PDA

View Full Version : ACF December 2006 Ratings



Bill Gletsos
30-11-2006, 11:29 PM
The ACF December 2006 rating lists have been sent to the State Rating Officers.

A number of changes have been made to the rating system to better handle improving players including but not limited to juniors.
These changes resulted in a recalculation of all players ratings for all previous periods from December 2000, prior to the processing of the December 2006 ratings period. As such players who played no games in the December 2006 rating period may have different ratings to those previously published. This change will also effect players eligibility and position on the Top Improvers list as their previously published rating most likely changed.

For the December 2006 rating period there were 233 Tournaments rated (85 Classic, 148 Rapid) and 16724 games of which 5888 were in the ACF Classic rating system and 10836 were in the ACF Rapid rating system.



Top Players
2624!! 7 NSW Rogers, Ian [GM]
2498! 1 NSW Zhao, Zong-Yuan [IM]
2479! 0 NSW Wohl, Aleksander H [IM]
2469!! 0 VIC Smerdon, David C [IM]
2467!! 7 VIC Johansen, Darryl K [GM]
2442! 0 NSW Lane, Gary W [IM]
2428!! 20 QLD Solomon, Stephen J [IM]
2417!! 14 NSW Bjelobrk, Igor [FM]
2397!! 0 QLD Froehlich, Peter [IM]
2382!! 17 VIC Goldenberg, Igor [FM]
2370!! 29 NSW Xie, George [FM]
2354! 0 SA Tao, Trevor
2333!! 17 VIC Sandler, Leonid [IM]
2332!! 16 NSW Canfell, Gregory J [FM]
2330!! 23 VIC West, Guy [IM]
2320! 0 NSW Reilly, Tim [FM]
2318! 7 VIC Baron, Michael [FM]
2314!! 10 NSW Smirnov, Vladimir
2287! 0 NSW Drummond, Matthew
2283! 0 NSW Tan, Justin
2282! 7 VIC Chow, Samuel
2275! 0 NSW Feldman, Vladimir [IM]
2267!! 0 NSW Rej, Tomek
2263! 0 VIC Depasquale, Chris J [FM]
2253! 0 NSW Song, Raymond
2241!! 33 VIC Rujevic, Mirko [IM]
2240!! 14 NSW Ayvazyan, Armen
2239!! 8 WA Boyd, Tristan
2237!! 6 QLD Humphrey, Jonathan [FM]
2235! 0 VIC Jordan, Bill [FM]
2230! 0 NSW Tindall, Brett [FM]
2223! 0 NSW Flatow, A (Fred) [FM]
2219! 0 NSW Scott, Ronald
2208! 8 NSW Cook, Roger S
2196! 0 QLD Caoili, Arianne B [WFM]
2192! 0 NSW Berezina - Feldman, Irina [IM]
2192!! 3 SA Zaric, Srboljub
2185! 7 SA Obst, James
2183!! 29 VIC Stojic, Dusan
2183!! 7 NSW O'Chee, Kevin
2181! 13 NSW Bouchaaya, Tony
2179!! 10 VIC Levi, Eddy L [FM]
2169! 6 WA Horstmann, Michael
2168! 0 NSW Fuller, Maxwell L [FM]
2165! 0 WA Lakner, Jay
2158!! 8 NSW Halpin, Patrick
2150!! 17 NSW Ilic, Ilija
2146! 7 ACT Ikeda, Junta
2143! 0 NSW Vojvodic, Branislev
2138!! 0 NSW Wright, Neil S
2138! 0 VIC Le, Tuan N
2136!! 22 VIC Dragicevic, Domagoj
2133! 9 WA Kurniawan, Stephanus
2128! 10 NSW Malik, Hani
2128! 7 ACT Oliver, Gareth
2127!! 24 VIC Wallis, Christopher
2126! 0 VIC Booth, Stewart
2126!! 26 VIC Pyke, Malcolm L
2124!! 9 NSW Bird, Andrew
2122!! 0 WA Barber, Haydn J [FM]

Bill Gletsos
30-11-2006, 11:29 PM
Top Females
2196! 0 QLD Caoili, Arianne B [WFM]
2192! 0 NSW Berezina - Feldman, Irina [IM]
2114! 0 NSW Koshnitsky, Ngan [WIM]
2110! 0 NSW Eriksson, Ingela
2079!! 7 NSW Moylan, Laura A [WIM]
2075! 0 NSW Dekic, Biljana [WIM]
2063! 0 NSW Song, Angela [WFM]
1962!! 10 NSW Musaeva, Aina
1855! 0 NSW Lane, Nancy L [WIM]
1786!! 7 ACT Oliver, Shannon [WFM]
1740!! 20 QLD Jule, Alexandra
1730! 0 WA Maris, Natalie A
1707! 7 NSW Harris, Rebecca
1694!! 0 WA Payne, Sophie
1641!! 17 VIC Szuveges, Narelle S [WIM]
1605! 0 VIC Beggs, Diana
1589! 7 VIC Evins, Sally
1551!! 16 VIC Yu, Sally
1535!! 38 ACT Guo, Emma
1527!! 36 QLD Kinder, Jessica

Bill Gletsos
30-11-2006, 11:30 PM
Top Under 20
2498! 19 NSW Zhao, Zong-Yuan [IM]
2282! 18 VIC Chow, Samuel
2267!! 19 NSW Rej, Tomek
2253! 11 NSW Song, Raymond
2196! 19 QLD Caoili, Arianne B [WFM]
2185! 15 SA Obst, James
2183!! 16 VIC Stojic, Dusan
2183!! 18 NSW O'Chee, Kevin
2146! 14 ACT Ikeda, Junta
2128! 17 ACT Oliver, Gareth
2127!! 15 VIC Wallis, Christopher
2096!! 13 NSW Illingworth, Max
2090!! 18 NSW Hu, Jason
2084!! 12 VIC Lin, Zhigen Wilson
2075! 19 NSW Zvedeniouk, Ilia
2063! 13 NSW Song, Angela [WFM]
2044! 19 VIC Bourmistrov, Denis
2030! 17 NSW Morris, Michael
2004!! 19 NSW Chernih, Nicholas
1995!! 18 ACT Lattimore, Tor

Bill Gletsos
30-11-2006, 11:30 PM
Top Under 18
2253! 11 NSW Song, Raymond
2185! 15 SA Obst, James
2183!! 16 VIC Stojic, Dusan
2146! 14 ACT Ikeda, Junta
2128! 17 ACT Oliver, Gareth
2127!! 15 VIC Wallis, Christopher
2096!! 13 NSW Illingworth, Max
2084!! 12 VIC Lin, Zhigen Wilson
2063! 13 NSW Song, Angela [WFM]
2030! 17 NSW Morris, Michael
1974! 15 VIC Vijayakumar, Rukman
1959! 14 NSW Huang, Justin
1954!! 15 QLD Lazarus, Benjamin
1944!! 15 WA Donaldson, Thomas
1927!! 11 VIC Morris, James
1918! 16 WA Haselgrove, Miles
1853!! 13 ACT Brown, Andrew
1843!! 13 NSW Harris, Benjamin
1836! 14 NSW Levin, Joshua
1831!! 15 NSW Boyce, Jamie

Bill Gletsos
30-11-2006, 11:30 PM
Top Under 16
2253! 11 NSW Song, Raymond
2185! 15 SA Obst, James
2146! 14 ACT Ikeda, Junta
2127!! 15 VIC Wallis, Christopher
2096!! 13 NSW Illingworth, Max
2084!! 12 VIC Lin, Zhigen Wilson
2063! 13 NSW Song, Angela [WFM]
1974! 15 VIC Vijayakumar, Rukman
1959! 14 NSW Huang, Justin
1954!! 15 QLD Lazarus, Benjamin
1944!! 15 WA Donaldson, Thomas
1927!! 11 VIC Morris, James
1853!! 13 ACT Brown, Andrew
1843!! 13 NSW Harris, Benjamin
1836! 14 NSW Levin, Joshua
1831!! 15 NSW Boyce, Jamie
1818! 14 ACT Hoang, Khoi
1808!! 13 VIC Yu, Derek
1805!! 13 NSW Wu, Edwin
1795!! 11 VIC Schon, Eugene

Bill Gletsos
30-11-2006, 11:31 PM
Top Under 14
2253! 11 NSW Song, Raymond
2096!! 13 NSW Illingworth, Max
2084!! 12 VIC Lin, Zhigen Wilson
2063! 13 NSW Song, Angela [WFM]
1927!! 11 VIC Morris, James
1853!! 13 ACT Brown, Andrew
1843!! 13 NSW Harris, Benjamin
1808!! 13 VIC Yu, Derek
1805!! 13 NSW Wu, Edwin
1795!! 11 VIC Schon, Eugene
1794! 13 WA Choong, Yita
1727! 12 NSW Xu, William
1712!! 10 ACT Yuan, Yi
1679!! 10 QLD Nakauchi, Gene
1679!! 12 VIC Tang, Jason
1626!! 12 QLD Grigg, Sam
1626! 11 QLD Finke, Kelvin
1625!! 13 TAS Dyer, Alastair
1620!! 12 VIC Vijayakumar, Rengan
1617!! 12 QLD Lei, Yitao

Bill Gletsos
30-11-2006, 11:31 PM
Top Under 12
2253! 11 NSW Song, Raymond
1927!! 11 VIC Morris, James
1795!! 11 VIC Schon, Eugene
1712!! 10 ACT Yuan, Yi
1679!! 10 QLD Nakauchi, Gene
1626! 11 QLD Finke, Kelvin
1551!! 11 VIC Yu, Sally
1535!! 10 ACT Guo, Emma
1470!! 11 ACT Chow, Justin
1467!! 9 QLD Stahnke, Alexander
1456! 11 ACT Xing, Edward
1437!! 11 NSW Cheung, Benjamin
1435!! 11 QLD McGarity, Liam
1402!! 8 QLD Liu, Yi
1386!! 9 TAS Horton, Vincent
1377!! 9 VIC Matheson, Laurence
1371! 11 VIC Antolis, Cedric
1363! 10 VIC Liu, Nicholas
1342! 9 NSW Lau, Joshua
1337!! 11 NSW Ren, Jonathan

Bill Gletsos
30-11-2006, 11:31 PM
Top Under 10
1467!! 9 QLD Stahnke, Alexander
1402!! 8 QLD Liu, Yi
1386!! 9 TAS Horton, Vincent
1377!! 9 VIC Matheson, Laurence
1342! 9 NSW Lau, Joshua
1305!! 8 NSW Wang, Oscar
1207!! 7 NSW Koh, Cedric
1186! 8 WA Sam, Ryan
1179! 9 NSW Tsui, Edison
1153! 9 QLD van den Bergh, Lachlan

Bill Gletsos
30-11-2006, 11:32 PM
Top Females Under 20
2196! 19 QLD Caoili, Arianne B [WFM]
2063! 13 NSW Song, Angela [WFM]
1786!! 19 ACT Oliver, Shannon [WFM]
1740!! 16 QLD Jule, Alexandra
1707! 16 NSW Harris, Rebecca
1551!! 11 VIC Yu, Sally
1535!! 10 ACT Guo, Emma
1527!! 14 QLD Kinder, Jessica
1464!! 13 NSW Ng, Deborah
1427!! 12 SA Eustace, Sophie
1414!! 14 ACT Oliver, Tamzin L
1411! 16 ACT Ikeda, Miona
1389! 16 QLD Lyons, Kieran C
1375! 12 QLD McGarity, Molly
1305!! 14 ACT Chibnall, Alana
1268!! 12 ACT Russell, Luthien
1223! 15 VIC Sheng, Susan
1223! 12 ACT Smith, Kayleigh
1209! 13 NSW Behne-Smith, Sarah
1166! 13 VIC Ziffer, Rocheleh

