PDA

View Full Version : Junior Ratings Discourage Participation? Yes or no?



Basil
17-06-2006, 09:22 PM
Caveats:
1. This thread could have been started in a number of other rooms
2. Ratings-Bots, please don't swamp this thread until a direction has become clear. Don't misunderstand me, we will be wishing to hear your very excellent points later.

I wish to test the water of a number of questions that have re-risen in Qld chess admin just recently.

I would like to hear from any adult, of any rating who has specifically elected not to play a particular event because of being overun by under rated kiddies.

I have more for Garv-bot, Bill-bot and Byrom-bot on this later.

Desmond
17-06-2006, 09:55 PM
Is there going to be a poll added?

Basil
17-06-2006, 10:01 PM
Is there going to be a poll added?

Bill has offered if I want to retrace my steps by adding a poll. At this stage I think no, because it may distract from what I seek to learn.

Eg, Let's say 90% of adults are fine with junior participation and any perceived ratings inequities, and 10% aren't.

I want to hear from the 10%. That 10% is significant. If the 10% feel they are in such a minority, they might not feel compelled to discuss the issue.

In short, I am only interested in the 10% or 50% at this stage.

Desmond
17-06-2006, 10:56 PM
Yes, I have. I care about my rating. I don't understand why I care about it, but I do nevertheless.

The last 7 round weekender I played in, I played vs 6 juniors. They took points off me (1 loss, 1 draw). I do not play under my rating. I performed under it yes, but not played under it. They are rapidly improving, and they deserve to go up the ratings charts. Good for them. Seriously. But I don't deserve to go down, and this is where the disincentive exists.

In fact, 3 of them featured in the most-improved list shortly after. So I can take solace in that fact, but it doesn't give me my points back.

Garvinator
18-06-2006, 12:17 AM
Thinking about this a bit more, I think there is another factor that can be more of an issue to adults than just losing a few extra rating points.

The feeling that they are little chance to win a rating prize or similar due to under rated juniors. What I mean by this is the adult performs above their rating, does well and still doesnt even get close to winning a rating prize or similar due to what is in their opinion, a clearly under rated junior.

I think also the tournament draw can sometimes not help in this matter because as soon as the adult loses to an under rated junior, they can be plunged into pairings that dont give them the opportunity to claw back the lost rating points.

Desmond
18-06-2006, 01:40 AM
I have also heard players mention the following reservation, although it does not apply to me.

The young junior, who is twitchy, has a runny nose, barely looks at the board, shuffles to much in their seat etc can be distracting.

Basil
18-06-2006, 01:43 AM
Fair enough - I have heard it too. However I would like to limit my findings in this thrtead to qualitative data that directly results in non entry. I appreciate you acknowledged that with your post.

bergil
18-06-2006, 06:03 AM
Oh and the little buggers always touch their pieces and say "Adjust" even if they are in the middle of the square. :wall:

If I copped a free feel as often as they do, I'd be slapped silly or locked up in jail. :hmm: (maybe I should say adjust first?)

PHAT
18-06-2006, 07:46 AM
1. Personally, I do not care what rating anyone has. In fact, I would rather see ratings abandonned altogether in favor of grades just like every other sport.

2. In my club, I estimate that 30 to 50% HATE playing juniors because they believe they are underated. The remainder mearly dislike it.

3. Personally I dislike it because of how my club mates are upset to varying degrees, by having to play underated juniors. Certainly, if juniors were not generally precieved as ridiculously under rated, the players I know would not be upset at the thought of playing juniors.

4. Personally I prefer not to play juniors because I feel ambivalent when I lose but quite sad when I win. That is why I play the in the Major at Doeberl rather than the Minor where one will meet many juniors.

Desmond
18-06-2006, 08:51 AM
Ambivalent; well, yes and no ;)

Rhubarb
18-06-2006, 07:36 PM
I do not play under my rating.
Bzzt.

I performed under it yes, but not played under it.
Bzzt.

They are rapidly improving, and they deserve to go up the ratings charts. Good for them. Seriously. But I don't deserve to go down,
Bzzt.

and this is where the disincentive exists.
Bzzt. (well maybe this last one is subjective).

Oops, just read the intro. I suppose I'm one of them despised ratings-bots.

Basil
18-06-2006, 07:38 PM
Greg, what's your point above?

Garvinator
18-06-2006, 07:47 PM
Greg,

I made a very similar post to yours and decided to delete. This is not an attack thread, yet;) but a subjective feel thread, so to speak.

