect participation.

Cheers fg7

Bill Gletsos
08-06-2005, 01:17 AM
Well from where I see it, you ought to figure out how it becomes part of it...clearly rating needs to reflect participation.Well in the only respect that counts they do. Ratings reflect the performance of players from games played.

Kevin Bonham
08-06-2005, 02:58 AM
I'd love to see empirical evidence on how reliable the Glicko system's treatment of players who return after a long break and perform much better or worse than their previous rating actually is. Sometimes in these cases the player's comeback is indicative of their new strength and they will stay at this level. Other times they will come back rusty and then improve again, but typically not to their old level.

Can anyone give an example of a player who took several years off, performed hundreds of points below their rating on return, but still returned to their old strength? I doubt that rust often has quite that much impact.

EGOR
08-06-2005, 06:50 AM
I'd love to see empirical evidence on how reliable the Glicko system's treatment of players who return after a long break and perform much better or worse than their previous rating actually is. Sometimes in these cases the player's comeback is indicative of their new strength and they will stay at this level. Other times they will come back rusty and then improve again, but typically not to their old level.

Can anyone give an example of a player who took several years off, performed hundreds of points below their rating on return, but still returned to their old strength? I doubt that rust often has quite that much impact.
When I returned after a long absence, I lost close to 200 rating points very quickly, build back up to about the same and them dropped over 100 quickly again. I'm back on the rebuild process.

firegoat7
08-06-2005, 06:29 PM
I'd love to see empirical evidence on how reliable the Glicko system's treatment of players who return after a long break and perform much better or worse than their previous rating actually is.

I agree. I think that the quantity of games played in the rating comeback is also another very important point.

Colin Savage lost over 120 (165?) points for a 2 game sample. Fulgenzi has lost 400 for about 9 games. Admittedly Fulgenzi was probably just re-rated after a long lay off. But you can imagine the potential complications.

...if an IM takes a couple of years of to play overseas, then the return to Oz chess is going to be a highly charged moment.
...what about sand bagging, especially if the new ratings are going to show more disregard for historical achievements.

I envisage cultural problems unique to Australain chess if we implement this World professional chess idea. Just because something may work somewhere else does not mean that it is easily transferable into a different cultural environment. I hope there will be public discussion of such ideas before they are imposed from the top.

Cheers Fg7

kveldulv
08-06-2005, 10:37 PM
John Nunn comments on this topic in his latest article on the Chessbase website:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2440
(Read the summary section at the bottom.)

Shaun

Alan Shore
09-06-2005, 12:34 AM
There is one thing I'm curious about...

Doesn't those 'executive powers' voted to the ratings officer allow him to make changes he 'sees fit'?

There were whispers about Nick Speck's rating after his return to rated tournaments with the Australian Champs =1st that his new rating should have been about 2600 and it was 'manually adjusted'. Can someone confirm/deny this rumour?

If it is true, then to use the above example, a 400 point drop does seem excessive and perhaps should be fiddled with.. 300 pts would be bad but still a lot more feasible.


Can anyone give an example of a player who took several years off, performed hundreds of points below their rating on return, but still returned to their old strength? I doubt that rust often has quite that much impact.

Are you saying simply that their best chess is behind them, or, that due to their new 'less volatile rating differential' it becomes much more difficult to eek up to that old rating?

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2005, 01:18 AM
There is one thing I'm curious about...

Doesn't those 'executive powers' voted to the ratings officer allow him to make changes he 'sees fit'?

There were whispers about Nick Speck's rating after his return to rated tournaments with the Australian Champs =1st that his new rating should have been about 2600 and it was 'manually adjusted'. Can someone confirm/deny this rumour?That rumour was crap and it never involved the figure 2600.
To quote what I said back on the old ACF BB in April 2003:

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

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

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

If it is true, then to use the above example, a 400 point drop does seem excessive and perhaps should be fiddled with.. 300 pts would be bad but still a lot more feasible.Ratings are not manually fiddled. Never have been.

Are you saying simply that their best chess is behind them, or, that due to their new 'less volatile rating differential' it becomes much more difficult to eek up to that old rating?I dont believe Kevin is saying that at all. What he is saying is they never reach their past glories in actual chess strength.

Alan Shore
09-06-2005, 01:27 AM
OK, thanks for clearing it up. The people who were talking about it were some higher-rated players from Sydney, so I guess it's not limited to Victorian speculation.

I'm sure there were still some kind of executive powers though.. I remember when you were talking about Ronald Yu's rating you had modified/incorporated something or other and also some kind of ACF motion.

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2005, 01:50 AM
I'm sure there were still some kind of executive powers though..Graham Saint and I might come up with specific changes, but first we thouoghly test them and then seek permission from the ACF Council to implement them. In all cases all rating system changes have been authorised by the ACF Council.

I remember when you were talking about Ronald Yu's rating you had modified/incorporated something or other and also some kind of ACF motion.No, I used Ronald Yu as an example to explain the process, but the code Graham Saint and I put in place affected all players, not just Ronald.

I explained it over here http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=737&page=1

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2005, 03:27 AM
There were whispers about Nick Speck's rating after his return to rated tournaments with the Australian Champs =1st that his new rating should have been about 2600 and it was 'manually adjusted'. Can someone confirm/deny this rumour?

Can someone give me $100 for every time this false rumour has been repeated, debunked then repeated again so I can retire on a very nice salary immediately? OK, that was a mild exaggeration I am amazed at the way this one still gets around no matter how often it gets disproven. Talk about a rumour without a leg to stand on finding some other way to get around! (Not blaming you for asking, so long as you're happy to accept Bill's response.) Seriously - this "Speck fiddle" garbage is the Snopes fodder of Australian chess. Every time I see it I think "oh no, not this hoary old twaddle again."


Are you saying simply that their best chess is behind them, or, that due to their new 'less volatile rating differential' it becomes much more difficult to eek up to that old rating?

The former. Frequently (but not always) a player who returns to chess after an absence of several years is over 45 and won't get back to their glory days.

firegoat7
09-06-2005, 11:09 AM
Talk about a rumour without a leg to stand on finding some other way to get around! (Not blaming you for asking, so long as you're happy to accept Bill's response.) Seriously - this "Speck fiddle" garbage is the Snopes fodder of Australian chess. Every time I see it I think "oh no, not this hoary old twaddle again."


I suggest that Speck probably believes that this perception is true...it would probably be in the ACF interests to talk to him about the matter, as he is of little doubt that this actually happened.

Shaun,

Nunns view was very interesting...I like these comments..

"Can you imagine the reaction to “Well, Garry, of course we’d love you to start playing again, but you’ll have to start again at 2200.”

Substitute Garry for Fulgenzi or Savage and we get the idea of what the problem actually is.

"Judit Polgar proved that you can have an inactive period and return again at full strength, and there is no special reason to suppose that a period of inactivity is necessarily damaging." As did Speck and Anderson....thank you Dr Nunn (professor of mathematics), you show what a crock the Glicko assumption is...not to mention what a crock the ACF rating system is under its chief crocodile BillBot.

Cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2005, 12:23 PM
Colin Savage lost over 120 (165?) points for a 2 game sample.According to the ACF Master file it is Colin Savige.

Colin was rated 2094 on the August 2000 rating list having last played in January 1998.
He returned to chess in April 2002 where he performed at the 1907 level. His published April 2002 rating was 1965. This was based on the 11 games he played in the rating period.
Due to recalulation when the system switched to Glicko2 in Dec 2002 this became 1963. With the 70 point uplift in April 2004 his rating went to 2033.

It remained at 2023 until September 2004 when we implemented the changes described in ACF bulletin 276 and introduced the "intermediate rating" concept. His recalulated rating based on the games played in the April 2002 period was 1990. With the 70 point uplift of April 2004 his published September 2004 rating was 2060.