Bill Gletsos
30-11-2006, 11:32 PM
Top Seniors
2223! 68 NSW Flatow, A (Fred) [FM]
2192!! 65 SA Zaric, Srboljub
2168! 60 NSW Fuller, Maxwell L [FM]
2048!! 60 NSW Wettstein, Marcus
2024!! 67 NSW Ghenzer, Charles
2015!! 65 WA Ellis, David
2010! 61 NSW Degroen, Mark S
2000! 62 NSW Capilitan, Romeo
1998!! 68 WA Partis, Michael T
1995! 71 NSW Jens, Henk W
1967!! 78 NSW Viner, Phillip J
1954! 70 NSW Purdy, John S
1917!! 77 WA Leonhardt, Wolfgang
1906! 69 NSW Hutchings, Frank P
1886!! 61 QLD Lovejoy, David
1882! 67 NSW Benson, Lachlan
1857!! 66 NSW Tulevski, Vasil G
1850! 62 QLD Hindley, Simon
1850! 70 QLD Mehltreter, Otto
1839!! 69 WA Lilly, Richard

Bill Gletsos
30-11-2006, 11:32 PM
Top Improvers
1386 277 TAS Horton, Vincent
936 235 QLD Miles, Alex
1667 219 VIC Sunder, Vijay
1207 215 NSW Koh, Cedric
2084 153 VIC Lin, Zhigen Wilson
587 150 ACT Gupte, Anand
1679 150 QLD Nakauchi, Gene
1625 149 TAS Dyer, Alastair
1305 142 ACT Chibnall, Alana
1626 134 QLD Grigg, Sam
1565 134 QLD Duffin, Mike
1795 127 VIC Schon, Eugene
559 126 QLD Karibasic, Sabin
795 122 VIC Gurevich, Andrew
1555 122 VIC Buda, Alexander
1412 121 VIC Bhattacharya, Devraj
862 121 TAS Horton, Nina
1226 118 QLD De Vere, Cameron
1427 117 SA Eustace, Sophie
1013 117 QLD Wilson, Sean
1126 114 QLD Ng, Erich
1681 112 VIC Davenport, John
1377 112 VIC Matheson, Laurence
844 111 ACT Gupte, Niranjan
1363 107 VIC Liu, Nicholas
1562 106 NSW Papp, Alexander
786 106 QLD Kanagarajah, Abbie
1589 104 VIC Bennett, Calvin
1813 102 NSW Berry-Porter, Zach
1843 101 NSW Harris, Benjamin

Bill Gletsos
30-11-2006, 11:33 PM
Busiest Players
2106 57 NSW Bolens, Johny
2096 47 NSW Illingworth, Max
1679 45 QLD Nakauchi, Gene
1869 43 ACT Grcic, Milan
1712 43 ACT Yuan, Yi
1782 43 ACT Ali, Mosaddeque
1487 41 NSW Tracey, Michael J
1523 40 NSW Greenwood, Norman
1337 40 NSW Ren, Jonathan
1305 39 NSW Wang, Oscar
1535 38 ACT Guo, Emma
1437 38 NSW Cheung, Benjamin
1922 36 VIC Raine, Marcus
1527 36 QLD Kinder, Jessica
1268 36 ACT Russell, Luthien
604 36 QLD Nakauchi, Kenji
1462 34 NSW Losh, Gary
879 34 QLD Rogers, Jim
2241 33 VIC Rujevic, Mirko
1402 33 QLD Liu, Yi
1341 33 QLD Gray, Garvin
1626 32 QLD Grigg, Sam
1687 31 NSW Escribano, Jose
1386 31 TAS Horton, Vincent
1853 30 ACT Brown, Andrew
1605 30 NSW Christensen, Joshua
1779 30 VIC Stones, Douglas
1510 30 QLD Muller, Jonas
2183 29 VIC Stojic, Dusan
2370 29 NSW Xie, George
1492 29 NSW Parker, Trent
1308 29 QLD Beilby, Kieton
1533 29 QLD Walker, Tyson
559 29 QLD Karibasic, Sabin
587 28 ACT Gupte, Anand
1622 28 NSW Buza, Muhamed
1927 28 VIC Morris, James
1262 28 QLD Cigelj, David
1467 28 QLD Stahnke, Alexander
844 27 ACT Gupte, Niranjan

Bill Gletsos
30-11-2006, 11:33 PM
Category Players Percentage
2600..2699 1 0.04
2400..2499 8 0.36
2300..2399 11 0.80
2200..2299 20 1.59
2100..2199 47 3.46
2000..2099 79 6.61
1900..1999 83 9.92
1800..1899 144 15.65
1700..1799 210 24.01
1600..1699 237 33.45
1500..1599 237 42.89
1400..1499 249 52.81
1300..1399 218 61.49
1200..1299 190 69.06
1100..1199 131 74.27
1000..1099 116 78.89
900.. 999 120 83.67
800.. 899 85 87.06
700.. 799 70 89.84
600.. 699 60 92.23
500.. 599 52 94.31
400.. 499 58 96.61
300.. 399 33 97.93
200.. 299 27 99.00
100.. 199 25 100.00

Bill Gletsos
30-11-2006, 11:34 PM
Normal Tournaments Rated
ACF
08/10/2006 26 7 2006 Ergas Training Tournament
ACT
25/10/2006 24 11 2006 ACT Championship
10/11/2006 24 1 2006 ACT North v South
28/10/2006 42 7 2006 ACT Under 14 Championship
18/10/2006 11 6 2006 ANU Spring Tournament
08/09/2006 45 9 2006 Belconnnen CC Championship
24/07/2006 18 7 2006 Brindabella Snows
03/11/2006 14 8 2006 Community Centre Cup
03/11/2006 15 8 2006 Ginninderra Cup
25/09/2006 23 7 2006 Murrimbidgee Masters
NSW
13/10/2006 47 11 2006 City of Sydney Junior Championship - Under 12
13/10/2006 31 8 2006 City of Sydney Junior Championship - Under 15
13/10/2006 14 8 2006 City of Sydney Junior Championship - Under 18
01/09/2006 17 7 2006 Mingara Club Championships
29/10/2006 10 9 2006 NSW Championship
29/10/2006 23 9 2006 NSW Championship U1600
29/10/2006 16 9 2006 NSW Championship U2000
06/10/2006 10 5 2006 NSW Girls Championship - Under 18
20/11/2006 8 7 2006 Rooty Hill Club Championship Division 1
20/11/2006 8 7 2006 Rooty Hill Club Championship Division 2
20/11/2006 8 7 2006 Rooty Hill Club Championship Division 3
20/11/2006 12 7 2006 Rooty Hill Club Championship Division 4
02/10/2006 72 7 2006 Ryde Eastwood Open
07/11/2006 54 9 2006 St. George Swiss
03/10/2006 8 7 2006 Wollongong Collies Champs - A Grade
26/09/2006 5 5 2006 Wollongong Collies Champs - B Grade
12/11/2006 42 7 3rd Coffs Harbour Open
28/11/2006 54 1 Big Boards Second Leg St. George v North Sydney 2006
25/09/2006 11 7 Campbelltown Spring Champs
28/10/2006 14 7 Ettalong Spring 2006
20/11/2006 20 7 Fisher's Ghost Open 2006
14/11/2006 55 9 Ford Memorial 2006
05/11/2006 30 7 Gosford Open 2006
12/09/2006 12 6 Gosford Winter Swiss 2006
18/09/2006 16 9 Hakoah Chess Club Championship 2006
29/10/2006 28 7 Laurieton November Open 2006
16/10/2006 24 1 Little Board Manly V North Sydney Oct 2006
19/11/2006 40 7 Ralph Seberry Memorial 2006
25/09/2006 38 9 Rooty Hill Open 2006
29/11/2006 6 5 Ryde Eastwood Club Championship Final 2006
QLD
09/11/2006 28 6 2006 BCC Club Championship
28/09/2006 18 4 2006 BCC Steinitz Memorial
31/08/2006 21 5 2006 BCC Winter Swiss
22/11/2006 14 8 2006 City Of Redcliffe Club Championship
24/09/2006 63 7 2006 Nell Van De Graaff Classic
19/11/2006 45 7 2006 November Weekender
08/10/2006 52 6 2006 Wendy Terry Memorial
28/08/2006 8 7 Brisbane Young Champions T3 2006
04/09/2006 13 9 Junior Masters A T3 2006
04/09/2006 11 9 Junior Masters T3 2006
13/09/2006 10 9 Ruth Coxhill Memorial 2006
04/09/2006 10 9 Super Junior Masters T3 2006
01/09/2006 18 7 The Gap Chess Club - One Hour 2006
SA
01/10/2006 13 7 Labour Day Weekend 2006
10/10/2006 76 7 Pennant A 2006
TAS
05/11/2006 28 6 Burnie Shines Weekender 2006
27/11/2006 11 11 HICC One Hour
10/09/2006 29 7 Launceston Weekender 2006
04/10/2006 8 7 Robert Isted Preliminary Group A
04/10/2006 9 9 Robert Isted Preliminary Group B
15/11/2006 7 7 Robert Isted Reserves
15/11/2006 9 9 Robert Isted Trophy
VIC
01/09/2006 6 5 Box Hill Friday Grades Tournament (A Grade)
01/09/2006 6 5 Box Hill Friday Grades Tournament (B Grade)
01/09/2006 6 5 Box Hill Friday Grades Tournament (C Grade)
01/09/2006 6 5 Box Hill Friday Grades Tournament (D Grade)
01/09/2006 6 5 Box Hill Friday Grades Tournament (E Grade)
01/09/2006 12 5 Box Hill Friday Grades Tournament (F Grade)
31/10/2006 25 6 Canterbury Spring Swiss
03/11/2006 87 7 Canterbury/Box Hill Open
23/11/2006 8 7 Croydon Club Championship
07/11/2006 61 7 Elwood Bendigo Bank Championship
16/11/2006 16 7 Frankston Club Championship
26/11/2006 22 5 Hobsons Bay/Yarraville Best in the West
10/10/2006 23 5 Hobsons Bay/Yarraville Koshnitsky Cup
24/10/2006 11 5 Latrobe Valley Yallourn Swiss
30/10/2006 36 9 Melbourne Open
28/09/2006 11 6 Mentone Club Championship
12/11/2006 11 11 Victorian Championship
12/11/2006 10 9 Victorian Championship Qualifying Tournament
12/11/2006 9 9 Victorian Championship Reserves
27/09/2006 25 7 Victorian Teams Championship (West Zone)
WA
23/11/2006 10 9 2006 Metro Respini A
23/11/2006 10 9 2006 Metro Respini E
15/10/2006 17 6 Willetton Open 2006