Howard is just gathering info, so we can wait a couple of days :lol:

It does seem however that Howard is not getting much of a reply :eek: :doh:

Basil
18-06-2006, 07:50 PM
I should probably clarify that this thread isn't heading into combatitive territory. Its heading into education & marketing territory.

Rhubarb
18-06-2006, 07:51 PM
Greg, what's your point above?Well since you asked, HD...

All rating systems are a statistical reflection of the player's performance. In 99% of cases this is a true reflection of the player's strength [edit: relative to other players in that system] (no matter what the player, confounded by his/her ego, believes). There are cases due to pooling where, yes, people can be underrated. I believe that Bill has gone to a great deal of effort to remove these pooling effects.

Basil
18-06-2006, 07:56 PM
Well since you asked, HD...

All rating systems are a statistical reflection of the player's performance. In 99% of cases this is a true reflection of the player's strength (no matter what the player, confounded by his/her ego, believes). There are cases due to pooling where, yes, people can be underrated. I believe that Bill has gone to a great deal of effort to remove these pooling effects.

Greg

You may well be right. I don't know enough about these things, but I am regularly and relaibly advised that this is the case.

What I am trying to achieve with thus thread at the moment, is to find out who's out there with this opinion, as opposed to saying, "if you're out there, bash this up your crevice". :)

Rhubarb
18-06-2006, 08:05 PM
Greg

You may well be right. I don't know enough about these things, but I am regularly and relaibly advised that this is the case.

What I am trying to achieve with thus thread at the moment, is to find out who's out there with this opinion, as opposed to saying, "if you're out there, bash this up your crevice". :)Right, and I unintentionally interfered in that process. I'll hold my peace.

Cat
18-06-2006, 08:21 PM
Well since you asked, HD...

All rating systems are a statistical reflection of the player's performance. In 99% of cases this is a true reflection of the player's strength [edit: relative to other players in that system] (no matter what the player, confounded by his/her ego, believes). There are cases due to pooling where, yes, people can be underrated. I believe that Bill has gone to a great deal of effort to remove these pooling effects.

The problem cannot be corrected through the Glicko as it stands (whatever that is now), because the consequences of the rating system have already taken too big a toll on regional chess. It really needs to be addressed creatively.

Queensland competitions are being supported by adults less and less. Those adults that do compete are outnumbered 2-3:1 by juniors. The juniors are essentially keeping these tournaments going and through progressive coaching regimes are progressing much faster than reflected by the rating system. Any adults that decide to compete are being roasted. It's significantly undermining the playing environment in Queensland, adult chess is dying, despite the best entrepreneurial efforts.

The Glicko system might be ok in a stable chess environment like Sydney, but for elsewhere it's hopeless. Of course, none of these things can be properly remedied until the ACF is restructured and the NSW gerrymander released. However, while the ACF view remains so Sydney-centric, chess will continue to decline.

Garvinator
18-06-2006, 08:24 PM
Cat, please shut up like Greg and I have agreed to do. With a bit of hesitation, this is why Bill has not replied either.

Without posting a reply, think maybe for a second why Howard has opened this thread :hmm: there might just be a reason for it beyond some bb posting :uhoh:

The point of us all old time posters being quiet is to allow others to post without fear of getting roasted as soon as they do.

Cat
18-06-2006, 09:34 PM
Cat, please shut up like Greg and I have agreed to do. With a bit of hesitation, this is why Bill has not replied either.

Without posting a reply, think maybe for a second why Howard has opened this thread :hmm: there might just be a reason for it beyond some bb posting :uhoh:

The point of us all old time posters being quiet is to allow others to post without fear of getting roasted as soon as they do.

Fair enough

Desmond
18-06-2006, 09:36 PM
Bzzt.
Bzzt.
Bzzt.
Bzzt. (well maybe this last one is subjective).
Oops, just read the intro. I suppose I'm one of them despised ratings-bots.
Umm Greg, since I am only expressing my point of view, are you suggeting that you know it better than myself? Or does your point of view dominate the universe?

Garvinator
19-06-2006, 11:17 PM
Your thread isnt doing so well Howard :(

Basil
20-06-2006, 12:09 AM
Your thread isnt doing so well Howard :(

Garvin, how did you know? I asked my wife and doctor to keep that a secret.

Garvinator
20-06-2006, 12:11 AM
Garvin, how did you know? I asked my wife and doctor to keep that a secret.
:hmm: looks like you will have to sue mini mee for breaking doctor/patient confidentiality :P

ursogr8
20-06-2006, 08:47 AM
Your thread isnt doing so well Howard :(

yeh, Howard.
Could you cut to the chase and just give us a progress score. :uhoh:

And your conclusion from the data?

starter

Desmond
20-06-2006, 09:07 AM
Perhaps some people read previous posts, concur, feel they have nothing to add so stay silent.

