PDA

View Full Version : New Zealand Ratings overrated compared to our system?



Frank Walker
17-01-2006, 09:10 PM
I notice some kiwis rated around 2000 ar seeming to struggle in this tournament.

Do they use a different system to us?
Who manages it?

Thunderspirit
17-01-2006, 09:27 PM
I notice some kiwis rated around 2000 ar seeming to struggle in this tournament.

Do they use a different system to us?
Who manages it?


Don't forget that some ratings used are FIDE, while some just ACF. This will mean that some results may favour ACF rated players (somewhat)...

Anyway it's a ratings issue. By definition it's Bill's fault. Let's blame Bill....

Frank Walker
17-01-2006, 09:40 PM
Yep, lets do that :)

Bill Gletsos
17-01-2006, 11:34 PM
Don't forget that some ratings used are FIDE, while some just ACF. This will mean that some results may favour ACF rated players (somewhat)...

Anyway it's a ratings issue. By definition it's Bill's fault. Let's blame Bill....Ha ha. I have no control over their FIDE or NZCF ratings.

Also there are a number of cases where there is a large difference between some players FIDE and their NZCF rating.

Thunderspirit
18-01-2006, 07:08 AM
Ha ha. I have no control over their FIDE or NZCF ratings.

Also there are a number of cases where there is a large difference between some players FIDE and their NZCF rating.

I'm fully aware Bill that you have no control over either rating system. Isn't that more of a reason to blame you? :lol:

pax
18-01-2006, 08:15 AM
I'm fully aware Bill that you have no control over either rating system. Isn't that more of a reason to blame you? :lol:

Yeah, Bill - why don't you control FIDE an NZ ratings?

Seriously though, it's way too early to start making assertions about ratings. After 3 rounds, different players have faced vastly different fields. You still have 1200 players on 2 and 2000+ players on 1 (I don't think Aaron Guthrie will stay on a minus score).

Davidflude
20-01-2006, 04:50 PM
It is extremely unlikely that New Zealand and Australian ratings would correspond. Possibly 10,000 should be added to all Australian ratings with juniors coming into the system with a rating of 10000. This would make it absolutely clear that Australian ratings do not correspond to anything else.

Without naming players I have checked out New Zealand players playing at Queenstown. Players of approximately my strength have Kiwi ratings 150-300
points higher than my Australian rating. I doubt that they have all imptoved.

pax
20-01-2006, 05:15 PM
It is extremely unlikely that New Zealand and Australian ratings would correspond. Possibly 10,000 should be added to all Australian ratings with juniors coming into the system with a rating of 10000. This would make it absolutely clear that Australian ratings do not correspond to anything else.

Without naming players I have checked out New Zealand players playing at Queenstown. Players of approximately my strength have Kiwi ratings 150-300
points higher than my Australian rating. I doubt that they have all imptoved.

Are you comparing their rating listed on the Queenstown site, or their actual NZ rating? Bear in mind that players with FIDE ratings are listed with that rating, not a local rating. FIDE ratings are routinely 150-300 higher than Oz ratings below the 2200 level.

btw, I don't think Andrew Lee (NZ 983) is overrated!!!

Bill Gletsos
20-01-2006, 06:39 PM
The following are NZ players with either FIDE or ACF ratings.
The rating following the players name is the rating in use in the event.
Also where they have them are listed there ACF, NZCF and FIDE ratings.