Bill Gletsos
30-11-2006, 11:34 PM
Rapid Tournaments Rated
ACT
17/09/2006 35 9 2006 ACT Junior Rapid Championship
17/09/2006 42 9 2006 ACT Junior Rapid Reserves
30/11/2006 79 7 2006 Curtin Invitational
23/10/2006 17 5 2006 Namadgi Naturals
15/09/2006 36 8 2006 Norths Junior Term 3
21/09/2006 25 9 2006 Souths Junior Rapid Term 3
07/08/2006 19 7 2006 Tuggeranong CC Allegro Championship
NSW
31/08/2006 14 9 Parramatta Alegro August 2006
12/10/2006 19 10 Parramatta Allegro October 2006
21/09/2006 19 7 Parramatta Rapid Championship 2006
QLD
19/09/2006 35 7 2006 Brisbane High Schools Interschool Championship Open Div
19/09/2006 32 7 2006 Brisbane High Schools Premier Division Rd 3
25/10/2006 18 7 2006 Brisbane Individual Age Championship 1988-90
25/10/2006 12 7 2006 Brisbane Individual Age Championship 1991
25/10/2006 13 7 2006 Brisbane Individual Age Championship 1992
25/10/2006 19 7 2006 Brisbane Individual Age Championship 1993
25/10/2006 28 7 2006 Brisbane Individual Age Championship 1994
25/10/2006 27 7 2006 Brisbane Individual Age Championship 1995
25/10/2006 31 7 2006 Brisbane Individual Age Championship 1996
25/10/2006 40 7 2006 Brisbane Individual Age Championships 1997
18/09/2006 102 7 2006 Brisbane Primary Schools Open A Grade Round 3
18/09/2006 48 7 2006 Brisbane Primary Schools Premier Division Rd 3
31/08/2006 26 7 2006 FNQ High Schools Championship Rd 2 Open
31/08/2006 32 7 2006 FNQ High Schools Championship Rd 2 Premier
15/10/2006 64 7 2006 Queensland High Schools Championship
15/10/2006 27 5 2006 Queensland High Schools Girls Championship
15/10/2006 79 7 2006 Queensland Primary Schools Championship
15/10/2006 33 7 2006 Queensland Primary Schools Girls Ch
17/09/2006 45 7 2006 Queensland Rapid Championship
03/11/2006 15 30 2006 The Gap Chess Club Allegro Tournament
29/10/2006 38 10 Brisbane All Stars 2006
05/10/2006 103 8 Broadbeach Mall Shopping Centre Junior Tournament 2006
22/10/2006 55 9 Gold Coast Allegro 2006
20/09/2006 48 7 Gold Coast High Schools Teams Chess R3 Championship Individu
18/10/2006 25 7 Gold Coast Individual Age Championships 2006 (1988-1990)
18/10/2006 29 8 Gold Coast Individual Age Championships 2006 (1991)
18/10/2006 23 7 Gold Coast Individual Age Championships 2006 (1992)
18/10/2006 37 8 Gold Coast Individual Age Championships 2006 (1993)
18/10/2006 42 8 Gold Coast Individual Age Championships 2006 (1994)
18/10/2006 62 8 Gold Coast Individual Age Championships 2006 (1995)
17/10/2006 67 8 Gold Coast Individual Age Championships 2006 (1996)
17/10/2006 82 8 Gold Coast Individual Age Championships 2006 (1997)
17/10/2006 99 8 Gold Coast Individual Age Championships 2006 (1998)
17/10/2006 60 8 Gold Coast Individual Age Championships 2006 (1999-2001)
13/09/2006 109 7 Gold Coast Primary Schools Teams A Grade R3 2006
13/09/2006 48 6 Gold Coast Primary Schools Teams Championship Individuals R3
02/10/2006 15 8 Oct Camp 021006adv
02/10/2006 16 8 Oct Camp 021006int
03/10/2006 19 8 Oct Camp 031006adv
03/10/2006 17 8 Oct Camp 031006int
04/10/2006 18 8 Oct Camp 041006adv
04/10/2006 23 8 Oct Camp 041006int
06/10/2006 18 5 Oct Camp 061006adv
06/10/2006 19 5 Oct Camp 061006int
03/11/2006 16 4 fr031106adv
03/11/2006 11 4 fr031106int
10/11/2006 14 4 fr101106adv
10/11/2006 12 5 fr101106int
13/10/2006 13 4 fr131006adv
13/10/2006 5 5 fr131006int
15/09/2006 10 6 fr150906adv
15/09/2006 8 4 fr150906int
20/10/2006 14 5 fr201006adv
22/09/2006 9 4 fr220906adv
22/09/2006 11 4 fr220906int
25/08/2006 11 4 fr250806adv
25/08/2006 8 4 fr250806int
27/10/2006 13 4 fr271006adv
27/10/2006 9 4 fr271006int
06/11/2006 18 4 mon061106adv
06/11/2006 10 6 mon061106int
09/10/2006 18 3 mon091006adv
09/10/2006 16 4 mon091006int
11/09/2006 22 4 mon110906adv
11/09/2006 13 4 mon110906int
16/10/2006 18 4 mon161006adv
16/10/2006 16 5 mon161006int
18/09/2006 18 4 mon180906adv
18/09/2006 12 5 mon180906int
21/08/2006 17 4 mon210806adv
21/08/2006 10 4 mon210806int
23/10/2006 13 4 mon231006adv
23/10/2006 6 5 mon231006int
30/10/2006 24 4 mon301006adv
30/10/2006 17 5 mon301006int
02/11/2006 19 4 th021106adv
02/11/2006 15 5 th021106int
09/11/2006 21 3 th091106adv
09/11/2006 17 5 th091106int
12/10/2006 11 3 th121006adv
12/10/2006 15 4 th121006int
14/09/2006 14 3 th140906adv
14/09/2006 15 4 th140906int
19/10/2006 11 3 th191006adv
19/10/2006 16 5 th191006int
21/09/2006 15 4 th210906adv
21/09/2006 12 4 th210906int
24/08/2006 14 4 th240806adv
24/08/2006 16 4 th240806int
26/10/2006 13 3 th261006adv
26/10/2006 15 5 th261006int
12/09/2006 15 4 tu120906adv
12/09/2006 8 5 tu120906int
19/09/2006 6 4 tu190906adv
19/09/2006 7 4 tu190906int
22/08/2006 14 4 tu220806adv
07/11/2006 15 4 tue071106adv
07/11/2006 14 4 tue071106int
17/10/2006 10 4 tue171006adv
17/10/2006 8 4 tue171006int
31/10/2006 11 4 tue311006adv
31/10/2006 14 4 tue311006int
10/10/2006 13 4 tues101006adv
10/10/2006 8 5 tues101006int
24/10/2006 12 4 tues241006adv
24/10/2006 11 4 tues241006int
01/11/2006 9 4 wed011106adv
01/11/2006 10 5 wed011106int
08/11/2006 14 5 wed081106adv
08/11/2006 15 4 wed081106int
11/10/2006 11 4 wed111006adv
11/10/2006 11 3 wed111006int
13/09/2006 10 5 wed130906adv
13/09/2006 12 4 wed130906int
18/10/2006 14 5 wed181006adv
18/10/2006 14 4 wed181006int
20/09/2006 18 4 wed200906adv
20/09/2006 16 4 wed200906int
23/08/2006 21 4 wed230806adv
23/08/2006 14 4 wed230806int
25/10/2006 13 4 wed251006adv
25/10/2006 14 5 wed251006int
SA
28/11/2006 23 5 Lidums November Allegro 2006
21/11/2006 18 6 November Rapid 2006
24/10/2006 25 6 October Rapid 2006
TAS
17/09/2006 12 9 Tas Junior Champs U18 Division
VIC
10/11/2006 22 5 Box Hill Allegro (November)
15/09/2006 14 5 Box Hill Allegro (September)
05/09/2006 18 9 Canterbury Allegro (September)
12/11/2006 41 7 Canterbury Rookies & Queens Cup (November)
08/10/2006 29 7 Canterbury Rookies & Queens Cup (October)
10/09/2006 48 7 Canterbury Rookies & Queens Cup (September)
20/09/2006 42 9 Dandenong Rapidplay Tournament
11/11/2006 40 9 Dark Horse Junior Club Championship (Term 4)
02/09/2006 25 3 Dark Horse Teams Tournament #1 (Term 3)
14/10/2006 25 3 Dark Horse Teams Tournament #1 (Term 4)
16/09/2006 21 3 Dark Horse Teams Tournament #2 (Term 3)
30/09/2006 17 3 Dark Horse Teams Tournament #3 (Term 3)

Kevin Bonham
30-11-2006, 11:52 PM
A number of changes have been made to the rating system to better handle improving players including but not limited to juniors.

Appears to have worked well as Tassie's two fastest improving juniors Vincent Horton and Alastair Dyer now have ratings that are far far closer to their actual playing strength, eg when playing Alastair I have always felt like I was playing a 1700s player but he is not quite that consistent against much weaker opponents.

Rincewind
01-12-2006, 12:14 AM
Busiest players rated over 1900 makes interesting reading. Compare this to the overall busiest players list and what does it mean?


2106 57 NSW Bolens, Johny
2096 47 NSW Illingworth, Max
1922 36 VIC Raine, Marcus
2241 33 VIC Rujevic, Mirko [IM]
2370 29 NSW Xie, George [FM]
2183 29 VIC Stojic, Dusan
1927 28 VIC Morris, James
2126 26 VIC Pyke, Malcolm L
2094 26 VIC Skiotis, Pano
2071 26 VIC Pecak, Mariusz
2127 24 VIC Wallis, Christopher
2084 24 VIC Lin, Zhigen Wilson
2330 23 VIC West, Guy [IM]
2136 22 VIC Dragicevic, Domagoj
2085 21 NSW Broekhuyse, Paul
2004 21 TAS Bonham, Kevin
1904 21 VIC Kildisas, Victor E
2428 20 QLD Solomon, Stephen J [IM]
2087 20 SA Guthrie, Aaron [FM]
2382 17 VIC Goldenberg, Igor [FM]
2333 17 VIC Sandler, Leonid [IM]
2150 17 NSW Ilic, Ilija
2058 17 VIC Hacche, David J

Bill Gletsos
01-12-2006, 12:16 AM
Some regular BB posters ratings:

Ian Rogers - 7 2624!!
Igor Goldenberg - 17 2382!!
George Xie - 29 2370!!
Leonid Sandler - 17 2333!!
Greg Canfell - 16 2332!!
Guy West - 23 2330!!
Michael Baron - 7 2318!
drug - 10 2314!!
jeffrei - 0 2289?
Tristan Boyd - 8 2239!!
Brett Tindall - 0 2230!
Comrade Zukovsky - 0 2219!
Ronald Yu - 0 2182
D Dragicevic - 22 2136!!
macavity - 26 2126!!
Andrew Bird - 9 2124!!
Brian Jones - 13 2115!!
Gareth Charles - 8 2093!!
Jason Hu - 0 2090!!
paulb - 21 2085!!
Laura Moylan - 7 2079!!
bobby1972 - 0 2066!!
Kerry Stead - 0 2037!
Lee Jones - 0 2034!
Goughfather - 7 2030!!
Jason Chan - 0 2015!
Kevin Bonham - 21 2004!!
Chernz - 0 2004!!
firegoat7 - 0 1971!!
rob - 0 1937!!
pballard - 1 1907!
White Elephant - 0 1897
EZbeet - 0 1856!
Boris - 18 1832!!
elevatorescapee - 0 1821!
Ian Rout - 24 1801!!
GeorgeL - 18 1799!!
Barry Cox - 18 1775!!
pax - 0 1764?
Amiel Rosario - 0 1761!
Shaun Press - 4 1759!
DavidFlude - 18 1731!!
Belthaser - 0 1728
David Richards - 0 1691
PhilD707 - 17 1688!!
JGB - 0 1683
The_Wise_Man - 9 1662!!
Candy Cane - 0 1629
altecman - 0 1608!
starter - 1 1606!
Dozy - 25 1597!!
skip - 0 1583?
Liberace - 0 1582!
Frosty - 7 1566!
heaviestknight - 23 1549!!
Phil Bourke - 0 1527!
Arrogant-One - 0 1519!
antichrist - 0 1515?
bergil - 23 1498!!
Trent Parker - 29 1492!!
Howard Duggan - 6 1486!!
Scott Colliver - 2 1449?
Paul Sike - 0 1424!!
themovingman - 12 1416!!
Careth - 0 1413
AES - 1 1355!
Garvin Gray - 33 1341!!
PHAT - 11 1306!!
alana - 17 1305!!
EGOR - 11 1301!!
qpawn - 0 1275
watto- 7 1154!
bunta - 0 1073?