Therefore having last actually played in the April 2002 rating period, in December 2004 rating period Colin played only 2 games in the 9 round Melbourne Open and performed at the 1685 level.
His published December 2004 rating was 1966.

As can be seen his rating dropped 94 points not the claimed 120 or the implied possibility of 165.

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2005, 12:43 PM
I suggest that Speck probably believes that this perception is true...it would probably be in the ACF interests to talk to him about the matter, as he is of little doubt that this actually happened.

Shaun,

Nunns view was very interesting...I like these comments..

"Can you imagine the reaction to “Well, Garry, of course we’d love you to start playing again, but you’ll have to start again at 2200.”
Substitute Garry for Fulgenzi or Savage and we get the idea of what the problem actually is.Irrelevant to the Glicko system. U*nder Glicko Kasparov would still be rated at 2800 when he returned to active play.

"Judit Polgar proved that you can have an inactive period and return again at full strength, and there is no special reason to suppose that a period of inactivity is necessarily damaging." As did Speck and Anderson....thank you Dr Nunn (professor of mathematics), you show what a crock the Glicko assumption is...not to mention what a crock the ACF rating system is under its chief crocodile BillBot.The only load of crock is what you are sprouting. Nunn is discussing the aspect of delibereately reduing players ratings due to inactivity. The Glicko system does no such thing. In fact the Glicko makes no assumption about their playing strength prior to their return as their rating is unaffected. All Glicko does is assume that their previously published ratings may be unreliable due to inactivity. Its the players results when they return that determine if the previous rating was reliable or not.
In Polgar's case when she returned to competitive chess after a break she performed at a level in line with her previous rating, not 400 points lower.

antichrist
09-06-2005, 01:05 PM
What party is causing this fuss? Is it the up & coming player who wants the returnee to be highly rated so when the up & comer beats him because he is out of nick he gains more points?

firegoat7
09-06-2005, 02:55 PM
According to the ACF Master file it is Colin Savige.

Colin was rated 2094 on the August 2000 rating list having last played in January 1998.
He returned to chess in April 2002 where he performed at the 1907 level. His published April 2002 rating was 1965. This was based on the 11 games he played in the rating period.
Due to recalulation when the system switched to Glicko2 in Dec 2002 this became 1963. With the 70 point uplift in April 2004 his rating went to 2033.

It remained at 2023 until September 2004 when we implemented the changes described in ACF bulletin 276 and introduced the "intermediate rating" concept. His recalulated rating based on the games played in the April 2002 period was 1990. With the 70 point uplift of April 2004 his published September 2004 rating was 2060.

Therefore having last actually played in the April 2002 rating period, in December 2004 rating period Colin played only 2 games in the 9 round Melbourne Open and performed at the 1685 level.
His published December 2004 rating was 1966.

As can be seen his rating dropped 94 points not the claimed 120 or the implied possibility of 165.


Ok Bill you may be right about the 94 points instead of 125, granted you have access to much more empirical data then me, after all you are the rating officer.

However 94 points for two games is still clearly ridiculous!

Cheers Fg7

P.S does anyone actually understand the rating period history gobblygook?

firegoat7
09-06-2005, 03:03 PM
Irrelevant to the Glicko system. U*nder Glicko Kasparov would still be rated at 2800 when he returned to active play.



Your a liar! If the 2800 rating mattered it wouldn't be classified as unstable.


The only load of crock is what you are sprouting. Nunn is discussing the aspect of delibereately reduing players ratings due to inactivity. The Glicko system does no such thing. In fact the Glicko makes no assumption about their playing strength prior to their return as their rating is unaffected. All Glicko does is assume that their previously published ratings may be unreliable due to inactivity.

If you can't figure out the logic flaw in that statement, then their is no hope for the ACF rating system. What right does Glicko have to assume anything chess related!



Its the players results when they return that determine if the previous rating was reliable or not. Of course it can't be the new rating that is unreliable can it Bill? It couldn't actual work both ways could it?



In Polgar's case when she returned to competitive chess after a break she performed at a level in line with her previous rating, not 400 points lower. Exactly, showing that Glicko's assumptions are in fact just that assumptions not a universal fact!

Cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2005, 03:28 PM
Your a liar! If the 2800 rating mattered it wouldn't be classified as unstable.Just because you are too stupid to see the difference doesnt make me a liar you fool.

If you can't figure out the logic flaw in that statement, then their is no hope for the ACF rating system. What right does Glicko have to assume anything chess related!It is entirely valid to assume that a players rating based on games played years ago may or may not be an accurate indicator of their current strength. As such it is the games they play now that are important.

Of course it can't be the new rating that is unreliable can it Bill? It couldn't actual work both ways could it?The new rating is statistically more likely to be closer to the players current strength than his old rating.

Exactly, showing that Glicko's assumptions are in fact just that assumptions not a universal fact!All you are showing is that you have no understanding of how it works.

DoroPhil
09-06-2005, 06:19 PM
However 94 points for two games is still clearly ridiculous!



I would like to see Gletsos argue against this statement.

1min_grandmaster
09-06-2005, 06:36 PM
The purpose of a rating system is first and foremost to predict as accurately as possible the likely outcomes of games played. This is done using statistical theory. There are various possible rating systems that can be used to do this, most notably, the Elo system used by FIDE and the Glicko system used now (even the Glicko system has variations).

If I am correct, the new Glicko system was introduced after the people in charge of the rating system (ratings officer and ACF council) showed that it is a more reliable system of predicting the results of games played between players. This is why they replaced the old Elo system with the Glicko system. What other reason would they have?

The Glicko system has problems, sure. It is considerably more complex. It is not possible for players to calculate exactly their new ratings if the numeric reliabilities are not available. It can discourage players returning from a break who are performing much worse than their very old results. But the main thing is that it is statistically more reliable in predicting future results. This reason alone is reason enough to use this system.

The argument that the Glicko system discourages players who have 'retired' and are trying to make a comeback seems poor to me. The Glicko system could also increase the player's rating considerably if they play better than in the past. Would people be complaining then? The Glicko system values more recent results because it has been shown to be more statistically meaningful (reliable).

The Elo system could also be argued to be damaging to participation in Australian chess. Consider a player who has some rating (it is irrelevant whether they are an active player or not) and they have been improving. The Elo system simply reacts too slowly. This can be very discouraging, as the player has to play so many games before their rating will reflect their true strength. This problem does not just affect players coming back from a long break, but also active players, and is likely to discourage active players from continuing to participate. The Glicko system does not cause this problem but the Elo system does.

arosar
09-06-2005, 07:40 PM
'Nuff said! And that's from someone who actually knows mathematics. I also spoke to Dr. Smirnov (2 Phd's in a mathematical field, btw) and he, also, say that Glicko is better.

FMD! Just play chess youse blokes.

AR

firegoat7
09-06-2005, 10:42 PM
The purpose of a rating system is first and foremost to predict as accurately as possible the likely outcomes of games played.


No. A rating system is used to give a rough indication of a players chess strength.



This is done using statistical theory. There are various possible rating systems that can be used to do this, most notably, the Elo system used by FIDE and the Glicko system used now (even the Glicko system has variations).

The Japanese professional Go circuit uses a totally different approach, it has high numbers. The best epoch for chess was in the old SSSR, they did not have ratings...they had category titles.
You really have to ask yourself what a rating system is for? Is it for people to play chess or is it just a number?




If I am correct, the new Glicko system was introduced after the people in charge of the rating system (ratings officer and ACF council) showed that it is a more reliable system of predicting the results of games played between players. This is why they replaced the old Elo system with the Glicko system. What other reason would they have?

They are mathematical fashion victims? They like to have a system that players can't double check? Who is this we anyway, wasn't it just BillBot and GG?


The Glicko system has problems, sure.
agreed


It is considerably more complex. It is not possible for players to calculate exactly their new ratings if the numeric reliabilities are not available. It can discourage players returning from a break who are performing much worse than their very old results.
yes, agreed.


