PDA

View Full Version : Player's first rating?



Phil Bourke
05-04-2006, 05:45 AM
Forgive me if this is has been covered previously, but I was unable to unearth any relevant information.
How is a player's first rating calculated?

Spiny Norman
05-04-2006, 07:06 AM
They have to play a certain number of games against other rated players ... not sure how many, but I think its somewhere around 12-15 (someone else can clarify that).

Rincewind
05-04-2006, 08:21 AM
I think I'll let Bill link to or provide the details about the initial rating as I'm sure I will get some detail wrong in how it is done if I try off the top of my head. But as for the number of games vs rated players required for a published ACF rating, I believe the answer is 9.

Bill Gletsos
05-04-2006, 04:38 PM
Forgive me if this is has been covered previously, but I was unable to unearth any relevant information.
How is a player's first rating calculated?The player needs to play a total of 9 rateable games.

The new players rating is calculated from all his results within the rating period against both rated players and unrated players who the system has been able to rate within the rating period.

Of course new players who score 0% or 100% for the period remain unrated.

Phil Bourke
05-04-2006, 07:09 PM
The player needs to play a total of 9 rateable games.

The new players rating is calculated from all his results within the rating period against both rated players and unrated players who the system has been able to rate within the rating period.

Of course new players who score 0% or 100% for the period remain unrated.
Thanks for that fellows.
Now to make life difficult, is there a formula that I can apply to 5 and 6 games to let some younger players what sort of rating they would have provisionally at this point.

SHump
12-11-2009, 09:48 AM
The player needs to play a total of 9 rateable games.

The new players rating is calculated from all his results within the rating period against both rated players and unrated players who the system has been able to rate within the rating period.

Of course new players who score 0% or 100% for the period remain unrated.
A similar question, but for FIDE rated games. I have played 14 games so far (according to the FIDE stats for myself) - 5 wins, 3 draws, 6 losses (so not a 0% or 100% record). How many games do I need to get into the FIDE system before I get a FIDE rating? I have read the FIDE handbook on ratings without much success, but it may be in there somewhere, or by inference perhaps.

CameronD
12-11-2009, 05:26 PM
A similar question, but for FIDE rated games. I have played 14 games so far (according to the FIDE stats for myself) - 5 wins, 3 draws, 6 losses (so not a 0% or 100% record). How many games do I need to get into the FIDE system before I get a FIDE rating? I have read the FIDE handbook on ratings without much success, but it may be in there somewhere, or by inference perhaps.

Only games against rated opponents count. I think you need a total of 9.

Thunderspirit
12-11-2009, 09:39 PM
The player needs to play a total of 9 rateable games.

The new players rating is calculated from all his results within the rating period against both rated players and unrated players who the system has been able to rate within the rating period.

Of course new players who score 0% or 100% for the period remain unrated.

Unless things have changed, while 9 games gets you a rating, unless Uncle Bill has changed the rules, this got you a 'Provisional rating'. It still listed on the rating list as normal, but the rating goes up and down more until a player reaches 30 games when the rating is no longer 'Provisional', and is an established rating.

It's been a while William since I was provisionally rated, is this still the case?

SHump
12-11-2009, 10:01 PM
Lee - I am only talking FIDE ratings here. So I will need to check which of my 14 games were against FIDE rated players it seems.

Kevin Bonham
13-11-2009, 12:26 AM
Unless things have changed, while 9 games gets you a rating, unless Uncle Bill has changed the rules, this got you a 'Provisional rating'. It still listed on the rating list as normal, but the rating goes up and down more until a player reaches 30 games when the rating is no longer 'Provisional', and is an established rating.

"Provisional" ratings with that sharp demarcation between <30 games and 30 games no longer exist in the ACF system. That was an ELO-system thing. Under Glicko-2 the rate at which your rating goes up and down is a function of many variables - number of games played affects it but on something more like a sliding scale. How recently you have played, how volatile your results have been, and the same sorts of factors for your opponents are all part of the mix.

SHump
13-11-2009, 10:36 AM
OK looking at the FIDE site, from my grand total of 14 FIDE games, 6 of them (1 win, 1 draw) were against players with FIDE ratings. My 14 games looks rather tame against other players that I have played but also still do not have a FIDE rating (Natasha Bortsova has 28 games; David Toper has 34 games).

I guess I, like others, will just have to keep plugging away with some FIDE rated events, and hope to play FIDE rated players, if they are to achieve a FIDE Rating (at what FIDE rated player games count?).

I guess I am only looking down this path, as the Doeberl Major either requires you to have a FIDE rating (<2000) or an ACF rating (between 1400 and 2000), and I am aiming to go into that event next year. My ACF rating is already in the right range, but you never know...

mikesguns
14-11-2009, 11:15 AM
OK looking at the FIDE site, from my grand total of 14 FIDE games, 6 of them (1 win, 1 draw) were against players with FIDE ratings. My 14 games looks rather tame against other players that I have played but also still do not have a FIDE rating (Natasha Bortsova has 28 games; David Toper has 34 games).

I guess I, like others, will just have to keep plugging away with some FIDE rated events, and hope to play FIDE rated players, if they are to achieve a FIDE Rating (at what FIDE rated player games count?).