MichaelBaron
01-12-2006, 12:22 AM
Everybody's rating (in the top 20) appears to have gone up!

Another observation is rather sad. Only one player U20 is rated above 2300

Duff McKagan
01-12-2006, 12:35 AM
Everybody's rating (in the top 20) appears to have gone up!

Yep! Free 40 points for no games played.. nice! Thanks Bill :)

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2006, 12:35 AM
Everybody's rating (in the top 20) appears to have gone up!

The changes have injected a fair few points into the pool because the system has become still more responsive in dealing with the fast improvers, meaning that those who have played them are no longer on such a hiding to close to nothing.


Another observation is rather sad. Only one player U20 is rated above 2300

Would you perhaps prefer the April 1992 rating list, which I have readily to hand, on which the top ten have an average rating of 2431 (compared to 2460 now) but the top 10 under 20 averaged a pathetic 1972 (compare 2238 now)? Some of the difference is because the old rating system wasn't that responsive but I reckon Australian junior chess is in far far better condition now than 10, 15 or even 5 years ago.

Bill Gletsos
01-12-2006, 12:37 AM
Yep! Free 40 points for no games played.. nice! Thanks Bill :)It varied for every player based on their results from Dec 2000 thru to Sept 2006.

antichrist
01-12-2006, 12:40 AM
Busiest players rated over 1900 makes interesting reading. Compare this to the overall busiest players list and what does it mean?


2106 57 NSW Bolens, Johny
2096 47 NSW Illingworth, Max
1922 36 VIC Raine, Marcus
2241 33 VIC Rujevic, Mirko [IM]
2370 29 NSW Xie, George [FM]
2183 29 VIC Stojic, Dusan
1927 28 VIC Morris, James
2126 26 VIC Pyke, Malcolm L
2094 26 VIC Skiotis, Pano
2071 26 VIC Pecak, Mariusz
2127 24 VIC Wallis, Christopher
2084 24 VIC Lin, Zhigen Wilson
2330 23 VIC West, Guy [IM]
2136 22 VIC Dragicevic, Domagoj
2085 21 NSW Broekhuyse, Paul
2004 21 TAS Bonham, Kevin
1904 21 VIC Kildisas, Victor E
2428 20 QLD Solomon, Stephen J [IM]
2087 20 SA Guthrie, Aaron [FM]
2382 17 VIC Goldenberg, Igor [FM]
2333 17 VIC Sandler, Leonid [IM]
2150 17 NSW Ilic, Ilija
2058 17 VIC Hacche, David J

that Qld SA WA and Tassie are somehow greatly distracted from playing serious chess once they reach a certain level

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2006, 12:44 AM
that Qld SA WA and Tassie are somehow greatly distracted from playing serious chess once they reach a certain level

I don't suppose the different population in different states or the different number of events in different states had any effect on your thought processes, or lack thereof, there? :eek:

(I'll try to bloody well stay above 2000 this time. Last time I was there I immediately had my worst ever tournament losing 78 points for a 3.5/6 score and have taken almost three years to get back up there again, with a bit of aid from the new changes - I was expecting around 1979 without them.)

Rincewind
01-12-2006, 12:52 AM
Seems to be that despite "states" like ACT and QLD having some very active individuals and presumably thriving chess cultures, if you are looking for an active over 1900 chess scene, Victoria is the place to be, followed by NSW as a distant second. It will be interesting to see if these active chess scenes in other states eventually equate to balancing out the over 1900 busiest players trend. (It would also be interesting to look at this metric over other periods but it's getting late).

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2006, 12:59 AM
Seems to be that despite "states" like ACT and QLD having some very active individuals and presumably thriving chess cultures, if you are looking for an active over 1900 chess scene, Victoria is the place to be, followed by NSW as a distant second.

That looks pretty compelling as a post hoc observation; a 15-5 split between states with roughly even population isn't to be sneezed at.

Now for hypothesis testing: does it also apply in previous rating lists from different times of the year for the same indicator?

Bill Gletsos
01-12-2006, 01:01 AM
That looks pretty compelling as a post hoc observation; a 15-5 split between states with roughly even population isn't to be sneezed at.

Now for hypothesis testing: does it also apply in previous rating lists from different times of the year for the same indicator?In the September rating period with the new code in place then it is 7-6 in favour of VIC with ratings over 1900.

Basil
01-12-2006, 01:03 AM
The changes have injected a fair few points into the pool because the system has become still more responsive in dealing with the fast improvers, meaning that those who have played them are no longer on such a hiding to close to nothing.

1. ^ :clap:

2. Thanks as always for your national work, Bill.

3. Did we lose Moulthun Ly OS?

Bill Gletsos
01-12-2006, 01:10 AM
3. Did we lose Moulthun Ly OS?No, just his relative low game count over the past 9 months has meant his rating went from an ! to a space and is thus not eligible for the top lists.

His rating is 2260.

Garvinator
01-12-2006, 01:15 AM
Speaking on behalf of qld, we have a REAL problem with the activity of players rated over 1900.

Some of these players are just not interested in playing and have given up, others are only available to play some of the time. I do have a theory though that the decent players want competitive games against other 1900 rated players. They dont want to 'waste their time' playing in monster swiss weekenders, where they are likely to get maybe 1 or 2 competitive games.

(I am sure for those who have read my posts on similar issues, this is not news as to my views)

How to solve this problem, different tournament formats do need to be used, but there is a 'love affair' up here with monster swiss formats as they are easy to budget for.

Looking further, the current gp prizemoney structure doesnt help alternate formats as the prize money are counts from the open divisions only. Now as we in qld want to heavily support the gp, this does present a quandry.

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2006, 01:49 AM
In the September rating period with the new code in place then it is 7-6 in favour of VIC with ratings over 1900.

Not stat. sig.

Actually even 15-5 is not stat. sig.

More data needed if Rincewind's hypothesis is to be sustained. Maybe it was just an unusually active ratings period in Victoria.

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2006, 01:53 AM
Speaking on behalf of qld, we have a REAL problem with the activity of players rated over 1900.

I have noticed this too. Many Qld tournaments seem to be very well supported by the rank and file but with just a few very strong players at the top raking in the $$$, and big gaps below those top players.


I do have a theory though that the decent players want competitive games against other 1900 rated players. They dont want to 'waste their time' playing in monster swiss weekenders, where they are likely to get maybe 1 or 2 competitive games.

That's a bit too starteresque for my liking, although you are in a better position to judge the matter than me.

Is fear of losing ratings points to juniors any part of it?

Garvinator
01-12-2006, 02:01 AM
I have noticed this too. Many Qld tournaments seem to be very well supported by the rank and file but with just a few very strong players at the top raking in the $$$, and big gaps below those top players. While caq likes seeing the real top players in the field, having only one or two of them in the field does kill the competition for first place.

This then can lead to a lack of interest in the 1900 brigade.



That's a bit too starteresque for my liking, Yellow card :hand: only fair if I started;) mentioning metrics.


although you are in a better position to judge the matter than me.I do have the comments from some of the players on here (admittedly from vic, but thoughts have to be similar) as well from conversations with qld 1900 players when they turn up to tournaments.

In a previous rating list, I recall there only being 38 players rated over 1800 and most of those were inactive.


Is fear of losing ratings points to juniors any part of it?
Really does depend on which organiser you ask.
My opinion, only a small amount. 1900 players would be playing against 1600 rated juniors. If they were to lose to a correctly rated 1200 (but showing 900 because of 'under ratedness') then they deserve to lose every point they do.

In the junior area- I would think that junior behaviour and playing conditions is more of a factor than junior ratings.

antichrist
01-12-2006, 02:04 AM
While caq likes seeing the real top players in the field, having only one or ..............
In the junior area- I would think that junior behaviour and playing conditions is more of a factor than junior ratings.


Flgging another dead horse, do any of the rounds get held up by juniors and time increment, the games going on forever, though I would also expect the opposite?

Rincewind
01-12-2006, 07:29 AM
More data needed if Rincewind's hypothesis is to be sustained. Maybe it was just an unusually active ratings period in Victoria.

The 15-5 split was not the main thrust of my hypothesis. I was more struck by the lack of representation of the smaller states despite those states being well represented in the open busiest players list. But anyway...

With some time I will produce annual busiest player lists which should account for the seasonal issue. But they will (by necessity) be based on the published ratings and not the new ratings. However, since I selected 1900 arbitrarily, that should not be too great of a concern.

Brian_Jones
01-12-2006, 08:13 AM
Speaking on behalf of qld, we have a REAL problem with the activity of players rated over 1900. Some of these players are just not interested in playing and have given up, others are only available to play some of the time. I do have a theory though that the decent players want competitive games against other 1900 rated players. They dont want to 'waste their time' playing in monster swiss weekenders, where they are likely to get maybe 1 or 2 competitive games.

You need to bring back the excitement into chess tournaments!


How to solve this problem, different tournament formats do need to be used, but there is a 'love affair' up here with monster swiss formats as they are easy to budget for.

Looking further, the current gp prizemoney structure doesnt help alternate formats as the prize money are counts from the open divisions only. Now as we in qld want to heavily support the gp, this does present a quandry.

Don't agree. Swisses such as the Gold Coast Open are the way to go. Keep the Open and Minor separate. Introduce accelerated pairings where necessary. Avoid negative marketing. Make it easier for players to enjoy playing!

Spiny Norman
01-12-2006, 09:25 AM
A number of changes have been made to the rating system to better handle improving players including but not limited to juniors.
Bill, thanks for your work on this (and thanks also to any who worked on the changes with you). I know this has been a sore point for some people, so one would hope that we see less negative comment about ratings from here on.

My own rating seems to have taken a bit of a hop up, more so than I would have expected previously just based on my recent results ... perhaps an extra 40-45 points (due to the recalculation going back a few years as noted). I am now +452 points since September 2004. I suppose that qualifies me as an "improving player". :D Some of the other players at Croydon have also jumped a little more than I might have expected, presumably because of previous losses to juniors that are now classed as "improving".

Ninja
01-12-2006, 09:42 AM
May be silly question...
but where can one find a copy of the complete rating list ??
ie to check out a few that did not make the "top" lists etc ??

Alana
01-12-2006, 10:25 AM
My rating has gone up about 300 points, when I have only gone up 142. How does this work? :eek:

Alana
01-12-2006, 10:54 AM
Anyone??? And where can you get the new ratings FULL list?

Watto
01-12-2006, 10:58 AM
My rating has gone up about 300 points, when I have only gone up 142. How does this work? :eek:
Your previous rating has been changed (there's been a general recalculation of previous ratings from the last 6 years to better deal with improving players) so it's 142 points from your revised previous rating but 300 points from the rating you knew before it was revised... if that makes sense. The first post by Bill on this thread explains it.

I don't think the full list has been uploaded yet...

Alana
01-12-2006, 11:14 AM
Anyone??? And where can you get the new ratings FULL list?

Ian Rout
01-12-2006, 11:22 AM
Anyone??? And where can you get the new ratings FULL list?
For ACT players:

http://www.netspeed.com.au/ianandjan/IansPage/ratings/

PhilD707
01-12-2006, 11:42 AM
I for one am very pleased to see that some action has been taken to deal with the problem of an influx of Juniors might have on the ratings of established players and their own ratings.

When I raised this as a potential issue over a year ago with Bill Gletsos and local ratings officer (at the time) David Christian, I was fobbed off with explanation that the system, as it currently stood, would handle it.
Quite frankly I did not believe this at the time and it does now appear that I was correct to voicing these concerns

The issue for the Burnie Club in particular is that prior to 2005 we only had one junior member. Due mainly to David Cordover's excellent initiatives we saw an influx that year and now have 8 junior members and a few who come and go a bit.
Might not sound much but its over half our membership.
Added to this we have 3 improving novice adults too.