EZBeet
20-06-2006, 11:33 AM
hmmm, well I do understand why some adults are put off.

At the last QBW I played J Kinder (@1300) and S Hunter(@1300), both these players achieved a performance rating of >1700 (good for them). This, I feel, is closer to their true rating.

Sure I won both games and earned 2 points for it. Had I lost I would be down 200 points.

Is this the sort of thing Howard is talking about?

Desmond
20-06-2006, 11:50 AM
S Hunter was in the most improved list yet his rating is marked !! I don't understand that. Surely if he is improving at a rate of knots, he should be marked with a less reliable rating?

Basil
20-06-2006, 12:25 PM
So far,

I have asked to hear from a certain type of player. I heard from one.
I also had the pleasure of hearing from 91 eager beavers!

Boris nailed it 3 posts back. I have a feeling this thread has been snuffed by those who could have helped most.

Kevin Bonham
20-06-2006, 01:04 PM
Boris nailed it 3 posts back. I have a feeling this thread has been snuffed by those who could have helped most.

I suggest the following reasons for silence from the affected group:

(i) Nobody wants to admit to not playing because of fear of losing points to juniors. It is like walking around with donkey ears attached to your head and "flame me" written on your t-shirt.

(ii) The number of players who don't play because of fear of losing points to juniors is very small.

(iii) The same attitude that would cause a player to not play because of fear of losing points to juniors also causes them to be unlikely to post on the internet (and afraid of cracks in the pavement as well most likely.)

Desmond
20-06-2006, 01:22 PM
(i) Nobody wants to admit to not playing because of fear of losing points to juniors. It is like walking around with donkey ears attached to your head and "flame me" written on your t-shirt.

Nice idea for a t-shirt. A donkey with a flame thrower. Let me know if you find one and where I may purchase it.

I tried to shed some light on the subject of a significant reason behind the decline of chess in Australia. If I am ridiculed for it, I would consider that quite pathetic.



(ii) The number of players who don't play because of fear of losing points to juniors is very small.
Perhaps, but my understanding of the thread was people who were "discouraged" not merely those who decided not to play. This number would not be small.



(iii) The same attitude that would cause a player to not play because of fear of losing points to juniors also causes them to be unlikely to post on the internet (and afraid of cracks in the pavement as well most likely.)
That last comment is quite interesting. And since you bring up attitudes, I find your to be quite apathetic.

Basil
20-06-2006, 01:25 PM
Kevin, you may be right, but we don't know. Your suggestions are more than reasonable.


(i) Nobody wants to admit to not playing because of fear of losing points to juniors.
Disagree. I have met such players. They don't mind stating publicly their position.

(ii) The number of players who don't play because of fear of losing points to juniors is very small.
Quite. However, I was trying to determine the magnitude.

(iii) The same attitude that would cause a player to not play because of fear of losing points to juniors also causes them to be unlikely to post on the internet[/QUOTE]
Quite. But as administrators, I would like to engage these people and discuss the issue.

Garvinator
20-06-2006, 01:40 PM
Kevin, you may be right, but we don't know. Your suggestions are more than reasonable.

(i) Nobody wants to admit to not playing because of fear of losing points to juniors.
Disagree. I have met such players. They don't mind stating publicly their position.
That is in one on one conversations, or with known like minded people. Not in a mass forum like this.

Garvinator
20-06-2006, 01:49 PM
I will try and give a post that matches what Howard wants from my perspective.

This weekend is the Gold Coast Open and under 1600.

I am giving the tournament a miss for a few factors:

1) It will cost me about $100 to play in the tournament, which at the moment is money I cannot spare. This includes entry fee ($60), cost of getting from north Brisbane to Gold Coast, food etc.

2) Part of my reason for not playing is that I will be in the under 1600 section and will almost certainly be getting at least a couple of the under rated juniors that everyone mentions.
While I 'dont mind' losing a few extra rating points (and it is only a few as I am !!), I am no chance of winning a rating prize, even if I perform quite a bit above my rating because of extraordinary performances by junior players.

Arrogant-One
20-06-2006, 01:55 PM
I will try and give a post that matches what Howard wants from my perspective.

This weekend is the Gold Coast Open and under 1600.

I am giving the tournament a miss for a few factors:

1) It will cost me about $100 to play in the tournament, which at the moment is money I cannot spare. This includes entry fee ($60), cost of getting from north Brisbane to Gold Coast, food etc.