But the main thing is that it is statistically more reliable in predicting future results. This reason alone is reason enough to use this system.
This is clearly not the point of a rating system.



The argument that the Glicko system discourages players who have 'retired' and are trying to make a comeback seems poor to me. The Glicko system could also increase the player's rating considerably if they play better than in the past. Would people be complaining then? The Glicko system values more recent results because it has been shown to be more statistically meaningful (reliable).

Look I am sorry but I disagree. The point of a rating system (if there is any) is to attribute status to people. Now Glicko wants that status to be measured immediately, but who does that serve? Nobody...it is a logic of its own, it may be more objective then other systems...but it does nothing for chess. Chess needs human beings...any system that reduces players to instrumental numbers is anti-human. Think about the arguement for a minute people respect Daz and Ian because they are Grandmasters... not because of their ratings.



The Elo system could also be argued to be damaging to participation in Australian chess. Consider a player who has some rating (it is irrelevant whether they are an active player or not) and they have been improving. The Elo system simply reacts too slowly. This can be very discouraging, as the player has to play so many games before their rating will reflect their true strength. This problem does not just affect players coming back from a long break, but also active players, and is likely to discourage active players from continuing to participate. The Glicko system does not cause this problem but the Elo system does.

I prefer the old system...you understood where you were and could easily calculate what was going on for yourself. It was nowhere near as harsh on players.

I am sorry to continue going on about ratings but I had another discussion about ratings with somebody else the other day.

Again the subject of Alan Goldsmith turned up. If you ever have time have a good look at his games. This guy is an absolute artist! A true imaginative genius! His rating means absolutely nothing. Everyone who plays him knows the guy can put the fear of god into anybody. How can you reduce such talented players like Goldsmith to numbers?

Cheers Fg7

7

firegoat7
09-06-2005, 11:00 PM
Just because you are too stupid to see the difference doesnt make me a liar you fool.
shut up moron


It is entirely valid to assume that a players rating based on games played years ago may or may not be an accurate indicator of their current strength. As such it is the games they play now that are important.
You can think whatever you want. I think something else, I think old ratings are important, they certainly indicate more then nothing.



The new rating is statistically more likely to be closer to the players current strength than his old rating.

Apply this logic to Fide ratings and you get the same results.
The new rating is his current strength, you want this, you will get it. :doh:

Cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2005, 11:38 PM
shut up moronThis is good coming from a clown like you.

You can think whatever you want. I think something else, I think old ratings are important, they certainly indicate more then nothing.You can think what you like but you are havent got a clue.

Apply this logic to Fide ratings and you get the same results.Flawed logic again.
The Glicko rating is statistically more likely to be the players rating than a corresponding Elo rating is.

firegoat7
09-06-2005, 11:53 PM
This is good coming from a clown like you.
Takes two to tango gooseboy


You can think what you like but you are havent got a clue.
Flawed logic again.
:rolleyes: sorry eddie, forgot you had all the clues...not


The Glicko rating is statistically more likely to be the players rating than a corresponding Elo rating is.
Your such an idiot. I wasn't the one making the stupid tautologies that a players rating is more likely to be a players ratings.

Cheers Fg7

Denis_Jessop
10-06-2005, 12:05 AM
If you look very carefully at post #76 by fg7 you'll see a reference to the old category system used in Eastern Europe before FIDE started using ELO ratings. This system was introduced to the St Kilda Chess Club in the early 1960s by Edgar Szobolotsky who migrated here from Hungary after the 1956 invasion. I can't say that it set the world on fire but at least it had the advantage of not imposing the current ratings angst/tyranny that simply places extra-chess pressure on players.

A little flashback to old Victorian chess history that I thought might be a diversion from the current conflict. ;) :rolleyes:

DJ

Bill Gletsos
10-06-2005, 12:22 AM
No. A rating system is used to give a rough indication of a players chess strength.You just demonstrate with that sort of comment that you have no clue about rating systems.
A rating system is not only attempting to evaluate the performances of players and thus provide an estimate of their relative strengths but it must also be able to predict the likely outcome of players results in games/tournaments. The better it is able to predict future results the better the rating system is.

The Japanese professional Go circuit uses a totally different approach, it has high numbers. The best epoch for chess was in the old SSSR, they did not have ratings...they had category titles.
You really have to ask yourself what a rating system is for? Is it for people to play chess or is it just a number?The aim of a rating system is as described above by 1min_gm.

They are mathematical fashion victims?No, its just that unlike you they actually have a clue.

They like to have a system that players can't double check?What is important is accuracy not whether you can check your rating of not.

Who is this we anyway, wasn't it just BillBot and GG?Wrong again. I have explained previously how this came about. I wont be repeating it for your benefit.

This is clearly not the point of a rating system.Yes, it is. The fact you dont get it, justs shows your complete lack of understanding of rating theory.

Look I am sorry but I disagree. The point of a rating system (if there is any) is to attribute status to people.Rubbish.

Now Glicko wants that status to be measured immediately, but who does that serve?Wrong again. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about and are just sprouting rubbish.
Rating systems are about measuring performance. The more accurate they measure performance the better. The measure of how well a system performs is how well it predicts future results. Glicko does this much better than Elo.

Nobody...it is a logic of its own, it may be more objective then other systems...but it does nothing for chess. Chess needs human beings...any system that reduces players to instrumental numbers is anti-human. Think about the arguement for a minute people respect Daz and Ian because they are Grandmasters... not because of their ratings.GM titles are important, but its ratings that differentiate the Super GM's from the really good GMs, from the average GM's.

I prefer the old system...you understood where you were and could easily calculate what was going on for yourself.So what. It had many flaws.

It was nowhere near as harsh on players.It was also hopeless at handling rapidly improving juniors. It had numerous problems all overcome by the Glicko system.

I am sorry to continue going on about ratings but I had another discussion about ratings with somebody else the other day.Let us hope they had more of a clue than you do.

Again the subject of Alan Goldsmith turned up. If you ever have time have a good look at his games. This guy is an absolute artist! A true imaginative genius! His rating means absolutely nothing. Everyone who plays him knows the guy can put the fear of god into anybody. How can you reduce such talented players like Goldsmith to numbers?It is simple.
If you have a rating system then you should choose the one that is the most accurate. Glicko is far more accurate than Elo.

To argue otherwise is just simple stupidity.

Bill Gletsos
10-06-2005, 12:32 AM
Takes two to tango gooseboyYou were the first to abuse me in this thread and went on to unjustly call me a liar.
Just because you cant comprehend how rating systems work, isnt my problem.

:rolleyes: sorry eddie, forgot you had all the clues...notWell you obviously had no idea. Pehaps you needed to ask the audience or phone a friend.

Your such an idiot. I wasn't the one making the stupid tautologies that a players rating is more likely to be a players ratings.I never said that at all you idiot. I said "The Glicko rating is statistically more likely to be the players rating than a corresponding Elo rating is."

If you cannot undertsand it that is hardly my problem. Fortunately those with intelligence like 1min_gm and Smirnov can.

Garvinator
10-06-2005, 01:14 AM
how long does everyone reckon till this thread is locked :rolleyes:

Bill Gletsos
10-06-2005, 01:17 AM
how long does everyone reckon till this thread is locked :rolleyes:Or more likely split.

Spiny Norman
10-06-2005, 09:49 AM
Bill, a question for you, of a slightly different nature. At our club we have a player who is approaching 2100 in strength. The next-nearest in terms of strength are around the 1500-1700 mark. There's basically nobody who can touch him at present, so until we acquire some additional stronger players who are near enough to his strength we'd expect him to keep on winning and winning. How will this scenario affect his rating? Will it keep creeping up and up, or does he eventually reach some kind of limit whereby it becomes nonsensical for any further rating increases? If he stays at the club for the next 2 years and scores 40/40 what will happen rating-wise? Just curious...

firegoat7
10-06-2005, 10:18 AM
You just demonstrate with that sort of comment that you have no clue about rating systems.