It seemed to me at the time that, unless the Glickosos system was super smart, improving juniors would gain at least some of their points at the expense of the established seniors causing an artificial deflation in their ratings and therefore depressing the whole rating pool.

It makse a lot of sense to take action like this to prevent this destabilising effect to the ratings system. (By that I mean that clubs elsewhere without large novice influxes where the experienced players ratings would remain relatively stable).

My reservation about the approach taken to resolve the problem is that to date I am not aware of coherent explanation of how this second calculation adresses the problem.
Is it just an empirical shot in the dark sort of thing or is their any maths behind it.
Where is the documentation relating to it?
Most importantly can we now be assured that established players ratings will not be affected by the novice influx and remain reliable!!

There are literally hundreds of children now playing Chess in regularly organised competitions in schools in Tasmania.
While not all of those will go on to join Clubs however even if only a small fraction do over the next few years it is bound to have a huge impact.
Bear in mind that the entire active club playing pool is of the order of 50 or so.

We may well be faced with a situation where a small handlful of experienced players are providing the sole ground truthing for a large number of unrated players.
Can the system handle that?
The potential dangers are
1. The experienced players ratings will be depressed
2. The novice players will ratings will not reflect their true strength as they will relating to the experienced players artificially lowered ratings
3. Tasmanian ratings will not be correlated with other states where the playing pool is changing less.

Phil.

Alana
01-12-2006, 11:42 AM
They don't seem to be posted there yet. When will they be?

Alana
01-12-2006, 11:46 AM
Never mind, it has appeared :)

Bill Gletsos
01-12-2006, 12:57 PM
I for one am very pleased to see that some action has been taken to deal with the problem of an influx of Juniors might have on the ratings of established players and their own ratings.

When I raised this as a potential issue over a year ago with Bill Gletsos and local ratings officer (at the time) David Christian, I was fobbed off with explanation that the system, as it currently stood, would handle it.You were not fobbed off at all.
In fact I sent you a lengthy and detailed response which you acknowledged and thanked me for.
In that response I explicitly said to you:

it would be reasonable for the Burnie Chess Club to continue to monitor the situation via the Tasmanian Chess Association as not only does Kevin Bonham have a good understanding of Glicko and the ACF specific modifications like intermediate ratings but they are more familiar with the players in Tasmania than I am.
You agreed it would be reasonable to do this and mentioned you were quite happy to work through Kevin Bonham.

Did you continue to monitor the situation and discuss with Kevin?
You certainly never raised the issue with me again.

Quite frankly I did not believe this at the time and it does now appear that I was correct to voicing these concernsYou prattled on about ratings issues but used Elo as your model and most of what you said in your email was based on false assumptions.
You also referreed to a document related to the USCF system that had absolutely nothing to do with Glicko. That document was and of itself was biased as the author is in the business of selling his own rating system to US clubs etc.

The issue for the Burnie Club in particular is that prior to 2005 we only had one junior member. Due mainly to David Cordover's excellent initiatives we saw an influx that year and now have 8 junior members and a few who come and go a bit.
Might not sound much but its over half our membership.
Added to this we have 3 improving novice adults too.

It seemed to me at the time that, unless the Glickosos system was super smart, improving juniors would gain at least some of their points at the expense of the established seniors causing an artificial deflation in their ratings and therefore depressing the whole rating pool.

It makse a lot of sense to take action like this to prevent this destabilising effect to the ratings system. (By that I mean that clubs elsewhere without large novice influxes where the experienced players ratings would remain relatively stable).

My reservation about the approach taken to resolve the problem is that to date I am not aware of coherent explanation of how this second calculation adresses the problem.What second calculation? Do you mean the new way of handling improving players?
As I sated in the first post, we recalculated all ratings from December 2000 thru to September 2006 using the new approach before calculating the December ratings.

Is it just an empirical shot in the dark sort of thing or is their any maths behind it.
Where is the documentation relating to it?No it involves voodoo, frogs entrails amongst other ingredients.
Of course we tested it.
In fact we have been running various scenarios and test for the past 12 months.

Most importantly can we now be assured that established players ratings will not be affected by the novice influx and remain reliable!!I'm not giving that assurance, but what you have is currently far better than anything else going around. It is certainly miles ahead of any Elo system.

There are literally hundreds of children now playing Chess in regularly organised competitions in schools in Tasmania.
While not all of those will go on to join Clubs however even if only a small fraction do over the next few years it is bound to have a huge impact.
Bear in mind that the entire active club playing pool is of the order of 50 or so.

We may well be faced with a situation where a small handlful of experienced players are providing the sole ground truthing for a large number of unrated players.
Can the system handle that?If and when you can demonstrate it to my satisfaction with actual valid data to back it up then I'll have a look at it.

The potential dangers are
1. The experienced players ratings will be depressed
2. The novice players will ratings will not reflect their true strength as they will relating to the experienced players artificially lowered ratingsThese has been the case ever since rating systems were introduced. All one can do it take steps to minimise them.
Glicko is far better at handling them than Elo.
Glicko2 is better at handling them than Glicko.
The introduction of the use of intermediate calculations (described in ACF Bulletin #276) in September 2004 improves the handling of them.
The latest changes improves on the handling of them even more.

3. Tasmanian ratings will not be correlated with other states where the playing pool is changing less. Pools are always a problem because they are virtually impossible to correleate with other areas unless there is a reasonable amount of intermingling between the pools.
I havent seen any handling of pools attempted by any rating system anywhere in the world.

Spiny Norman
01-12-2006, 01:43 PM
Phil, suggest you do what Croydon does. We have a small pool too ... incorporating some quite rapidly improving adults (this is not just a "junior" problem). A couple of times a year some of our better players go out and compete against other clubs. Invariably they perform well above expectations and therefore bring back rating points to our club ... where we then beat up on them mercilessly in our own rated tournaments and redistribute their points booty amongst our members. :D

Gattaca
01-12-2006, 01:46 PM
PhilD707, you weren't alone in agitating for something to be done about the problem of deflation caused by rapidly improving juniors, only to be fobbed off ;)

Anyway, that's in the past.

Well done to Bill and anyone else involved for tackling the problem. There will no doubt be discussion about whether or not it has solved the problem, or could have been done differently or whatever, but the main thing is to have tried something. Even if it isn't a perfect solution it is sure to be better than wringing our hands doing nothing, or worse still, denying that a problem existed.

PhilD707 made a good point though about documentation.

Any tinkering with the rating system should be transparent. The ratings officer is answerable to the ACF executive, not a law unto his or herself. With any such decisions, (like the one giving everyone an extra 100 points except for Ian Rogers a few years ago) the following things need to be clear and transparent.

1. Confirmation that the ACF executive either requested or approved an adjustment in the ratings formula in advance.

2. Confirmation that the solution used was not arbitrary and left to any one individual to decide on. (By this I mean that discussion and analysis of proposed parameters to use, such as the starting date in 2000, occurred.)

3. Documentation of the process, so that others can recreate or check the calculations if required.

We also need to know whether this is a one off, or will be done every period from now on, or once every 5 years, etc.

Ideally an adjustment like this should be announced in advance at the start of a new ratings period, so that there can never be any accusation of retro fitting. Changes should not really be made on results that have already occurred.

If for example, I were to take over the job of ratings officer, I might claim that all the players at Melbourne Chess Club where I play most of my games are clearly underrated... and retrospectively adjust my rating upwards using data going back to 1990. Obviously this is a silly scenario, but I'm highlighting the dangers of retro fitting. Changes should be announced in advance! As they say in legal circles, justice should not just be done, it should be seen to be done. The rating list is one of the two most valuable assets that the ACF owns and in my opinion its integrity should be protected almost to the point of pedantry.

I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with the parameters or method used, only that such things should be totally transparent and never retrospective.

I hasten to add that it may well be that this was the case. I'm just emphasising the issue for future reference.

Anyway, having noted my agreement with PhilD707 on that point, congratulations again to Bill and his team for doing something constructive... and for making Alana's day!

antichrist
01-12-2006, 02:02 PM
You need to bring back the excitement into chess tournaments!




Exactly, by returning to guillotine finish. Exciting for players, spectators and arbitars. And the rounds finish on time and not held up by second chancers.

Brian_Jones
01-12-2006, 02:14 PM
Exactly, by returning to guillotine finish. Exciting for players, spectators and arbitars. And the rounds finish on time and not held up by second chancers.

But Peter you are not a real chessplayer. Just a coffee house player!:)

Why you couldn't even get down to Coffs Harbour recently!:)

antichrist
01-12-2006, 02:30 PM
But Peter you are not a real chessplayer. Just a coffee house player!:)

Why you couldn't even get down to Coffs Harbour recently!:)

How could I go to Coffs?? First of all, as stated two weeks ago and about 6 months ago, I had pretty seriously hurt my shoulder and was months behind on work etc.. So was unable to catch up on theory so a waste of my pride, my and others time as well as my money. I did have free accom down there and had offered it to other players by the way.

I can stay local and earn dollars by gambling on the game, no need for preparation, not costing me anything and causing no pollution - a win win win.

Now you went there, made a fool of yourself, spent a lot of money and pollution and returned to Sydney with your tail between your legs. A loss loss loss.

If you want any career guidance I am always at hand.

Vlad
01-12-2006, 02:38 PM
It is so unusual to see 4 people 2100+ in the ACT rating list. :P

Brian_Jones
01-12-2006, 03:07 PM
Now you went there, made a fool of yourself, spent a lot of money and pollution and returned to Sydney with your tail between your legs. A loss loss loss. If you want any career guidance I am always at hand.

I thought I did OK. I scored 5/7 = 71% finished 4th and won $100.

Maybe you are just scared of losing to Gold Coast juniors?

Ian Rout
01-12-2006, 03:10 PM
It is so unusual to see 4 people 2100+ in the ACT rating list. :P
Five if we count IM Toth who is listed in the OS section but residing in ACT - I omitted to splice him into the list before putting it up but will catch up at some point.

antichrist
01-12-2006, 03:12 PM
I thought I did OK. I scored 5/7 = 71% finished 4th and won $100.

Maybe you are just scared of losing to Gold Coast juniors?

I enjoy losing to juniors, love em, even give them queen odds to make it interesting.

I will have you know that a few weeks ago one of their golden hopes came down and got beaten by you know who. And I gave queen odds too the first game, lost and then won the second off scratch.

I hate the guillotine finish when some players don't know how to finish the game, that did put me badly off the Gold Coast Chess.

You are even welcome up for a holiday some time, just give me some free chess lessons.

I also won $100 without going further than my pushbike could roll down the hill. You paid a fortune for your hundred. And I did not have to sit on my backside the whole weekend - got out and moved in the surf as well.

Bill Gletsos
01-12-2006, 03:12 PM
The ACF December 2006 ratings are now up on the ACF website thanks to Paul Broekhuyse. :clap: :clap:

Denis_Jessop
01-12-2006, 03:14 PM
It is so unusual to see 4 people 2100+ in the ACT rating list. :P

And it's good to see two ex-ACT players on 2300+ ;)

DJ

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2006, 06:28 PM
Phil's concerns about the Burnie Chess Club ratings were raised in September 2005. On paper it seemed quite alarming - the six active established adults in the BCC had between them dropped 254 points in a single ratings period (while meanwhile the active juniors made gains exceeding that).

I studied rating data for these six adults very closely and established that most of the points loss was actually caused by a combination of:

* Poor performances by the two least active of the six players, meaning that they lost more points than their opponents gained from beating them.
* Points losses to players from other parts of the state.
* Unusual issues involving an at-the-time unrated adult who had defeated a very high-rated adult but also conceded some points to some juniors.