I guess I am only looking down this path, as the Doeberl Major either requires you to have a FIDE rating (<2000) or an ACF rating (between 1400 and 2000), and I am aiming to go into that event next year. My ACF rating is already in the right range, but you never know...
Scott, according to the FIDE website you have only played 4 games at the Vic Open. You need a block of 3 FIDE rated games at each tournament, with at least a score of .5 or 1 (not sure exactly) and a rating performance of 1600 or 1400 in your first tournament.
I am not 100% sure about this but im sure Bill will know

Paul Cavezza
15-11-2009, 12:03 AM
Is the first rating often quite inaccurate? I've just looked at mine after something like 14 tournament games, 2 of which I won against players rated ~1550 & ~1480, and I find my rating at 1645:>:> Not sure how that's possible! I played in very strong tournaments and got drawn against some highly rated players I guess.. if that factors in!

sleepless
15-11-2009, 02:03 PM
For some info about ratings check out the SACA FAQ page.

http://sachess.org/faq.html

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2009, 08:01 PM
Is the first rating often quite inaccurate?

The first rating in any system is very inaccurate because it is based on very limited data. The ACF system adjusts very rapidly when the first rating is wrong; the FIDE system is much slower.


I've just looked at mine after something like 14 tournament games, 2 of which I won against players rated ~1550 & ~1480, and I find my rating at 1645:>:> Not sure how that's possible! I played in very strong tournaments and got drawn against some highly rated players I guess.. if that factors in!

Yes; you can get a good rating with a low score if a number of the opponents you have played are very high rated. For instance 2/12 against a 1550, a 1480 and ten others who averaged 2100 would get you a rating in that ballpark. If you had some draws as well as the wins that reduces the average rating required.

SHump
16-11-2009, 01:09 PM
Many thanks to maddam12 and pablito15 for the explanations. Yes I see now why FIDE had me down for 4 opponents in the Vic Open, as the 5th one (Joerg Wallmuller) only got his FIDE rating after that event.

Anyway, it seems my FIDE rating clock is now ticking, 2 years from Sept 09, with 4 games down and 5 to go.

SHump
28-04-2014, 03:10 PM
This is posted on behalf of a new player to our club. He has not scored any points as yet in our rated (or unrated/blitz/rapid) events, and I can understand the logic that he cannot have a rating because of 'nothing' to compare him against. Unfortunately most of our club members are in the middle to higher end of the rating spectrum, so I fear the new player may be unrated for some time to come. He may be only some 200-300 points lower than our lowest player, but that is just my impression.

This seems a little unfair, and not very encouraging for the new player. What can/could be done from a rating perspective (not getting someone to draw or lose a game).... And a related question, is if he takes say 50 games to get a result, what would his rating be - would all 50 games be taken into account (average rating of opponents etc.)??

Rincewind
28-04-2014, 03:20 PM
The best thing that could be done is to recruit more new players of a similar level so that you can get a reliable measure of relative strength at that end of the spectrum. The problem for this player if they continue to play at a level below cohort is that their rating signal will be pretty noisy with sudden jumps when they get a draw or win over a higher rated player followed by a gradual decline when they loose the next x games in a row. It is much better to have a mixture of results to smooth out that noise. Of course someone will also be at the top/bottom of the rating pool the problem is only really apparent when you have a single player either a long way above, or a long way below the rest of the pool.

Ian Rout
28-04-2014, 04:44 PM
It should be remembered that beginners don't stay hundreds of points behind (in strength) for long.

In the interim an approach could be to give the player an unofficial rating for internal purposes and adjust it after each quarter or event using Barry's calculator (or the Elo formula, or the back of an envelope).

Rincewind
28-04-2014, 05:10 PM
It should be remembered that beginners don't stay hundreds of points behind (in strength) for long.

This is true. I was imagining a very skewed distribution (Like everyone 1600+) but if we are talking about Wollongong Collegians then there are a few players in that 1100-1400 range. And there is hope at least that motivated new comers will become competitive in that group reasonably quickly.

SHump
02-06-2014, 03:20 PM
The ACF June ratings are out (well, the active player list at least) and the player in question (not having scored any points as yet), is not included in the list. Surely he would be thetre, even if listed as '15g' or whatever (well Ng, where N is the number of games he has played). Others on the active list get a 2g or 3g notation for instance. As a NSWCA member and ACF rating participant, he should get 'some' recognition, I am assuming.... I know this is a special case perhaps?!

Ian Rout
02-06-2014, 04:33 PM
The ACF June ratings are out (well, the active player list at least) and the player in question (not having scored any points as yet), is not included in the list. Surely he would be thetre, even if listed as '15g' or whatever (well Ng, where N is the number of games he has played). Others on the active list get a 2g or 3g notation for instance. As a NSWCA member and ACF rating participant, he should get 'some' recognition, I am assuming.... I know this is a special case perhaps?!
A player with 2g (for instance) needs to play two games, not has played two. This isn't quite the same as playing seven games because if you lost (or won) all seven then merely playing two more won't necessarily give you a rating. I would guess this is the story here.

It would be nice if the player were listed, just so they knew their games were in the system. The other side is that if there were many players in this position the list would be lengthened by a lot of names with no useful information (recalling that even those who only play one tournament and then quit will stay on the list for eighteen months).

SHump
04-06-2014, 04:37 PM
Thanks Ian, yes I got the Ng the wrong way around. In this case, the player would have 0g and a rating of 0, but at least would be listed. It is hard to tell how many players would be in this '0g 0 rating' (or Ng where they have not scored anything) position - Bill to comment? We can see the number of 1g, 2g, etc. players already for those players that have logically then/presumably scored something.