2) Part of my reason for not playing is that I will be in the under 1600 section and will almost certainly be getting at least a couple of the under rated juniors that everyone mentions.
While I 'dont mind' losing a few extra rating points (and it is only a few as I am !!), I am no chance of winning a rating prize, even if I perform quite a bit above my rating because of extraordinary performances by junior players.

I am not thrilled about it either Garvin, but I am still considering going. One of the good things about getting savaged by kiddies at the Qld Open is that now I might be able to savage them back (on the board of course).

I am still worried about one kid in particular though, his name is Alex Stahle, and he beat Tony Weller at the Qld Open. Will he be in the U1600 section?

PHAT
20-06-2006, 02:11 PM
S Hunter was in the most improved list yet his rating is marked !! I don't understand that. Surely if he is improving at a rate of knots, he should be marked with a less reliable rating?

:lol: :clap: Boris, welcome to Glicko world. Abandon all hope ye who enter. ;)

You not the first and will not be the last to find the !! is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

Bill Gletsos
20-06-2006, 02:15 PM
:lol: :clap: Boris, welcome to Glicko world. Abandon all hope ye who enter. ;)

You not the first and will not be the last to find the !! is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.Boris, I can understand, however you are as clueless as ever.

Garvinator
20-06-2006, 02:27 PM
I am still worried about one kid in particular though, his name is Alex Stahle, and he beat Tony Weller at the Qld Open. Will he be in the U1600 section?
His rating is under 1600, so he is entitled to play in the under 1600 if he so chooses.

Garvinator
20-06-2006, 02:31 PM
S Hunter was in the most improved list yet his rating is marked !! I don't understand that. Surely if he is improving at a rate of knots, he should be marked with a less reliable rating?
S Hunter is a !! because he has alot of previous game results. So his rating was/is reliable.

Through coaching and game play, he is making definite improvement. One rating list improvement is good, but it needs to be backed up by consistent improvement.

At the Qld Reserves, S Hunter had a performance rating of 1207, which is 200+ points below his published rating.

Kevin Bonham
20-06-2006, 02:53 PM
Perhaps, but my understanding of the thread was people who were "discouraged" not merely those who decided not to play.

The threshhold set by Howard was "elected not to play a particular event." which I think is stronger than merely "discouraged".


That last comment is quite interesting. And since you bring up attitudes, I find your to be quite apathetic.

I should have said those were only possible reasons.

However, if I'm apathetic on this issue it's because if people are going to actually stop playing over dropping a few ratings points to juniors then I say "let them quit". When I was younger the ELO system was quite unresponsive and there were also local processing issues and at times I would be underrated by 200+ points for years on end. It didn't stop me from playing. If some adult who worries about losing a few dozen points to underrated juniors is going to stop playing on account of it then that person's a whinger and not worth putting too much effort into retaining; better to put that same effort somewhere else that is useful. If that person just wants to flag the rating loss as an issue while still being willing to play then that's different.

As has been mentioned on this site by Bill before, in a lot of cases even if a junior is underrated, their underrating does not cause the main bulk of ratings loss that the adult objects to. Say you lose to a junior rated 600 points below you who you think should really be rated 300 points below you. Had they been rated 300 points below you you would have still lost most of those points.

Ultimately it's a fact of life that no system can rate certain juniors correctly if they are improving extremely rapidly. If you make it ultra-responsive to hints of improvement then you will get massive overshoots for some players who have not in fact improved but have simply had good results. The current system, however, deals with the problem much more effectively than the old ones. This has all been done to death before on the Underrated Juniors thread.

I also suspect that some of the players who become annoyed at ratings point losses to underrated juniors don't take an equal and opposite degree of delight at the ratings points they've ripped off possibly overrated seniors and rusties.

Desmond
20-06-2006, 03:44 PM
However, if I'm apathetic on this issue it's because if people are going to actually stop playing over dropping a few ratings points to juniors then I say "let them quit".
Chess needs them, one and all.



As has been mentioned on this site by Bill before, in a lot of cases even if a junior is underrated, their underrating does not cause the main bulk of ratings loss that the adult objects to. Say you lose to a junior rated 600 points below you who you think should really be rated 300 points below you. Had they been rated 300 points below you you would have still lost most of those points.
Without knowing the specifics, I am willing to conceed that the difference between losing to a player 300 points below and 600 points is below is not huge. However, if the underrated player is 300 points below and their rating should be the same as yours, the difference would be much more singnificant.



Ultimately it's a fact of life that no system can rate certain juniors correctly if they are improving extremely rapidly. If you make it ultra-responsive to hints of improvement then you will get massive overshoots for some players who have not in fact improved but have simply had good results. The current system, however, deals with the problem much more effectively than the old ones. This has all been done to death before on the Underrated Juniors thread.
I'll be sure to check that thread tonight.