I determined that the adults had actually lost around 100, perhaps 120 at most, points between them from games with juniors (so that's 16.7-20 points per adult player per period active) and suggested the situation should be monitored.

Indeed I emailed the following comment "I think it is worth keeping an eye on to see how and if this develops over a few subsequent ratings periods but I do think that if there is any long-term effect it will be a lot milder than it may have seemed to some in the BCC at first look."

Phil rejected both my approach to my predictions (he seems to prefer theoretical waffle to empirical study) and my conclusion. I was not again contacted about the matter by him.

In fact my prediction was correct:

In the December 2005 period all six players were again active. Between them they lost 79 points.

In the March 2006 period none of the players were active.

In the June 2006 period three of the players were active and they gained 17 points.

In the September 2006 period five of the players were active and they lost 176 points.

Factoring in that not all players were active in each period this comes out to an average loss of 17 points per player per period in which active Dec 2005 to Sep 2006 - within the range I expected based on the Sep 2005 period. Fears that the drastic points losses of the Sep 05 period would be repeated consistently proved to be false.

Of course even a continuing points loss of the order observed in the BCC over the periods Sep 05-Sep 06 would be very concerning under normal circumstances. However the six BCC adults used as a basis for Phil's concerns are not an adequate test set for assessing rating deflation. Quite aside from the small number of them, most of them are well over the age at which players are expected to maintain stable ratings when regularly active (35-45 according to Prof Glickman) and some are not regularly active.

Only two of the six are both regularly active and somewhere near the expected stable ratings age. Studying the ratings trajectories for these two from June 2005 (the period before the major loss) to September 2006 (the last period before the recent change) it turns out that one of them gained 33 points in this time while the other lost 4. (It happens that in the December 2006 period both these players suffered significant points losses despite the generally uplifting impact of the changes, but in at least one of those cases the cause was evidently lousy form. :P )

The situation still needs monitoring as the rate of points loss by the older BCC adults is higher than I would naturally expect. However that may just reflect an unusually sharp decline in form or may be because some of them are not regularly active.

Oepty
01-12-2006, 07:41 PM
The 15-5 split was not the main thrust of my hypothesis. I was more struck by the lack of representation of the smaller states despite those states being well represented in the open busiest players list. But anyway...

With some time I will produce annual busiest player lists which should account for the seasonal issue. But they will (by necessity) be based on the published ratings and not the new ratings. However, since I selected 1900 arbitrarily, that should not be too great of a concern.

Barry. From an SA perspective if a top player or any player played in every tournament that is submitted for ratings in a year they would play 59 games. This the state championships (9 rounds) and City of Adelaide championships (7), the two interclub competetions (9,7), three weekenders (2x7, 1x6) and the Modbury club championships (7). Makes it a bit difficult for players to be very active.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2006, 07:50 PM
The 15-5 split was not the main thrust of my hypothesis. I was more struck by the lack of representation of the smaller states despite those states being well represented in the open busiest players list.

That is an interesting difference. The states that are very well represented in the open busiest list but not the main busiest list are ACT and Qld and I suspect the players featuring prominently are nearly all juniors. So these are most likely the small(ish) states - not that Qld's all that small - that are punching well above their weight in terms of junior organisation but not so much (yet!) at senior level.

Rincewind
01-12-2006, 09:04 PM
Barry. From an SA perspective if a top player or any player played in every tournament that is submitted for ratings in a year they would play 59 games. This the state championships (9 rounds) and City of Adelaide championships (7), the two interclub competetions (9,7), three weekenders (2x7, 1x6) and the Modbury club championships (7). Makes it a bit difficult for players to be very active.
Scott

Scott, I agree and I suspect Aaron's figures include some games played in Victoria.

Candy-Cane
02-12-2006, 06:17 AM
hey can a rating go from a !! to a blank in one go?

hey how many games are like !!, ! and blanks counted on by the way?

Brian_Jones
02-12-2006, 08:38 AM
Scott, I agree and I suspect Aaron's figures include some games played in Victoria.

Aaron also played at Coffs Harbour.

But what are SACA players going to do about the lack of events in Adelaide?

Who is going to lead them out of this depression?

Rincewind
02-12-2006, 08:45 AM
But what are SACA players going to do about the lack of events in Adelaide?

Travel?

PhilD707
02-12-2006, 10:10 AM
Phil's concerns about the Burnie Chess Club ratings were raised in September 2005. On paper it seemed quite alarming - the six active established adults in the BCC had between them dropped 254 points in a single ratings period (while meanwhile the active juniors made gains exceeding that).......

Phil rejected both my approach to my predictions (he seems to prefer theoretical waffle to empirical study) and my conclusion. ......


.... Fears that the drastic points losses of the Sep 05 period would be repeated consistently proved to be false.

.... (It happens that in the December 2006 period both these players suffered significant points losses despite the generally uplifting impact of the changes, but in at least one of those cases the cause was evidently lousy form. :P ).....


For the umpteenth time, do you think it would be possible for you to conduct a debate, (and this is very neutral territory), without resorting to pointless and needless inflamatory tactics????
Your arguments, if they are worth a pinch of salt, will stand for themselves.

For example:
Fears may be said to prove to be unfounded or groundless
while facts or claims on the other hand may prove to be false.

Anyway I have done some preliminary analysis on the Dec ratings and my first reaction was that there was no cause for concern and indeed Prof. Glicko had everyting under control.
Having looked more closesly now though I am not so sure....:hmm:
I have a bunch of other things to do today so I'll get back on this later

Phil..

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2006, 05:21 PM
[FONT="Times New Roman"][SIZE="3"]For the umpteenth time, do you think it would be possible for you to conduct a debate, (and this is very neutral territory), without resorting to pointless and needless inflamatory tactics????

Only if you first apologise for and retract all of yours in the past. :hand:

Of course your term "fobbed off" is an example of just what you are trying to complain about. Furthermore, thinking "Fears ... proved to be false" to be "inflamatory [sic - poor form from the wannabe spelling flamer]" is just incredibly oversensitive. It is a fact that such fears were held and a fact that they were disproven. Deal with it. :hand:


Your arguments, if they are worth a pinch of salt, will stand for themselves.

Indeed, but your scorn towards my efforts in examining the situation and arriving at conclusions that were subsequently vindicated deserves criticism and has got it.

I could have been harsher than that. I was trying to go easy on you in view of your evident fragility in debate, which strikes me as extremely odd in someone who tries to use silly macho insults of the "be a man" variety. :D


For example:
Fears may be said to prove to be unfounded or groundless
while facts or claims on the other hand may prove to be false.

As one who is frequently falsely accused of pedantry, I know the real thing when I see it, and that is the premium deal! Even so, it is a miserable failure. For something to be unfounded or groundless merely means it lacks foundation. This could happen when someone is simply afraid of something for no reason at all. What is going on here goes further than that - a fear held based on specific reasons has been discredited because the underlying concerns have been, both theoretically and empirically, found wanting.


Anyway I have done some preliminary analysis on the Dec ratings and my first reaction was that there was no cause for concern and indeed Prof. Glicko had everyting under control.
Having looked more closesly now though I am not so sure....:hmm:

No one cares if you are sure or not unless you can back it with convincing evidence.

sleepless
02-12-2006, 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian_Jones
But what are SACA players going to do about the lack of events in Adelaide?


Venue conditions are an issue. Moving from the Chess Centre may help. It has grossly inadequate heating for winter and no airconditioning for summer. Trestle table height and chair sizes do not match causing some players to stack two or more chairs and sit on the top one during Interclub. The carpet is badly stained and the place looks grubby.
Also I don't believe that the Modbury Championship was rated this year.

cheers!

Denis_Jessop
02-12-2006, 08:11 PM
Seems to be that despite "states" like ACT and QLD having some very active individuals and presumably thriving chess cultures, if you are looking for an active over 1900 chess scene, Victoria is the place to be, followed by NSW as a distant second. It will be interesting to see if these active chess scenes in other states eventually equate to balancing out the over 1900 busiest players trend. (It would also be interesting to look at this metric over other periods but it's getting late).

The ACT might be busy and thriving as a chess scene but that applies only to juniors. There is only a handful of adults playing regularly and none of them is rated over 1900 so the likelihood of their ever being so is questionable. The ACT has only 7 players rated over 1900. Two of them are "senior" adults and neither is active at present. The others are all juniors or students whose chess activity is curtailed by the need to study. In the current rating period the total number of rated games for the group is 14 being 7 for Gareth Oliver and 7 for Junta Ikeda. The scarcity of ACT players, especially adult players, above 1800 has been a feature for quite a number of years now.

DJ

PhilD707
03-12-2006, 12:43 PM
No one cares if you are sure or not unless you can back it with convincing evidence.

Please find the evidence as requested at
http://members.dodo.com.au/~phild707/

You will find commentary there which summarises as follows: -
"The inescapable conclusion from the BCC analysis above is that ratings at the Burnie Club have become considerably depressed due to the failure of the Glicko system to adequately deal with the disproportionately high number of juniors entering the game here.
The net result is that almost everyone at the BCC is now under-rated.
Looking to the future we can expect our novices to continue to improve for many years causing a continued artificial decay in established ratings whilst lowering the potential ceiling for the improvers.
Beyond that there literally hundreds of children now playing Chess in primary schools around the State.

One can only wonder what the chaos will ensue in the ratings system when these "Chess baby boomers" begin to come on line at local clubs in the State.
"

I have also taken the liberty of proposing a suggested remedy for this problem of ratings deflation there.

Phil.

PhilD707
03-12-2006, 12:47 PM
Bill,
The rapid ratings listing that I have, (obtained from Nigel Frame) does not appear to include all those at the BCC who have rapid ratings.
I am wondering why Mile Pavicic for example isn't on the list?

Bill Gletsos
03-12-2006, 01:54 PM
Bill,
The rapid ratings listing that I have, (obtained from Nigel Frame) does not appear to include all those at the BCC who have rapid ratings.
I am wondering why Mile Pavicic for example isn't on the list?The list is the active rapid list.
As it notes in the very first line, it lists players active since 1st March 2005.
Pavicic hasnt been.

I guess it is expecting too much for you to actually be observant. :whistle:

firegoat7
03-12-2006, 05:07 PM
Gletsos,


Resign. You are a joke! You have made the Australian ratings a joke! You still have not figured out how to solve junior issues without corrupting the whole system with artificial inflation. You are the biggest clown in Australian chess. Stop wrecking the rating system you friggen vandal.

In fact, I think everybody should write a petition to the ACF to demand that qualified quality mathematicians take a look at the whole project. Gletsos needs to be held accountable for his actions. We need some independent specialists to investigate the system. We pay the ACF to get our games rated. They should pay for specialist advice on such a sensitive issue. Get that bloody vandal Gletsos away from the ratings.:hand:

Nobody should ever see their chess rating improve from not playing you friggen clowns.:wall:

cheers Fg7

Vlad
03-12-2006, 07:41 PM
Nobody should ever see their chess rating improve from not playing you friggen clowns.:wall:

cheers Fg7

Hard to understand what you are complaining about.

I am a qualified mathematician. I do not know all the details but from what I understand when Bill was explaining to me what he did - it sounded reasonable.

ER
03-12-2006, 08:20 PM
Good on you Bill and thanks!
Once again, the ratings list was presented on time containing great information for all Chess players. Keep up the good work:clap:
Cheers and good luck!

antichrist
03-12-2006, 09:00 PM
You are the heavist crawler I have ever come across - I didn't know that Bill had groupies

ER
03-12-2006, 10:31 PM
You are obviously a lost case! :) Don't expect me to glorify your nothingness with an answer! Be gone! :)
Cheers and good luck!