Hopefully sooner then later, Nunns suggestions will come to the fore and your fashionable Glicko hype will be buried in history.

As for the rest of your stupidity I will leave it in the basket with these final points.

Only a dead set moron would believe that ratings had nothing to do with status.
And yes Bot your are that moron.

I called you a liar because you did in fact lie. Liar! Care to defend the point instead of dragging everything into your personal fetish of abuse?

Be civil and I will be civil, be a clown and I will give it back to you forever.

Cheers Fg7

antichrist
10-06-2005, 10:28 AM
Listen Frosty, Have I got to tell you everything. You take Gough Whitlams's attitude about when queired what about if there is a god: Gough replied "I shall treat him as an equal".

Well this 2100 guy you show him no respect. He is there to be beaten and with my arrogance I believe I can beat anyone!

When I was at my peak I have beaten a few 2000 players in social games, had very good success playing everyone going up the ladder.

Spiny Norman
10-06-2005, 10:32 AM
Listen Frosty, Have I got to tell you everything. You take Gough Whitlams's attitude about when queired what about if there is a god: Gough replied "I shall treat him as an equal".

Well this 2100 guy you show him no respect. He is there to be beaten and with my arrogance I believe I can beat anyone!

When I was at my peak I have beaten a few 2000 players in social games, had very good success playing everyone going up the ladder.

Gough always was a bit of an arrogant fool. :D He paid for that arrogance politically too. But this issue is about how the ratings system might treat the scenario, not about respecting one's opponent, or otherwise.

Libby
10-06-2005, 10:42 AM
how long does everyone reckon till this thread is locked :rolleyes:

not soon enough

Bill Gletsos
10-06-2005, 11:47 AM
Hopefully sooner then later, Nunns suggestions will come to the fore and your fashionable Glicko hype will be buried in history.It wont happen.

As for the rest of your stupidity I will leave it in the basket with these final points.Ah the excuse of someone who cannot logically defend their position.

Only a dead set moron would believe that ratings had nothing to do with status.
And yes Bot your are that moron.The aim of a rating system has nothing to do with status. The fact that it can be used for that is a side issue to the aims of a rating system.

I called you a liar because you did in fact lie. Liar! Care to defend the point instead of dragging everything into your personal fetish of abuse?No, what I said was correct, you just refuse to admit it. What I said was that if Kasparov was rated 2800 on Glicko and didnt play for 12 mths he would still be rated 2800 on Glicko.

Be civil and I will be civil, be a clown and I will give it back to you forever.Untrue. You were the first to be uncivil in this thread back in post #42.

firegoat7
10-06-2005, 12:34 PM
It wont happen.
Untrue. You were the first to be uncivil in this thread back in post #42.
True...I do hold you personally resonsible for the introduction of the glicko system. Since I hold the glicko system in contempt, I transfer this contempt to you.
In reality I should have been more civil, I apologise.

Cheers fg7

rob
10-06-2005, 02:32 PM
Human beings are not after all machines...they tend to fall ill, go in and out of employement...get a new job working 12 hours a day with chess suffering...suffer from depression, family problems etc etc.
Very enlightening - I did not realise that you humans suffer the same ways as us machines :)



How much do u want these people to suffer, rating wise, for being rusty. How does this encourage them to play chess?


P.S Fulgenzi is not a 1650 player, he is just rusty. How will you get him back to the board, for the benefit of chess?

Many players coming back from a long break know that they are not as good as previously. After an initial drop, if your friend improves (as you infer if he continues playing) then he will have the pleasure of seeing his rating go up every 3 months. Some players coming back from a long break will have an initial rating drop like this, but it obviously varies player to player as to whether they continue falling, stay about the same, or go up.

Gringo
10-06-2005, 05:15 PM
" transfer this contempt" hmmmm........

firegoat7
10-06-2005, 09:26 PM
Libby,

I have transfered this comment here,


In amongst the flaming on the ratings, there's the argument that the ratings system prevents the semi-retired from coming back to the game for fear of losing rating points.

Let me put this arguement in its context. It takes a player on average between 4-10 years of playing to build up to a 2000 rating (this is my estimate, its not completely accurate).

It seems a bit rich to me that they can then be re-rated at a level approximately 400 points lower then they were before their break, based on a sample of less then a dozen games.

When you see people come back to chess and then they suffer the disappointment of such a thing occuring to them, then you ought to question whether this is a good policy or not for getting people to play chess.

Like it or not chess players measure their status on ratings. Why it may be objectively true that a player who comes back is weaker then before (this generally seems the case) it still doesn't change the reality that after 1 rating period, with a minimal amount of games, a player sees an 'objective' reality that is not encouraging. In essence the glicko system is to honest. It brutally destroys any illusions of grandeur and basically demoralises its victim.

Some people believe that this lack of participation by a group of players in the range group of 1900-2200 is one of the key problems facing Australian chess. Now in some ways the Glicko improves this because it is more dynamic, long term it may be more viable.

What I would like to see is a period of about a year, where old ratings for inactive players are treated differently to the rest. I would like to see some system where, their old rating counted, and the re-rating was gentler. Maybe requiring 30 or so games before being re-published as a new rating. Otherwise I see the system just losing points for nothing. A friend of mine had a draw with Fulgenzi, he was most disappointed when he saw that it didn't mean anything, ratings wise. Drawing with a 1665 is not the same as drawing with a 2044. I don't know how Bill treats this, previously you could work it out for yourself, now its not so easy.

Cheers Fg7

Trent Parker
10-06-2005, 10:28 PM
what would have been his rating under elo?

firegoat7
11-06-2005, 05:21 PM
what would have been his rating under elo?

When you say elo, TCN do you mean the previous system used by the ACF or his fide rating approximation?

Cheers Fg7

Libby
11-06-2005, 05:39 PM
Let me put this arguement in its context. It takes a player on average between 4-10 years of playing to build up to a 2000 rating (this is my estimate, its not completely accurate).

It seems a bit rich to me that they can then be re-rated at a level approximately 400 points lower then they were before their break, based on a sample of less then a dozen games.



I experience some difficulties here when I attempt to draw analogies between physical sport and chess. I happen to think, in many cases, the differences are not as extreme as people think.

It took me 4-10 years to play A Grade netball too. I got there in my early 20s.

I got there because I was playing with a very strong group of players, I was playing 5-7 games a week and was therefore playing at my sharpest and most skillful. I was learning from the strong players that I was playing with & against. I was also achieving a level of success and recognition that I had never had before having come from the 10-year-old last picked, to now being a player people wanted on their team.

I had my first baby and had played until I was 8 months pregnant. I came back to my A grade team when my baby was only six weeks old and completely stumbled & fumbled my way through the game, utterly humiliated.

However, I worked my way back as the weeks went by and was eventually able to resume my preferred position in the team. You see, being less fit & able I had been relegated to less-preferred positions.

Each baby was a bit harder to come back from. And each time I was older, not as fit and increasingly hampered by tendonitis & bursitis.

Each year that I continued to play I had to adjust my game to being a little less skilled and a little less able than I would have liked to be. Some of that was "fixable" as I could have lost weight, trained or even undergone the knee-scraping operations or showed more interest in the exercises prescribed by the physio.

At the end of the day I played because I wanted to. I enjoyed the company, the competition, the challenge (and it actually is a mental challenge as well as a physical one). I loved to play the game. I cried when it all stopped. I had to stop because I could barely walk down my slightly sloping driveway without pain. I still have days when I am hobbling in the mornings as my knees remind me I am on the fast track to a walking frame :eek:

You can argue all you like about the ratings system and the dreaded discouragement of losing 90 points. My daughter lost a whole swag in the last rating period herself. Now she's no 2000+ champion but that was still a very discouraging pill to swallow.