I also suspect that some of the players who become annoyed at ratings point losses to underrated juniors don't take an equal and opposite degree of delight at the ratings points they've ripped off possibly overrated seniors and rusties.
And this is the point. If the overrated people were playing it would not be a problem. But they are not, and one of the main reasons for that is the subject of his thread.

Cat
20-06-2006, 08:12 PM
Ultimately it's a fact of life that no system can rate certain juniors correctly if they are improving extremely rapidly..

Ultimately it's a fact of life we're all going to die, that I cannot defy gravity, that sodium is an extremely reactive metal, that the sun will explode. These are immutable facts that cannot be changed because they are natural phenomenon.

Rating systems and mathematical models are human constructs which depict events in the real world. The better our models the more accurately they predict or describe real events. These models are only ever as good as our imaginations, but they can always be improved if the will exists to make the change.

Basil
21-06-2006, 12:23 AM
Sigh ...

Kevin. Sure we can dump them. But would it not be better to engage them and try and turn them?

Boris.
Your willingness to concede anything, while much admired by me, counts for squit to many here.

David.
I don't think anyone denies that an any improved model should be adopted. We would need to establish any given model is in fact an improvement. And only then after we are absolutely certain that we don't overcompensate. I have seen and heard positions today and this week that suggest the problem may not be as problematic as some of us think.

Perhaps I could let this thread rage and start again!! :)
Kevin, do you feel inclined to rename this thread:
"Broad and varied discussion about ratings"?

PHAT
21-06-2006, 01:22 AM
If some adult who worries about losing a few dozen points to underrated juniors is going to stop playing on account of it then that person's a whinger and not worth putting too much effort into retaining;

In case you had not noticed, Australian chess is not exactly in a position where it can afford to piss off too many players.



Ultimately it's a fact of life that no system can rate certain juniors correctly if they are improving extremely rapidly. If you make it ultra-responsive to hints of improvement then you will get massive overshoots for some players who have not in fact improved but have simply had good results.
A system CAN rate those juniors. The ACF simply does not have that system.

BTW, to use "ultra responsive" is so primative. You are mentally locked into Glicko - a system that presumes that consistant and static ability is the norm. :wall:

PHAT
21-06-2006, 01:25 AM
Rating systems and mathematical models are human constructs which depict events in the real world. The better our models the more accurately they predict or describe real events. These models are only ever as good as our imaginations, but they can always be improved if the will exists to make the change.

DEAD RIGHT!

Bill Gletsos
21-06-2006, 01:56 AM
A system CAN rate those juniors. The ACF simply does not have that system.

BTW, to use "ultra responsive" is so primative. You are mentally locked into Glicko - a system that presumes that consistant and static ability is the norm. :wall:Clueless as ever.

The Glicko2 system makes no such presumption. In fact the Glicko2 system recognises the possibility that players can undergo sudden surges in underlying skill and that this may be reflected in repeated strong performances. As such in the Glicko2 system when a player performances that are inconsistent with their rating, the rating change will be larger than usual because the system recognises that an underlying skill change may be occurring.

EZBeet
21-06-2006, 10:53 AM
well I feel a bit sorry for Shane, because of the !! he will have to play dozens of games before his rating approaches anything like where it should be. Perhaps his best course of action would be to not play in any tourneys for several periods then enter one and get the ratings improvement all in one hit.

Bill Gletsos
21-06-2006, 01:23 PM
well I feel a bit sorry for Shane, because of the !! he will have to play dozens of games before his rating approaches anything like where it should be. Perhaps his best course of action would be to not play in any tourneys for several periods then enter one and get the ratings improvement all in one hit.You seem to have overlooked that fact that Shayne was already a !! in the March 2006 period and went up 155 points in the June 2006 period.

Kevin Bonham
21-06-2006, 02:21 PM
In case you had not noticed, Australian chess is not exactly in a position where it can afford to piss off too many players.

(and similar comment from Boris)

But what can you do? Find a system that eliminates all risk of points loss to underrated juniors that is not inflationary or otherwise bogus and that is practical and post it here.


A system CAN rate those juniors.

If you're so sure, post it. Put up or shut up.

Numerous improvements have been made to Glicko that have caused it to deal with this issue better over the years. But some expectations appear to be unrealistic.


BTW, to use "ultra responsive" is so primative. You are mentally locked into Glicko - a system that presumes that consistant and static ability is the norm. :wall:

Glicko doesn't assume this and all that I am locked into is preferring the best available system at any time over your grab-bag of random attacks unaccompanied by any practical improvement that works.