Mischa
03-12-2006, 10:34 PM
HK who are you?

ER
03-12-2006, 10:38 PM
HK who are you?

Hi Mischa, my name is Elliott "Tasso" Renzies, this has been stated openly before but you obviously haven't seen it! By the way I am a fully financial member of both the Melbourne Chess Club and the Box Hill Chess Club.
I hope that answers your question!
Cheers and good luck! :)

firegoat7
03-12-2006, 10:39 PM
Hard to understand what you are complaining about.

Well put 2+2 together Sherlock Holmes. This is the third rating increase in 7 years. Does this actually happen anywhere else in the world?




I am a qualified mathematician.


You know what..... I reckon thats crap :hand: .



I do not know all the details but from what I understand when Bill was explaining to me what he did - it sounded reasonable.
Sounds like a concrete reason "it sounded reasonable"....what is so friggen reasonable about it?

cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
03-12-2006, 10:40 PM
Gletsos,


Resign. You are a joke! You have made the Australian ratings a joke! You still have not figured out how to solve junior issues without corrupting the whole system with artificial inflation.As usual you have no clue what you are talking about.

You are the biggest clown in Australian chess. Stop wrecking the rating system you friggen vandal.The current system handles improving players and juniors far better then your beloved Elo.

In fact, I think everybody should write a petition to the ACF to demand that qualified quality mathematicians take a look at the whole project. Gletsos needs to be held accountable for his actions. We need some independent specialists to investigate the system. We pay the ACF to get our games rated. They should pay for specialist advice on such a sensitive issue. Get that bloody vandal Gletsos away from the ratings.:hand:

Nobody should ever see their chess rating improve from not playing you friggen clowns.:wall:I realise this is difficult for you to understand, but no one did improve by not playing. There was no automatic uplift.
All results from December 2000 thru to September 2006 were recalculated using the new method. As such the ratings of the players are based on games actually played. because improving players end up wuith higher ratings then established players who play them also benfit and end up with higher ratings.

Now run back to your apathetic mates and continue to bemoan CV, GW and everyone else.

Bill Gletsos
03-12-2006, 10:50 PM
Well put 2+2 together Sherlock Holmes. This is the third rating increase in 7 years. Does this actually happen anywhere else in the world?I realise you are clueless when it comes to ratings so I will say this as simply as possible.
There was no increase.

This was not like the 150 point uplift of April 2000 that occurred under Elo. It also wasnt like the 70 point uplift of March 2004. Both of those were to better align the ACF ratings with the top end of the FIDE ratings.

The changes this time were due to a systemic change to better handle improving players just like the systemic change back in September 2004 when we introduced the use of intermediate ratings.

The ratings for all players were recalculated processing all results from dec 2000 onwards using the new method. Most went up, some went down and improving players went up quite a bit.

Now scurry off back to your cave. :hand:

firegoat7
03-12-2006, 10:57 PM
As usual you have no clue what you are talking about.


Listen dork. When you tell somebody they have no clue you are supposed to use the word because and then give a reason.

Heres how it works.

Gletsos is a vandal who is ruining the Australian rating system because
in the last 7 years he has artificially inflated the ratings on at least 3 separate occassions. Please feel free to debate the truth of such a claim.




The current system handles improving players and juniors far better then your beloved Elo.
I don't care about your opinions concerning ELO and Glicko, nor do I care if one is better then the other. What I want to know is does the ACF ever intend to fix the problems associated with the system so that vandals like yourself do not have to tinker with it.




I realise this is difficult for you to understand, but no one did improve by not playing.
The only thing difficult to understand is your deplorable use of the English language.




There was no automatic uplift.


Crap




All results from December 2000 thru to September 2006 were recalculated using the new method. As such the ratings of the players are based on games actually played. because improving players end up wuith higher ratings then established players who play them also benfit and end up with higher ratings.


In other words, you have vandalised the system yet again. Its a joke Gletsos. You have ruined the Australian rating system, as a concrete example my rating went up without playing a game in the last quarter, all because you chose to revise history. I haven't played a tournament game for a year. How long are people going to put up with this crap, its completely insane.

cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
03-12-2006, 10:58 PM
Please find the evidence as requested at
http://members.dodo.com.au/~phild707/
You really cant help yourself.
You just have to misrepresent the facts.

Firstly you were not fobbed off.
As you yourself noted I gave you lengthy and detailed reposne and you thanked me for it.

Secondly your claim "we had the ACF ratings officer scrambling into belated action with a band aid solution ...." is entirely false and just shows how totally clueless you are regarding the situation.

The ACF Ratings Officers have been investigating how to better handle improving players for over 12mths and have been running numerous tests over that period.

Also you say "(It is our understanding that the recipients of the new points were juniors, ie it is not clear whether improving adult novices benefited also.)'
Now in the first post here and also on the ACF rating page it clearly states:
"A number of changes have been made to the rating system to better handle improving players including but not limited to juniors."

What part of that dont you understand.

From this all can can be assumed is that you:
a) have a comprehension problem
b) are totally clueless
c) both of the above

Now as for your "so called analysis" it is flawed for a number of reasons.

Firstly you are comparing unlike numbers as the June 2004 figures were calculated on a different basis to the ratings from Sept 2004 up until Sept 2006. This was explained in ACF Bulletin #276. As its notes at that time all ratings were recalculated from Dec 2000 thru to June 2004 to use intermediate ratings in the calculations prior to calculating the September 2004 ratings.

Secondly prior to the calculation of the December 2006 ratings all ratings periods from Dec 2000 thru to Sept 2006. This again impacts the June 2004 ratings and subsequent ratings in successive periods of all players.

However even ignoring those facts you have simple errors in your list.

You claim Pavicic had a June 2004 rating of 2002. He never did. He had a published June 2004 rating of 1981. It was his March 2004 rating that was 2002. :doh:
Likewise you claim your rating of 1647 was for June 2004. It wasnt, it also was for March 2004.

In fact you know what.
All your ratings supposedly for June 2004 are for March 2004. :doh: :wall: :wall:

Why would anyone have any faith in your figures or conclusions when you cannot get even such a simple thing as that correct. :hand: :hand:


I have also taken the liberty of proposing a suggested remedy for this problem of ratings deflation there.Yes, it ranks up there with the stupidest suggestions I have heard.

Vlad
03-12-2006, 10:59 PM
You know what..... I reckon thats crap :hand: .



I understand that you are a little brain but a very big mouth. I also understand that for you “a qualified mathematician” is by definition somebody who supports your opinion.

ER
03-12-2006, 11:03 PM
For an excellent and comprehensive intro, to systemic changes, albeit in other fields of study or analysis than chess ratings please refer to

http://www.sangonet.org.za/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3908&Itemid=434

Of course, it will not help you to apply to specific statistical data, however, it can provide useful information of understanding the term!

Cheers and good luck!

Bill Gletsos
03-12-2006, 11:04 PM
Listen dork. When you tell somebody they have no clue you are supposed to use the word because and then give a reason.

Heres how it works.

Gletsos is a vandal who is ruining the Australian rating system because
in the last 7 years he has artificially inflated the ratings on at least 3 separate occassions. Please feel free to debate the truth of such a claim.I'm really not going to waste my time on a clueless idiot like you.

I don't care about your opinions concerning ELO and Glicko, nor do I care if one is better then the other. What I want to know is does the ACF ever intend to fix the problems associated with the system so that vandals like yourself do not have to tinker with it.The ACF Council is quite happy witht the ACF Ratings system and the ACF Ratinsg Officers.

The only thing difficult to understand is your deplorable use of the English language.It isnt as difficult as your illogical ramblings.

CrapNot crap, unless you are referring to your posts.

In other words, you have vandalised the system yet again. Its a joke Gletsos. You have ruined the Australian rating system, as a concrete example my rating went up without playing a game in the last quarter, all because you chose to revise history. I haven't played a tournament game for a year. How long are people going to put up with this crap, its completely insane.Whilst I'm coping abuse from the likes of you I know I'm doing the right thing. :hand:

firegoat7
03-12-2006, 11:07 PM
I understand that you are a little brain but a very big mouth.


The correct expression is 'have' not 'are', Mr Mathematics.


I also understand that for you “a qualified mathematician” is by definition somebody who supports your opinion.
No. For the public record I said, I don't believe you are a mathematician. Do you want me to say it again. "I don't believe you are a mathematician". In case you are unsure, I will repeat myself. I Fg7 don't believe you are a mathematician. Do you understand my statement now?, feel free to refute my claim.:hand:

cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
03-12-2006, 11:09 PM
No. For the public record I said, I don't believe you are a mathematician. Do you want me to say it again. "I don't believe you are a mathematician". In case you are unsure, I will repeat myself. I Fg7 don't believe you are a mathematician. Do you understand my statement now?, feel free to refute my claim.:hand:I certainly hope you are not calling drug a liar.

firegoat7
03-12-2006, 11:19 PM
I'm really not going to waste my time on a clueless idiot like you.


Why not, you waste everybody elses time being a clueless idiot!:owned:



The ACF Council is quite happy witht the ACF Ratings system and the ACF Ratinsg Officers.

So what. If the ACF had any testicles it simply wouldn't believe you anymore because you keep having to fix your own creation. Just answer this question for the public record. Who have the ACF consulted about the rating system, what are their qualifications and how much time have they devoted to the project?




Whilst I'm coping abuse from the likes of you I know I'm doing the right thing. :hand:
You are hopeless Gletsos. If you were doing the "right thing" you wouldn't always be fixing up your own mistakes.

But.....and I ask you this in all seriousness. Has the ACF ever had your mathematical projections tested by independent authorities? See I would like to know if your objectiveness has ever been measured by the ACF? or do they just "believe" everything you say?:hand:

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
03-12-2006, 11:26 PM
I certainly hope you are not calling drug a liar.
I don't care what you hope, nor do I care to be bullied by a clown like you for expressing a belief. In fact I challenge you to even comprehend what I have carefully written, you defunct illiterate...... because your inaccurate comprehension challenged threats don't scare me clownboots.:whistle:


cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
03-12-2006, 11:28 PM
I don't care what you hope, nor do I care to be bullied by a clown like you for expressing a belief. In fact I challenge you to even comprehend what I have carefully written, you defunct illiterate...... because your inaccurate comprehension challenged threats don't scare me clownboots.:whistle:The more you rant like this the more you show what a total loser you are.

firegoat7
03-12-2006, 11:34 PM
The more you rant like this the more you show what a total loser you are.
Yeah baby right on. We are all losers because we rely on incompetents like you to do the ratings.:owned:

cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
03-12-2006, 11:42 PM
Yeah baby right on. We are all losers because we rely on incompetents like you to do the ratings.:owned: CV is lucky that apathetic idiots like you have nothing to do with them.

Gattaca
04-12-2006, 12:49 AM
Firegoat, Guy here.

I don't want to wedge myself between two people fighting, (always unwise), but isn't the latest adjustment to the rating system just an attempt to make it more accurate by trying something to counteract the effect of the increasing number of rapidly improving players, mainly juniors?

As I understand it, the people whose rating went up without playing a game only benefitted because they have played (during the 6 year period covered) against one or more of the players identified by the system as underrated, rapidly improving players. So they are belatedly having something closer to the real strength of their opponent(s) recognised.

Surely that should improve the accuracy of the list? (I would actually like to see it become a systemic change rather than just an occasional random adjustment. Do this same adjustment every December list or something like that and advertise any such policy in advance.)

To me it seems that as long as such tinkering is authorised, documented and not retro fitted in an 'interested' way, it's a positive thing, an attempt to eliminate or at least minimise an identified flaw.