However, if she applies herself and plays well in upcoming events that will improve.

How much do you want to play your game? A game can't be that attractive if the prospect of losing rating points will stand between a player and an event. It is embarrassing and discouraging to be at less than your best. I've been there too and I thought about quitting but loving the game kept me out there.

You can have these rating arguments with Bill etc until the cows come home. I don't know which system is best. I'd suggest you could produce two lists side-by-side and still settle nothing because people will seek out the examples which suit them best or support their argument.

When I am on this BB I don't see the same problems at the top as those which are most significant in holding chess back. I see a weak grass roots culture where players lack the passion for their game that they might show for something else. To play chess an individual is expected to make a tiny contribution (when compared to many other activities) in time, equipment, registration & entry fees, training, set-up, administration, rostered responsibilities, fundraising etc etc. And yet the desire to play is so weak that players are held back from participating because they might lose some rating points.

antichrist
11-06-2005, 07:32 PM
Libby,

I have transfered this comment here,



Let me put this arguement in its context. It takes a player on average between 4-10 years of playing to build up to a 2000 rating (this is my estimate, its not completely accurate).

It seems a bit rich to me that they can then be re-rated at a level approximately 400 points lower then they were before their break, based on a sample of less then a dozen games.

When you see people come back to chess and then they suffer the disappointment of such a thing occuring to them, then you ought to question whether this is a good policy or not for getting people to play chess.

Like it or not chess players measure their status on ratings. Why it may be objectively true that a player who comes back is weaker then before (this generally seems the case) it still doesn't change the reality that after 1 rating period, with a minimal amount of games, a player sees an 'objective' reality that is not encouraging. In essence the glicko system is to honest. It brutally destroys any illusions of grandeur and basically demoralises its victim.

Some people believe that this lack of participation by a group of players in the range group of 1900-2200 is one of the key problems facing Australian chess. Now in some ways the Glicko improves this because it is more dynamic, long term it may be more viable.

What I would like to see is a period of about a year, where old ratings for inactive players are treated differently to the rest. I would like to see some system where, their old rating counted, and the re-rating was gentler. Maybe requiring 30 or so games before being re-published as a new rating. Otherwise I see the system just losing points for nothing. A friend of mine had a draw with Fulgenzi, he was most disappointed when he saw that it didn't mean anything, ratings wise. Drawing with a 1665 is not the same as drawing with a 2044. I don't know how Bill treats this, previously you could work it out for yourself, now its not so easy.

Cheers Fg7

FG, I think this could be seen in a completely different context.
It is unfair to put such returning rusty players on their old rating because they would not have a fair chance of winning a rating prize.

I went back to ping pong after many years - say 25. Some galoot rememebered in my day that I was a decent player, would you believe I had to give the NSW womens champion 5 points start, and she is the hottest thing around having being coached by a top Asian champion. She smashed everything I tried including serves. I was lucky to get a few points.

Why should returning rusty players have to pay entrance fees and have buckleys chance of winning?

And we all know that chessplayers are the stingiest people around so won't pay & play if they have no chance.

firegoat7
12-06-2005, 01:16 AM
It took me 4-10 years to play A Grade netball too. ..........
[cut]....

I think I will wait for the autobiography to turn up at my public library :hand:




You can argue all you like about the ratings system and the dreaded discouragement of losing 90 points.
Actually in Fulgenzi's case it was about 395 points for 9 games. :eek:



My daughter lost a whole swag in the last rating period herself. Now she's no 2000+ champion but that was still a very discouraging pill to swallow.
Sad to hear :( Was it 395 points for 9 games?


However, if she applies herself and plays well in upcoming events that will improve. Possibly, she might be past her peak.


How much do you want to play your game?
How long is a piece of string?


A game can't be that attractive if the prospect of losing rating points will stand between a player and an event. Tell it to somebody like Fulgenzi who would have gotten in the Victorian championship if he didn't play 9 games of club chess.


It is embarrassing and discouraging to be at less than your best.
Depends if It was at a party where anybody knew me :owned:


I've been there too and I thought about quitting but loving the game kept me out there. Nahh, just quit, Im sure Mr Savige and Mr Fulgenzi have nice ICC accounts.


You can have these rating arguments with Bill etc until the cows come home.
Thank you for your permission...mmmmoooooooooo.


I don't know which system is best.
Apply them to netball, I'm sure it will help.


I'd suggest you could produce two lists side-by-side and still settle nothing because people will seek out the examples which suit them best or support their argument.
15 points that was the most you could lose for a game previously.


When I am on this BB I don't see the same problems at the top as those which are most significant in holding chess back.
Then you need to open your eyes....when was the last time Australia had somebody from the top 100 in the world compete here? Why is the percentage of Australian players between 2000-2200 so out of wack with world standards?


I see a weak grass roots culture where players lack the passion for their game that they might show for something else.
I see the exact opposite at MCC.


To play chess an individual is expected to make a tiny contribution (when compared to many other activities) in time, equipment, registration & entry fees, training, set-up, administration, rostered responsibilities, fundraising etc etc. Please tell, you must be on to some secrets up there...I can't even get the blitz players to set up their own pieces after a game.


And yet the desire to play is so weak that players are held back from participating because they might lose some rating points.
You have missed the point of this debate. It is not a few rating points that is the issue. The issue is why so many rating points for such a small sample of games.

People like Fulgenzi and Savige are chess players...I have played Fulgenzi numerous times in blitz, during his 7 1/2 year hiatus at the old red triangle. He is stronger then me at blitz and I am about 2000 at it. Savige plays almost every day with a couple of other MCC stalwarts at work.

I never said that they would give up chess because of such a rating system. I said it discourages them to be penalised so much upon returning to chess. I think it is a problem that needs to be addressed. Others might not think it is a problem. It is a free world, people can make up there own minds on the issue.

Cheers fg7

antichrist
12-06-2005, 01:39 AM
FD, you have answered my question. This guy lost a lot of points, now he can win some prizemoney. His rating should have been lower to begin with and he may have won money already. You have already said that players are stingy - they want money mate.

Bill Gletsos
12-06-2005, 02:00 AM
Actually in Fulgenzi's case it was about 395 points for 9 games. :eek:The maths are fairly simple. He lost 380.

Sad to hear :( Was it 395 points for 9 games?No, 52 points based on 29 games.

Tell it to somebody like Fulgenzi who would have gotten in the Victorian championship if he didn't play 9 games of club chess.Based on current form and a performance rating of 1645, I would suggest he doesnt belong in it.

You have missed the point of this debate. It is not a few rating points that is the issue. The issue is why so many rating points for such a small sample of games.Because statistically his new rating is more likely to be correct than his old rating based on his inactivity and current performance.

People like Fulgenzi and Savige are chess players...I have played Fulgenzi numerous times in blitz, during his 7 1/2 year hiatus at the old red triangle. He is stronger then me at blitz and I am about 2000 at it. So what. At his last tournament at a slow time ciontrol he performed at 1645.

Savige plays almost every day with a couple of other MCC stalwarts at work.Good for him. Too bad he isnt actually playing more tournament chess instead of friendly games.

firegoat7
12-06-2005, 02:16 AM
The maths are fairly simple. He lost 380.
Im sorry I mixed up the figure with the Savige rating you supplied. I apologise, yes, yes, you are correct..

Fulgenzi only lost 380 rating points for 9 games :

:doh: :hmm:

Bill Gletsos
12-06-2005, 02:25 AM
Im sorry I mixed up the figure with the Savige rating you supplied. How so. savige never lost anywhere near 395 points.


Fulgenzi only lost 380 rating points for 9 games :

:doh: :hmm:]Fulgenzi only performed at 1645

firegoat7
12-06-2005, 02:26 AM
Based on current form and a performance rating of 1645, I would suggest he doesnt belong in it.