These models are only ever as good as our imaginations, but they can always be improved if the will exists to make the change.

Idealistic waffle.

Desmond
21-06-2006, 02:34 PM
(and similar comment from Boris)
But what can you do? Find a system that eliminates all risk of points loss to underrated juniors that is not inflationary or otherwise bogus and that is practical and post it here.

I have attempted to start discussion on this very topic on at least 1 occasion (see my Incremental titles thread). I may not have the answer to your question, but I have tried to find it which is more than I can say for some.

Garvinator
21-06-2006, 02:39 PM
well I feel a bit sorry for Shane, because of the !! he will have to play dozens of games before his rating approaches anything like where it should be. Perhaps his best course of action would be to not play in any tourneys for several periods then enter one and get the ratings improvement all in one hit.
and then in the next rating period he has a tournament performance rating (TPR) of 1200, so he will give back some of the rating gains from the last period.

EZBeet
21-06-2006, 05:03 PM
You seem to have overlooked that fact that Shayne was already a !! in the March 2006 period and went up 155 points in the June 2006 period.

No I didn't overlook it at all, it's the reason for my 'dozens of games' assertion.

Shane had to play 27 games to get this increase at an average of @5.81 points per game. So, assuming that as he gets higher so points will come a little slower, means it will take him >50 games to reach 1750 (hence 'dozens') if he wins every game.

I suppose that is only seven 7 round swisses but how often do they come around?

PHAT
21-06-2006, 05:54 PM
Clueless as ever.

Yes Mr President of the NSWCA. :rolleyes:


In fact the Glicko2 system recognises the possibility that players can undergo sudden surges in underlying skill and that this may be reflected in repeated strong performances.

Unfortunately, that does not occur with niether a proportional response or one of adiquite intensity. It is one step up from primative.

PHAT
21-06-2006, 06:27 PM
Find a system that eliminates all risk of points loss to underrated juniors that is not inflationary or otherwise bogus and that is practical and post it here.

If you're so sure, post it. Put up or shut up.

I will not be presenting anything to you or the ACF while Gletsos has anything to do with ratings in this country.


But some expectations appear to be unrealistic.

A loser's attitude. An attitude that is an impediment to Australian chess. You have a "can't do attitude."




... all that I am locked into is preferring the best available system at any time

Fare enough. For Australian chess right now, it is Glicko. Just as Elo was replaced by Glicko, Glicko will be replaced by something. That particular something is not avilable to the ACF while ever Gletsos is the ratings boss.


[to cat]Idealistic waffle.

Call me idealistic, but I admire people in noble persue of an idealistic outcome. Anything else is defeatist and will reap was it sows. :hand:

Kevin Bonham
21-06-2006, 06:52 PM
I have attempted to start discussion on this very topic on at least 1 occasion (see my Incremental titles thread).

OK, I will add something over there.


I may not have the answer to your question, but I have tried to find it which is more than I can say for some.

I wouldn't be making the comments I have if solutions (in terms of the rating system) had not been investigated. I do think further slight improvements may happen with more research and fine-tuning over time but I do not believe the issue of a small number of rapidly improving juniors being underrated at any given time will ever be eliminated entirely.


I will not be presenting anything to you or the ACF while Gletsos has anything to do with ratings in this country.

Based on the track record of both of you in terms of actual contributions to workable ratings systems we can safely sacrifice your contribution if that is the case. However I will not believe any claim by you to have a workable rating system that is not backed by evidence and neither should anyone else.


A loser's attitude. An attitude that is an impediment to Australian chess. You have a "can't do attitude."

Your comment above shows a "can't do" attitude to working with Bill. Far from having a "can't do" attitude I am saying that I am skeptical that some expectations of exactness can be fulfilled and welcome tested evidence that they can. I do not welcome unsubstantiated drivel like yours and Cat's however.


Call me idealistic, but I admire people in noble persue of an idealistic outcome. Anything else is defeatist and will reap was it sows.

There is nothing noble about Cat's idealism since it is grounded in doomy negativity about the current situation that he has failed to adequately defend in previous debates. Your own attitude has the same defect.

Bill Gletsos
21-06-2006, 07:13 PM
No I didn't overlook it at all, it's the reason for my 'dozens of games' assertion.Then it would seem you feel he should increase a similar amount but based on a smaller amount of games. That however would not be statistically justified.
Now, I was prepared to let you get by with making one false statement as you did previously, but I'm not prepared to let you continue making them.

Shane had to play 27 games to get this increase at an average of @5.81 points per game.You calculation is flawed. He went up 155 points. That makes it 155/27 or 5.74 per game.