ACF NZCF FIDE
FM Igor Bjelobrk NZ 2396 2399 2200 2396
IM Russell Dive NZ 2359 2378 2359
IM Paul Garbett NZ 2354 2360 2314 2354
IM Anthony Ker NZ 2330 2327 2364 2330
FM Roger Nokes NZ 2316 2326 2344 2316
FM Richard Sutton NZ 2301 2253 2301
FM Stephen Lukey NZ 2279 2281 2253 2279
FM Peter Green NZ 2263 2256 2235 2263
FM Scott Wastney NZ 2256 2258 2275 2256
FM Bob Smith NZ 2253 2311 2269 2253
Michael Steadman NZ 2241 2222 2219 2241
Puchen Wang NZ 2240 2238 2265 2240
Nicolas Croad NZ 2222 2229 2222
Graeme Spain NZ 2202 2175 2206 2202
Gino Thornton NZ 2176 1984 2027 2176
Quentin Johnson NZ 2157 2115 2157
Roger Perry NZ 2132 2056 1907 2132
Peter Goffin NZ 2116 2105 1763 2116
Matthew McNabb NZ 2109 2100 2109
Paul Beach NZ 2099 1955 2099
Antonio Krstev NZ 2098 2120 2046 2098
Michael Turner NZ 2080 2007 2080
Daniel Baider NZ 2079 1964 2079
Hilton Bennett NZ 2078 1946 1993 2078
Duncan Watts NZ 2054 1810 2054
Peter Fraemohs NZ 2051 1903 2051
Nathan Goodhue NZ 2022 2056 1962 2022
Bruce Donaldson NZ 2012 1995 2028 2012
Evgenia Charmova NZ 2006 1564 1681 2006
Alan Aldridge NZ 2002 1860 2002
Craig Hall NZ 1980 1814 1980
Michael Nyberg NZ 1979 1830 1979
Maciej Wojnar NZ 1973 1875 1973
Chris Benson NZ 1949 2027 1691 1949
Danny Adair NZ 2007(1905) 1905 2007
Ross McKerras NZ 2052 1889 2052
L Ross Jackson NZ 2065(1880) 1880 2065
Andrew Stone NZ 1828 1668 1828
Jacek Wojnar NZ 2165(1824) 1824 2165
Natasha Fairley NZ 1755 1461 1755
wc Vivian Smith NZ 1617 1604 1617
Bruce Gloistein NZ 1601 1652 1601

Davidflude
20-01-2006, 06:58 PM
Are you comparing their rating listed on the Queenstown site, or their actual NZ rating? Bear in mind that players with FIDE ratings are listed with that rating, not a local rating. FIDE ratings are routinely 150-300 higher than Oz ratings below the 2200 level.

btw, I don't think Andrew Lee (NZ 983) is overrated!!!

Oh dear I fouled up. Once I look at the Kiwi ratings the discrepancies are much
smaller.

Frank Walker
21-01-2006, 02:05 PM
We still have people on 1.5 out of 6 and rated over 2000....

Bill Gletsos
21-01-2006, 02:18 PM
We still have people on 1.5 out of 6 and rated over 2000....You dont seem to be paying any attention to the above posts where pax pointed out that is their FIDe ratings which often bear little resemblence to their NZCF rating.
If you look at their NZCF ratings you will see that one is under 1800 and the other under 1700.

Frank Walker
21-01-2006, 06:10 PM
i dont care!!!!

I am just mentioning that we still have people on 1.5/6

Cant you live with that?

Bill Gletsos
21-01-2006, 06:16 PM
i dont care!!!!That is obvious.

I am just mentioning that we still have people on 1.5/6No you made a specific reference to some on 1.5/6 that was misleading.

Cant you live with that?Sure. Feel free to make as many uninformed comments as you like.

Frank Walker
21-01-2006, 08:21 PM
That is obvious.
You are a bit slow


No you made a specific reference to some on 1.5/6 that was misleading..
You, sir are misleading


Sure. Feel free to make as many uninformed comments as you like.

Hello Im Mr. Gletsoz and i am a smart alec lalala

Bill Gletsos
21-01-2006, 11:01 PM
You are a bit slowSome times you need to play blitz, other times you need to take your time. You clearly have no clue.

You, sir are misleadingI'm was not the one making misleading claims about those on 1.5/6.

Hello Im Mr. Gletsoz and i am a smart alec lalalaWhat a goose you are. You cannot even spell correctly with it right in front of you.

themovingman
25-01-2006, 10:24 PM
Yep, lets do that :)
:) oh, you guys :lol: I hope everyone had a good Xmas