Nice suggestion. I will pass it on to him if you wish? The point you actually choose not to address is -if he had not played 9 club games he would be eligible for the Victorian championship.
So if you want to put 2+2 together. How does that encourage him to play club chess again? :hmm: How exactly does such a rating system get more bums on seats?


Too bad he isnt actually playing more tournament chess instead of friendly games. :boohoo:

Cheers Fg7

firegoat7
12-06-2005, 02:36 AM
Ladies and Gentleman,

I rest my case.

I have proven that BillBot is insane. I have proven without doubt that he is a criminal wrongdoer. Not only have I shown you that he is out to destroy Australian chess, but I also have shown you that he shows no remorse for his crimes.

I leave it in your hands people of the jury.
I call for the death penalty :hand:

Cheers Fg7
P.S Gareth, AC -wheres the poll?

Bill Gletsos
12-06-2005, 02:44 AM
Nice suggestion. I will pass it on to him if you wish? The point you actually choose not to address is -if he had not played 9 club games he would be eligible for the Victorian championship.
So if you want to put 2+2 together. How does that encourage him to play club chess again? :hmm: How exactly does such a rating system get more bums on seats?The aim of a rating system is not to get bums on seats but to represent a players current strength.

firegoat7
12-06-2005, 02:50 AM
The aim of a rating system is not to get bums on seats but to represent a players current strength.

Did somebody fart in this thread again? :hmm:

Bill Gletsos
12-06-2005, 02:53 AM
Did somebody fart in this thread again? :hmm:Obviously, since your mouths open.

Bill Gletsos
12-06-2005, 02:56 AM
Ladies and Gentleman,

I rest my case.You rest nothing you dope other than demonstrate yet again what a fool you are.

I have proven that BillBot is insane. I have proven without doubt that he is a criminal wrongdoer. Not only have I shown you that he is out to destroy Australian chess, but I also have shown you that he shows no remorse for his crimes.The rantings of a lunatic.

I leave it in your hands people of the jury.
I call for the death penalty :hand:Hmmm given their are enough idiots who might actually take you at your word then I guess all you have done is made yourself another potential litigant.

P.S Gareth, AC -wheres the poll?Yes, a poll that you are a fool.

firegoat7
12-06-2005, 03:04 AM
Help!

Police, I am being accosted by a madman...

Help!

Police!! Police!!!

Where are the filth when you need them?

Cheers Fg7

Alan Shore
12-06-2005, 03:31 AM
Something I found interesting...

Two players, each inactive for at least a couple of years.

Fulgenzi

Previous rating: 2044
Games: 9
Performance: 1645
New: 1665
Rating Change: -379

Sampson

Previous rating: 1480 (approximation)
Games: 7
Performance: 2188
New: 1857
Rating Change: +377

So the interesting thing to note, is, around the same number of games, around the same rating change. The kicker is the performance rating vs. the new.

I thought my rating change was reasonable, somewhere in the middle between my previous rating and my performance given the uncertainty factor (think I'd only played one rated rapid tourn before this one). Given the similar circumstances, why is Fulgenzi's new rating so much closer to his performance than mine? With only 9 games played, one would estimate the rating drop to be less significant, with an estimate of a new rating likely about 1800 (Punishing, but not nearly as bad as this).

What are the peculiarities of Glicko that allow this?

Bill Gletsos
12-06-2005, 03:39 AM
Something I found interesting...

Two players, each inactive for at least a couple of years.

Fulgenzi

Previous rating: 2044
Games: 9
Performance: 1645
New: 1665
Rating Change: -379

Sampson

Previous rating: 1480 (approximation)
Games: 7
Performance: 2188
New: 1857
Rating Change: +377

So the interesting thing to note, is, around the same number of games, around the same rating change. The kicker is the performance rating vs. the new.

I thought my rating change was reasonable, somewhere in the middle between my previous rating and my performance given the uncertainty factor (think I'd only played one rated rapid tourn before this one). Given the similar circumstances, why is Fulgenzi's new rating so much closer to his performance than mine? With only 9 games played, one would estimate the rating drop to be less significant, with an estimate of a new rating likely about 1800 (Punishing, but not nearly as bad as this).

What are the peculiarities of Glicko that allow this?The circumstances are no even close.
You were inactive rapid wise from dec 2001 till march 2004. A total of 2 years 3 months.

Fulgenzi was inactive for over 7 years.

Alan Shore
12-06-2005, 03:59 AM
The circumstances are no even close.
You were inactive rapid wise from dec 2001 till march 2004. A total of 2 years 3 months.

Fulgenzi was inactive for over 7 years.

OK, so it's time that is the factor. I wonder what my rating would have been had I waited 7 years rather than 2.25 to make a return!

Libby
12-06-2005, 11:57 AM
I think I will wait for the autobiography to turn up at my public library :hand:

Can't see that anytime soon as such an achievement has no real significance other than to me - a little like a chess rating unless we are really talking about people with national or international standing. It wasn't meant to be an assertion of immense talent.

My ability to move up and play in higher grades was important to me and the loss of that as significant to me as I imagine a rating drop might be for others.

Many physical sports don't afford us the luxury of continuing at all past our peak, particularly if the loss of participation comes as a result of injury.



Possibly, she might be past her peak.

Would be unfortunate at 11 but I did suggest she might need to play well in upcoming events. As any player would if only for the satisfaction of proving Bill wrong :rolleyes:


Please tell, you must be on to some secrets up there...I can't even get the blitz players to set up their own pieces after a game.

Really? Try just not doing it for them.


You have missed the point of this debate. It is not a few rating points that is the issue. The issue is why so many rating points for such a small sample of games. .

Yes, I'm sure I do miss the point. I'm not a player. As an administrator I have serious concerns about the ability of chess to retain players. I would like to think my child will grow up continuing to enjoy the game and actively competing. This obviously comes from my blind spot of comparing it to my experiences in continuing with my involvement in other sports. It just doesn't seem to be all that probable in this one.

I do appreciate you have an argument with the recalculation of a rating however I would think any player who remains out of the competitive system for so long and presents such a small sample to work with could only expect such an outcome. What I would hope to see the system produce, is a rapid return to the former "glory" should a greater sample of results be produced to support it.

Denis_Jessop
12-06-2005, 01:02 PM
Nice suggestion. I will pass it on to him if you wish? The point you actually choose not to address is -if he had not played 9 club games he would be eligible for the Victorian championship.
So if you want to put 2+2 together. How does that encourage him to play club chess again? :hmm: How exactly does such a rating system get more bums on seats?
:boohoo:

Cheers Fg7

How can you seriously suggest that a player is "eligible" for a championship (or any other event) based on a rating that falsely represents his current playing strength? The entry criteria might allow it but then it is the entry criteria that are defective, not the rating system. Perhaps the championship should have an entry criterion based on sentimental value and then he could play :) .

And before you refer, in reply, to entry criteria for the Australian Championship, let me say that I think that they should be reviewed; that is, they are not necessarily the best we could have.

DJ

firegoat7
12-06-2005, 01:49 PM
How can you seriously suggest that a player is "eligible" for a championship (or any other event) based on a rating that falsely represents his current playing strength?

DJ
Quite easily DJ.

Let us take the 2004 Victorian championship as an example. Let us suppose for arguements sake that Fulgenzi had decided to play in the 2004 Vic champs instead of his 9 games at MCC. His rating would have been ACF 2044. He would have made the cut easily. Chess Victoria would have had to accept him as a player into the tournament.

Because he was playing in a stronger pool of players he most certainly would not have had to play anybody under 1900, an important point. Now Fulgenzi may have bombed out completely, we can only speculate on what would have happend. Whatever the outcome we cannot say with any certainty what his rating performance may have been. Any evidence of his 1655 performance at MCC is irrelevent since it is a different circumstance, and yes we cannot predict the future, all knowledge is infered not fact.

What would be fact is this. Fulgenzi if he was only motivated by rating. Would be seriously tempted into not playing local chess because it would be to much of a risk to his chances of getting into a quality event like the Victorian Championship.