So, assuming that as he gets higher so points will come a little slower, means it will take him >50 games to reach 1750 (hence 'dozens') if he wins every game.He doesnt need to win every game. He only scored 16/27 in the June period.
He just needs to have his performance rating occur over a statistically significant number of games.

As for your assumption that as he gets higher its harder to gain points that is just rubbish as can be seen from when Ronald Yu went up 247 points based on 34 games (7.26 per game) or when Moulthun Ly went up 92 points based on 14 games (6.57 per game) or when he went up 76 points based on 7 games (10.86 per game). In all those cases Yu and Ly were !!.

Bill Gletsos
21-06-2006, 07:17 PM
Unfortunately, that does not occur with niether a proportional response or one of adiquite intensity. It is one step up from primative.When it comes to believing Professor Glickman who has had a long involvement in ratings theory and statistical theory and analysis or some clueless individual like you, you are deluding yourself by thinking you are even in the picture.

PHAT
21-06-2006, 10:19 PM
... some clueless individual like you ...

Is this the way someone who is the President of the NSWCA should be speaking to people in public?

antichrist
22-06-2006, 01:18 AM
And we all know that Matt was a shining beacon of decency in CL and UCJ

Kevin Bonham
22-06-2006, 01:54 AM
Is this the way someone who is the President of the NSWCA should be speaking to people in public?

To "people" generally, I doubt it.

To you however, most certainly. :hand:

EZBeet
22-06-2006, 11:11 AM
Gee Bill, the ACE site has Shane going up by 157 points not 155 so 157/27 is 5.81. If my statement is false please ask the ACE site to correct THEIR mistake.

Of course he doesn't have to win every game just continue his current winning percentage.

If a 1200 player beats a 1500 player he gets x points, if the player gets to 1400 and beats the same 1500 player he gets y points which I assumed would be less then x. Is this incorrect?

You have intrigued me now Bill, what was my previous 'false statement'?

EZBeet
22-06-2006, 01:06 PM
Just out of interest , I went from 1709 to 1888 on the basis of 7 games (lost one to smurfo though). An average of @25 points a game (or @29ppg for the 6 I didn't lose). So 7 or 8 points a game seems a bit paltry to me.

Bill Gletsos
22-06-2006, 01:18 PM
Gee Bill, the ACE site has Shane going up by 157 points not 155 so 157/27 is 5.81. If my statement is false please ask the ACE site to correct THEIR mistake.I couldnt care what the ACE site has listed. The ACF site has 155 listed in the top improvers list and I specifically mentioned 155 points in my reply to you in post #48 in this thread.

Of course he doesn't have to win every game just continue his current winning percentage.Actually that is incorrect. He could maintain his current winning percentage but still perform at or below his current rating. As such his rating would not increase.

If a 1200 player beats a 1500 player he gets x points, if the player gets to 1400 and beats the same 1500 player he gets y points which I assumed would be less then x. Is this incorrect?Thats correct but that isnt what you either stated or implied in post #52.

You have intrigued me now Bill, what was my previous 'false statement'?You made it in post #47.

EZBeet
22-06-2006, 02:03 PM
I couldnt care what the ACE site has listed. The ACF site has 155 listed in the top improvers list and I specifically mentioned 155 points in my reply to you in post #48 in this thread..

hmmm, I thought their listings were accurate, wonder where they get their figures from? - they don't seem to have you listed at all Bill.


Actually that is incorrect. He could maintain his current winning percentage but still perform at or below his current rating. As such his rating would not increase...

I suppose that is possible yes.


Thats correct but that isnt what you either stated or implied in post #52....

Well it's what I meant, gee you have to word things really carefully on this board.


You made it in post #47.

If you mean ".. has to play dozens of games before his rating gets to where it should be" what is false about that? At 5 or 6 points a game, to get an increase of 200 points, it's simple mathematics - you don't need a spreadsheet.

Bill Gletsos
22-06-2006, 02:14 PM
hmmm, I thought their listings were accurate, wonder where they get their figures from? - they don't seem to have you listed at all Bill.They are pulling the figures from previously published lists, but they cant take into account re-runs to correct things like duplicate players (with different names) etc.

I suppose that is possible yes.Most definately.

Well it's what I meant, gee you have to word things really carefully on this board.Being imprecise is speciality of many on this board. ;)

If you mean ".. has to play dozens of games before his rating gets to where it should be" what is false about that? At 7 or 8 points a game, to get an increase of 200 points, it's simple mathematics - you don't need a spreadsheet.You are assuming his current rating is well below his true strength. Unfortunately as Garvin mentioned in post #39 in his most recent tournament he performed well below his current rating.