If this is the case, then I ask you, how does this help the grassroots, the kids to become better chess players. The answer is it doesn't. Unless local organisers can get some serious prizemoney or serious opposition with good ratings to play, some people just simply won't play if it means risking their rating. So who misses out?

Well chess clubs miss out, developing players miss out, the game itself loses experienced players, taxes are missed out on, community is lost to chess.

Now I am not going to suggest like some that 'Fulgenzi's motivation for playing chess was self interested egoism'. Clearly I have no right to do that, I am just using him as an example of the problematic at work. What I am suggesting is that any system that risks alienating players like this has to be flawed.

Sure, Bill may be right based on rating alone its not an issue. I agree with this.

But where Bill is wrong is that he refuses to accept that ratings have anything to do with 'Status'. Where Gletsos goes wrong is that he thinks chessplayers are passive recipitents of an all encompassing system. He just doesn't seem to understand that chess players are active agents within a structure that is determined around them. From the club perspective that structure is discouraging for participation. Gletsos admits this himself when he says:


The aim of a rating system is not to get bums on seats but to represent a players current strength.

Surely a problematic of immense significance for an organisation like the ACF who is seeking to grow chess?

Like it or not chess ratings do matter to players. They must be delivered fairly, they must take into consideration some historical weighting. They must understand what it is they are creating. Not an instrumental view of the human condition, but a vibrant living community of people, all with something to offer.

Cheers Fg7

Libby
12-06-2005, 01:57 PM
If this is the case, then I ask you, how does this help the grassroots, the kids to become better chess players.

About as much as the player themself who has such an extended period of inactivity.

Some grassroots players can be discouraged by flogging their arses off every week only to miss out on an event because they are leapfrogged by a player preserving their rating through non-participation.

Some could say that players are rewarded for inactivity if you preserve a rating earned in a different era against a different pool of players.

firegoat7
12-06-2005, 02:14 PM
Yes, I'm sure I do miss the point. I'm not a player. As an administrator I have serious concerns about the ability of chess to retain players. I would like to think my child will grow up continuing to enjoy the game and actively competing.

You don't really miss the point. I think everybody agrees with your sentiment here. Not only your child, but your teenager, middle aged, grandparents. I did a survey at MCC once and found some people who had been members for 45 years.

Get them on the blitz table and these 'old hacks' can really play, sometimes. Take Bergmanis as an example...rating languishing in the 1500s, a player of historical significance in Victorian chess. Simon Rutherford once said to me 'play blitz with Bergmanis, his understanding of the white side of a Ruy Lopez is incredible' Simon was right.

How do we get experience, rating, and community balanced in chess. Give people dreams, but I digress that is my other hobby horse.

Cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
12-06-2005, 02:20 PM
But where Bill is wrong is that he refuses to accept that ratings have anything to do with 'Status'. Where Gletsos goes wrong is that he thinks chessplayers are passive recipitents of an all encompassing system. He just doesn't seem to understand that chess players are active agents within a structure that is determined around them. From the club perspective that structure is discouraging for participation.What is problematic is the likes of you arguing for a rating system to cater to a small minoity of players who have been inactive. To do so would simply damage the accuarcy of the ratings. Thus a player like Fulgenzi who returns and plays like a mid 1600 player adversely affects the ratings of those players he competed against. Those that played him dont deserve to be treated as though he was a 2000+ player.
He isnt playing like a 2000+ player he is playing like a mid 1600.
It is fairly meaningless beating a player rated 2000+ if they are performing like a 1600 odd player and trying to claim it as some sort of triumph.
After all I'm sure there are a number of people who can claim to have beaten Ian Rogers. That claim of course means nothing when it turns out they did so back when he was a 1500 rated junior.

Surely a problematic of immense significance for an organisation like the ACF who is seeking to grow chess?

Like it or not chess ratings do matter to players. They must be delivered fairly, they must take into consideration some historical weighting.Not to the extent whether they dont represent accuaracy.

They must understand what it is they are creating. Not an instrumental view of the human condition, but a vibrant living community of people, all with something to offer.Players need to understand that the aim of a rating rating system is to show their current strength, not their strength from 1, 2, 5, 7 or 10 years back.

firegoat7
12-06-2005, 02:27 PM
About as much as the player themself who has such an extended period of inactivity. true


Some grassroots players can be discouraged by flogging their arses off every week only to miss out on an event because they are leapfrogged by a player preserving their rating through non-participation. true


Some could say that players are rewarded for inactivity if you preserve a rating earned in a different era against a different pool of players.
Yes that is consistent with the arguement that has been produced.

Now getting back to the Glicko, in regards to inactive players, you will see massive swings of extreme polarity before a rating is established. In a sytem of stable players with little inside outside interaction this is not problematic. However, with infrequency of play it becomes a significant problem for a plethora of reasons.

Cheers Fg7

firegoat7
12-06-2005, 02:37 PM
Players need to understand that the aim of a rating rating system is to show their current strength, not their strength from 1, 2, 5, 7 or 10 years back.

Quite simply it dosen't show anything of the sort for unstable players. You know aswell as I that the Glicko moves like a radical pendulum for players who have been inactive with a low sample of games. To say that Fulgenzi is in fact 1655 is a direct lie. What you ought to say is that he is at the bottom of a cycle of mathematical calculation and that in all liklihood we expect him to move up next list if he plays.

By the way I have another question concerning this...How do you calculate the ratings of the opponents he plays? How is the issue of ordering sorted out, are there any distortions there?

Cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
12-06-2005, 06:22 PM
Quite simply it dosen't show anything of the sort for unstable players. You know aswell as I that the Glicko moves like a radical pendulum for players who have been inactive with a low sample of games.Incorrect. If for example Fulgenzi had performed at 2045 instead of 1645 over those 9 games his rating would not have changed at all and he would still be rated 2045.

To say that Fulgenzi is in fact 1655 is a direct lie. What you ought to say is that he is at the bottom of a cycle of mathematical calculation and that in all liklihood we expect him to move up next list if he plays.It isnt a lie at all. His current rating of 1665 is more likely to be an indicator of his current strength than his previous rating of 2045.

By the way I have another question concerning this...How do you calculate the ratings of the opponents he plays?I have answered this previously.

How is the issue of ordering sorted out, are there any distortions there?I have answered this previously.

firegoat7
12-06-2005, 08:32 PM
My last time I attempt to put this in perspective.

Years ago Daryl Johansen lost his first round game against Keith Jenkins who was about 1425 at the time. He then went on to win every other game and win the tournament. Let us imagine what would have happend if he had quit after 1 game, in an imaginary scenario after returning from chess after say a year.

According to Bills logic (interpretation) Daz would have been about 1300 in strength upon return. He would have been re-rated at something approaching ridiculousness and forced to an endure an ardous return to the top. Of course all his opponents would be obviously annoyed with this interpretation. Imagine playing a GM in an under 1600 tournament!

Anyway, that shows to me the absurdity of Bills claim "because he is that strength", it might be true for that moment at that exact time, but it is not reflective of the players overall standard which clearly ought to be determined by a larger sample.

By the way Bill, I noticed you didn't answer Belthaser's questions- were they to hard for you?

Cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
12-06-2005, 09:06 PM
My last time I attempt to put this in perspective.We can of course but hope so but some how I doubt that will be true.

Years ago Daryl Johansen lost his first round game against Keith Jenkins who was about 1425 at the time. He then went on to win every other game and win the tournament. Let us imagine what would have happend if he had quit after 1 game, in an imaginary scenario after returning from chess after say a year.Total rubbish. The more you open your mouth the more you show you havent got a clue. Glicko would not have dropped Johansen to anywhere near that based on a single game. In fact if Johansen had been active and then stopped for 1 year and on return played one game and lost to a 1425 player his new Glicko would be about 2451.

According to Bills logic (interpretation) Daz would have been about 1300 in strength upon return.I never said that you fool. It is a combination of factors that affects the rating. In Fulgenzi's case his long period of inactivity, his unrealiable rating and the fact he played 9 games. If Fulgenzi had played only one game on return and performed at 1645 (i.e he drew with a 1645 player) his rating would only have dropped to about 1962.

He would have been re-rated at something approaching ridiculousness and forced to an endure an ardous return to the top. Of course all his opponents would be obviously annoyed with this interpretation. Imagine playing a GM in an under 1600 tournament!You really are good at making this rubbish up as you go along.

Anyway, that shows to me the absurdity of Bills claim "because he is that strength", it might be true for that moment at that exact time, but it is not reflective of the players overall standard which clearly ought to be determined by a larger sample.9 games in Fulgenzi case is a large enough sample.

By the way Bill, I noticed you didn't answer Belthaser's questions- were they to hard for you?I did answer his question in post #111 in post #112.

antichrist
12-06-2005, 11:26 PM
[QUOTE=firegoat7]My last time I attempt to put this in perspective.

Years ago Daryl Johansen lost his first round game against Keith Jenkins who was about 1425 at the time. He then went on to win every other game and win the tournament. Let us imagine what would have happend if he had quit after 1 game, in an imaginary scenario after returning from chess after say a year.

According to Bills logic (interpretation) Daz would have been about 1300 in strength upon return. He would have been re-rated at something approaching ridiculousness and forced to an endure an ardous return to the top. Of course all his opponents would be obviously annoyed with this interpretation. Imagine playing a GM in an under 1600 tournament!..........

A/C
Come on FG, you are talking to chessplayers now. Everyone knows that Daz would not lose a fraction of the points that you claim. A lot of your arguments I haven't a clue about but they would want to be a lot better than this one or are you are surely wasting your time. But then you are from...

At least NSW GMs only lose to decent players and only on time
...........................................Bill's NSW Running Dog

(seen your mate today and will tomorrow)

firegoat7
13-06-2005, 02:27 AM
AC,

Can you tell your buddy that 90 points appears to be the most you can lose for a game...is that true or false? I figure I may aswell talk to through you in the 3rd person because despite all your faults, you are actually civil...unlike some of your friends.

Cheers Fg7
P.S tell our mutual friend I think AOK are playing on Wednesday night at that spot he arranged...can he confirm or deny?

antichrist
13-06-2005, 03:06 AM
AC,

Can you tell your buddy that 90 points appears to be the most you can lose for a game...is that true or false? I figure I may aswell talk to through you in the 3rd person because despite all your faults, you are actually civil...unlike some of your friends.

A/C
I am sure he will read it anyway and I don't know much about ratings. Concerning your comment I don't see why 90 points is a natural limit at all.

When I tossed games away by giving queen starts I lost about 60 points each time but those players had a rating a lot closer rating to mine than your mate Fungenzi would have had to his opponents I imagine. So Fungenzi could well have lost a lot of points.

If he deserves a higher rating he will win them back again and win prize money as well, that is how I see it. If he wanted to keep his rating up it is his own fault for playing rated games when he is out of practise in the classical game. I only do it once a year at SEC and deservedly I expect my rating to go down.

When I returned to competition ping pong after 25 years they gave me my old rating of minus 8, and being 25 years older no way I could deserve that rating and win any prizes in a handicap competition. Similar to chess, the more losses I had in ping pong (guaranted to) the more my handicap became less severe, which meant I had a chance to win prizes, the same as if in a lower rated chess group and can win prizes.

Maybe you have not left competition, but I have in chess and without that pressure of rated classical games one just cannot keep the standard up. I witnessed that many times in the SEC, which would draw inactive 2000+ players. Our top seed (inactive player) walked out this year after day one as losing too many games. Fungezi, being the former excellent, experienced player, also would know and should expect all this.

I know players who deliberately let their ratings drop so that they can win prize money. Have you asked him if this was his intention? One never knows and other players may very well be cursing him for letting his rating drop. It looks very sussie to me - no joking. And how can you trust someone with a name like that and a Mexican.

You can curse me now.

I took Bill on about his vocabulary and I ended up getting banned, supposedly for posting out of thread but that was not the real reason, it was for being provocative. Try taking up a petition about it, but I think he has been modifying it laterly.

Cheers Fg7
P.S tell our mutual friend I think AOK are playing on Wednesday night at that spot he arranged...can he confirm or deny?

will do assuming he turns up as promised otherwise will try and ring him.

Look at those "interesting websites" I put up, they are of controversial political cartoons on the Palestinian and Iraq issues. they show the cartoons asa well. I will put up on my wall.

rob
13-06-2005, 02:40 PM
An example for consideration.

A WA player was rated about 1700 in the year 1987 before they stopped playing. This player restarted again towards the end of 2004. This players rating has gone down to 1350, then to 1191, and is now 1132.

I'm sure FG and AC would have argued that the initial drop to 1350 was too harsh - but the player's following ratings don't support that argument.

Any comments? :)

antichrist
13-06-2005, 06:39 PM
An example for consideration.

A WA player was rated about 1700 in the year 1987 before they stopped playing. This player restarted again towards the end of 2004. This players rating has gone down to 1350, then to 1191, and is now 1132.

I'm sure FG and AC would have argued that the initial drop to 1350 was too harsh - but the player's following ratings don't support that argument.

Any comments? :)

How dare you put words in my mouth, I would not have said that at all, exactly the opposite, after 20 years break what would one expect if inactive from socially testing games. Did not you read my post carefully, I repeated the same point and even gave examples.

I was arguing against FG, didn't you get that? Merry Christmas anyway.

antichrist
14-06-2005, 06:45 AM
Rob,
If you realise that you were wrong in your post about myself you could admit "Yeah I blundered there".

rob
14-06-2005, 12:04 PM
How dare you put words in my mouth, I would not have said that at all, exactly the opposite, after 20 years break what would one expect if inactive from socially testing games. Did not you read my post carefully, I repeated the same point and even gave examples.

I was arguing against FG, didn't you get that? Merry Christmas anyway.

Sorry Antichrist,

You are of course correct, I blunderred there :( . I am glad that your opinion on ratings is not the same as FG, I apologise for inferring that it was.

Merry Christmas.

Lucena
14-06-2005, 03:09 PM
Sorry Antichrist,

You are of course correct, I blunderred there :( . I am glad that your opinion on ratings is not the same as FG, I apologise for inferring that it was.

Merry Christmas.

What's with this Merry Christmas stuff? :eh:

Spiny Norman
14-06-2005, 04:31 PM
What's with this Merry Christmas stuff? :eh:

I would've thought an apology to AC once a year, whether deserved or not, was a wonderful Xmas present. :)

antichrist
14-06-2005, 08:08 PM
Well today is the 35th anniversary of me and my loved one, and when I brought it up she called me a hopeless romantic? You did not think I had that side did you?

Maybe that is why I don't need any of that spiritual or New Age bulldust.

Edit: what is this doing in the ratings thread. Well at least it more pleasant than all the arguing previously.

Lucena
15-06-2005, 12:10 PM
Well today is the 35th anniversary of me and my loved one, and when I brought it up she called me a hopeless romantic? You did not think I had that side did you?

Maybe that is why I don't need any of that spiritual or New Age bulldust.

Edit: what is this doing in the ratings thread. Well at least it more pleasant than all the arguing previously.

Don't worry AC. According to my poll which can be viewed at: http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=2568, at the moment only 9.1% of people think that "persistently making off-topic posts" is a long-term bannable offence :cool:

Garvinator
17-06-2005, 11:52 AM
Hello Bill,

When do the sp files for june ratings become available?

Bill Gletsos
19-06-2005, 08:44 PM
Hello Bill,

When do the sp files for june ratings become available?I have sent them to the webmaster. I expect them to appear in the next 24 hours.