Bill Gletsos
22-06-2006, 02:14 PM
Just out of interest , I went from 1709 to 1888 on the basis of 7 games (lost one to smurfo though).In what rating list were you ever listed at 1709.

An average of @25 points a game (or @29ppg for the 6 I didn't lose). So 7 or 8 points a game seems a bit paltry to me.Prior to April 2002 you had last played in 1994. Hence your rating was unreliable. You only played 6 games in the April 2004 period at a performance which was below your published rating at the time and slightly improved your reliability.
You did not play again until the September 2004 period when you performed at over the 2000 level in 7 games. Because you were still unreliable you rating increased, but still nowhere near your performance rating.

However all that being said, you seem to want to focus on points gained per game, but that is a false measure.
A players increase (or decrease) is essentially based on their performance rating during the rating period, their RD, their volatility, the number of games played/reliability of their opponents etc.

EZBeet
22-06-2006, 02:39 PM
well at the gold coast champs a few of years ago they listed me at 17xx, I was surprised too - thought I was just another 1500 patzer. The rating list has me go from 15xx to 1888 cool, that's about 50 points a game. Much more like it.

four four two
22-06-2006, 03:04 PM
If you mean ".. has to play dozens of games before his rating gets to where it should be" what is false about that? At 5 or 6 points a game, to get an increase of 200 points, it's simple mathematics - you don't need a spreadsheet.

For Shane[1464] to gain 200 points in a reasonable amount of time he needs to play people in the 1600-1750 range and perform well.
He could gain 200 points in about 20 games against a field that strength if his rating performance is high enough.
The key isnt so much the amount of games you play,but the strength of the field you face.

This is the reason why many juniors have quite low ratings[below 900],they play plenty of games but against other juniors who also have low ratings...thus they cant achieve a high performance rating .

In the end we should be encouraging juniors to play adults more often,over time the ratings imabalance between the two groups will work itself out.
Adults have to remember when you enlarge the amount of players playing that players ratings in general will drop a little. The new players,whether they be juniors or adults,will take some points of the established players over time.;)

PHAT
22-06-2006, 03:40 PM
To "people" generally, I doubt it.

To you however, most certainly. :hand:


Is this the way someone who is a highly visible ACF official should be speaking to people in public?

Kevin Bonham
22-06-2006, 04:10 PM
Is this the way someone who is a highly visible ACF official should be speaking to people in public?

No, but it is the way I should be speaking to rock apes like you. :hand:

PHAT
22-06-2006, 06:17 PM
No, but it is the way I should be speaking to rock apes like you. :hand:
Is this the way someone who is a highly visible ACF official should be speaking to people in public?

Kevin Bonham
23-06-2006, 03:14 PM
Is this the way someone who is a highly visible ACF official should be speaking to people in public?

http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=108203&postcount=70

PHAT
23-06-2006, 05:35 PM
http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=108203&postcount=70
http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=108227&postcount=71

Desmond
23-06-2006, 05:45 PM
http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=108227&postcount=71
:lol: touche

Rhubarb
23-06-2006, 10:51 PM
:lol: toucheOh yes, quite brilliant. I haven't seen such sophisticated repartee for the longest time.

I am so happy that we now have the touch of Boris (:D :D :D ) to tell us what is witty and when to laugh. :D :D :D :) :) :) :) :D :D :D

Desmond
23-06-2006, 11:12 PM
Oh yes, quite brilliant. I haven't seen such sophisticated repartee for the longest time.

I am so happy that we now have the touch of Boris (:D :D :D ) to tell us what is witty and when to laugh. :D :D :D :) :) :) :) :D :D :D

Don't accuse me of touching you, I'm not "that way" inclined. But other than that, you're welcome.

PHAT
24-06-2006, 08:47 AM
Oh yes, quite brilliant. I haven't seen such sophisticated repartee for the longest time.


Your mirth is well placed, but you only got the slapstick part. The self parody must have been lost on you.

[Nudge nudge ... this is where you say, "Oh, p-leeeeease. I got the ironical humor :hand: . That was what I was applauding]

Garvinator
09-07-2006, 04:25 PM
Howie,

Seems this thread didnt really get the response you were looking for. Or is the conclusion that while under rated players are a disincentive, not one person has been able to say conclusively that any player has given the game away because of under rated players.

Basil
09-07-2006, 05:34 PM
I was looking to first identify the players, then discuss their beliefs, and then invite the more conversational gainsayers to discuss it with them.

As you say, didn't quite work out like that.