In this case I don't know, but I suspect that it was authorised (at least implicitly) by the ACF executive and that there would be documentation of the method used available somewhere.

My only reservation would be that the parameters for the adjustment can be viewed as arbitrary, (in a sense they have to be), but more so if they weren't chosen by a transparent process such a sub committee made up of 'disinterested' people.

However, mitigating against any accusation of biased retro fitting is the fact that a very natural and unsuspicious date was chosen to start the adjustment period from, so I think that would put most reasonable minds to rest on that point.

To me the attempt to do something positive to fix a widely accepted problem outweighs any procedural flaws, which if they turn out to exist can be fixed next time. (That is important though)

I'm just not sure why you think putting back some points into the system in this specific way is vandalism if there was a deflationary problem evident with respect to large numbers of rapidly improving players flooding the system. It seemed evident to a lot of people, anyway.

Just as an aside, if it is a choice between an inflating and a deflating system, better to err on the side of inflation. I'm not saying this for any imaginary mathematical reason, but simply because an inflationary system rewards people for playing instead of rewarding them for dormancy. A deflationary environment is a powerful disincentive for the many players who care about their ratings... and can actually lower the number of active chessplayers, so mine could be characterised an administrative/promotional rationale.

I'm not having a go at you Firegoat, just want to better understand your reasons for disliking the adjustment.

In the past I was angry when I thought the Glicko was being presented to us as a perfect mathematical system that could bear no criticism, somewhat like the way the communist regimes fell in love with a 'theoretically perfect' system that didn't work well in practice. However, since then we have had an improved new version and now we see a specific adjustment to further improve accuracy. To me this seems exactly the flexible and positive approach required, not a cause for disillusionment.

Basil
04-12-2006, 01:23 AM
Another candidate for Top 10 post 2006 IMO.

Guy, I appreciate you may not want to antagonise the situation, but that won't stop many of us from wondering whether your well thought out offering was worth the effort on someone who is as consistently and universally derogatory as David Beaumont.

Bill Gletsos
04-12-2006, 01:42 AM
Surely that should improve the accuracy of the list? (I would actually like to see it become a systemic change rather than just an occasional random adjustment.It is a systemic change.

In this case I don't know, but I suspect that it was authorised (at least implicitly) by the ACF executive and that there would be documentation of the method used available somewhere.The ACF Rating Officers were authorised by the ACF Council to implement any changes they saw fit to better handle improving players.

My only reservation would be that the parameters for the adjustment can be viewed as arbitrary, (in a sense they have to be), but more so if they weren't chosen by a transparent process such a sub committee made up of 'disinterested' people.Whenever we make a systemic change we always rerun it from the December 2000 period because that is when we switched from the DOS based program to the Glicko and have all the data in readable SP files from that point onwards.


In the past I was angry when I thought the Glicko was being presented to us as a perfect mathematical system that could bear no criticism, somewhat like the way the communist regimes fell in love with a 'theoretically perfect' system that didn't work well in practice. However, since then we have had an improved new version and now we see a specific adjustment to further improve accuracy. To me this seems exactly the flexible and positive approach required, not a cause for disillusionment.I dont think we ever claimed it was perfect just that it was significantly better than Elo.
All we were not prepared to do was make ad-hoc changes that had no basis to them.
Also any changes we are going to make we thoroughly test to ensure they improve predictive accuracy and that the integrity of the system is not adversely compromised by any change.

Basil
04-12-2006, 01:50 AM
Takes this opportunity to confirm BG's stated position of testing over many months. Bill told me what he was up to many months ago (and no doubt a few others) but didn't want the cat out of the bag too early.

Gattaca
04-12-2006, 01:59 AM
Okay, thanks for that information. Covers the procedural issues well.

Kevin Bonham
04-12-2006, 02:19 AM
Please find the evidence as requested at
http://members.dodo.com.au/~phild707/

You call this the "BCC analysis". Has it been duly approved as an official club position by the BCC?

Whoever's position it represents the conclusions drawn are rubbish.

Lewis's rating has not generally shown a declining trend over the time period mentioned. He has lost a big bundle of points specifically in the last rating period because of what is obviously bad form with a c.1300 performance in this period after far stronger performances in previous periods. It's not just that he twice lost to Vincent Horton but he also conceded two losses and a draw to adults rated below 1500 (two of these in the 1300s) while scoring no points vs. any adult rated above 1200 in the period. If you look at Lewis's rating trajectory over time you will see that he has the odd bad ratings period like this from which he consistently bounces back in subsequent periods.
Considering a drop of 59 points over three years to be a significant decrease is unreasonable because players often bounce around that much from period to period under Glicko.

One would think if Phil had a clue about anything it would be his own rating! He writes "It is also reasonable to exclude myself, Phil Donnelly, from the sample as a concerted period of study in 2005 saw jump [sic] rating jump from mid 1600's to mid 1700's. As evidence of this improvement I won a major event at the BCC for the 1st time in 2005)." Not correct as Phil's rating was above 1700 throughout 2005 except for one period in which it was 1697. It seems here Phil is just fishing for silly excuses to exclude his own record from the analysis because it happens to be inconvenient to his theory.

(Another comical blunder - immaterial but showing Phil's general lack of clue about the issues: the professor's name is Glickman not Glicko; only the system is Glicko.)

Phil refers to improving adult players but based on ratings trajectory Dylan Kuzmic is the only adult at the BCC who is improving. The others do not show evidence of consistent improvement but are up and down. Carey Kuzmic even had an old rating which he performed nowhere near upon return, injecting points into the BCC pool in the process.

Phil's suggested fix would be inflationary as established players' ratings would only be affected by games against players of stable or declining strength except in the relatively rare cases where a well established player made an improvement. Games against players of declining strength would result in point gains for the established player which they would seldom lose against improving players since their games against improving players would generally not be rated. Yet another ill-advised reinvention of the wheel by Phil Donnelly. :wall:

Phil's conclusion that everyone at BCC is now underrated doesn't follow even if the points losses exceed natural losses due to loss of playing strength, because the BCC with a pool mainly of ageing adults and few juniors may have been inflating naturally over time. In any case I reckon the BCC ratings look generally to be very accurate measures of actual playing strength, apart from Lewis and probably Ledger being a bit below where they should be because of recent poor performances. If any of the juniors are still underrated it isn't by much.

The recent changes haven't injected a lot of points. Only improving players have made large gains; most adults have gained only 25, 30, maybe 40 points from them.

More when I get back in a few days maybe. I could go on refuting this for hours! :D

pax
04-12-2006, 12:45 PM
Please find the evidence as requested at
http://members.dodo.com.au/~phild707/


Hi Phil,

As evidence goes, yours is pretty thin. Any statistician will tell you that seven samples from a reasonably spread distribution tells you next to nothing.

There are other problems with your analysis, but the sample size is the biggest. Recommending wholesale changes to the system based on such an ad-hoc observation is pretty unsound.

Bill has done an enormous amount of testing on the Glicko, using all the data available to him (i.e every active player in Australia), and extensive modelling. I am actually not a faithful supporter of Glicko (I have had a number of debates with Bill on its merits), but you are going to have to do a lot better than that if you want to land a serious blow.

antisense
04-12-2006, 02:10 PM
As evidence goes, yours is pretty thin. Any statistician will tell you that seven samples from a reasonably spread distribution tells you next to nothing.
Don't give him too much credit. Excluding the supposedly 'anomalous players', the sample size is 4.

Oepty
04-12-2006, 05:07 PM
Aaron also played at Coffs Harbour.

But what are SACA players going to do about the lack of events in Adelaide?

Who is going to lead them out of this depression?

Brain. Well as a joint founder of one of the weekenders I think I have done something. We also effectively lost a long weekend when the Adelaide Cup horse race, which comes with a public holiday, was moved to the same weekend as the Ballarat Begonia weekender is held.
How many SACA weekenders do you have registered for the 2007 Grand Prix?
As to what could be done. I know of one club championship that could be rated and I offered to put this years results into SP if I was given them. I haven't seen them.
Scott

Oepty
04-12-2006, 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian_Jones
But what are SACA players going to do about the lack of events in Adelaide?


Venue conditions are an issue. Moving from the Chess Centre may help. It has grossly inadequate heating for winter and no airconditioning for summer. Trestle table height and chair sizes do not match causing some players to stack two or more chairs and sit on the top one during Interclub. The carpet is badly stained and the place looks grubby.
Also I don't believe that the Modbury Championship was rated this year.

cheers!

The Modbury Championships should have been rated on the December list. Maybe Bill will let it be rated next time. I know Bill Anderson-Smith intended it to be rated.
As far as SACA chess center. Andrew and Alex Saint gave it a bit of a face lift last year but you comments are accurate. It also has no disabled access and the toliets are very much below par.
Scott

Watto
05-12-2006, 07:46 AM
Guy, I appreciate you may not want to antagonise the situation, but that won't stop many of us from wondering whether your well thought out offering was worth the effort on someone who is as consistently and universally derogatory as David Beaumont.
Hi Howard. I think I can speak for Guy on this as I know this is the case... he’s not too interested in the personal alignments and us vs them hostilities which have their source in chesschat; deliberately oblivious if you like. On this thread he's interested in the ACF ratings issues. About David, sure he’s often rude online but so are others. They’ve known each other for years as Melbourne chessplayers and they get on fine… that doesn’t change because of an artificial environment like chesschat.

Brian_Jones
05-12-2006, 08:03 AM
How many SACA weekenders do you have registered for the 2007 Grand Prix?

None at present.

But this morning Allan Goldsmith asked me to enter the same as last year.
He will confirm after meeting on Wednesday?

PhilD707
05-12-2006, 09:01 AM
As usual you have no clue .....

I realise this is difficult for you to understand, but no one did improve by not playing. There was no automatic uplift.

You have to admire Bill's debating style.
What he lacks in imagination he makes up for in consistency.
No one has a clue but Bill.

John Blaikie's rating, (Burnie Club), seems to have gone up 22 points between Sep 06 and Dec 06. He hasn't played at the Club for over a year.
Did he play some other games somewhere else in the period?

Desmond
05-12-2006, 09:11 AM
You have to admire Bill's debating style.
What he lacks in imagination he makes up for in consistency.
No one has a clue but Bill.

John Blaikie's rating, (Burnie Club), seems to have gone up 22 points between Sep 06 and Dec 06. He hasn't played at the Club for over a year.
Did he play some other games somewhere else in the period?Phil, Can't you give it a rest? I don't understand the intricancies of the ratings system, and maths is not my strong point, but I have no difficulty in understanding that a retroactive adjustment over the last 6 years will affect those not active in the last 3 months. As the ad says, "It's not that hard to imagine."

bergil
05-12-2006, 09:13 AM
You have to admire Bill's debating style.
What he lacks in imagination he makes up for in consistency.
No one has a clue but Bill.

John Blaikie's rating, (Burnie Club), seems to have gone up 22 points between Sep 06 and Dec 06. He hasn't played at the Club for over a year.
Did he play some other games somewhere else in the period?
For clueless the whinging ignoramus :drool: (phil) Bill said in the first post of this thread.

"A number of changes have been made to the rating system to better handle improving players including but not limited to juniors.
These changes resulted in a recalculation of all players ratings for all previous periods from December 2000, prior to the processing of the December 2006 ratings period. As such players who played no games in the December 2006 rating period may have different ratings to those previously published. This change will also effect players eligibility and position on the Top Improvers list as their previously published rating most likely changed."

Bill Gletsos
05-12-2006, 09:20 AM
You have to admire Bill's debating style.
What he lacks in imagination he makes up for in consistency.
No one has a clue but Bill.Others have a clue.
You and fg7 just dont happen to be amongst them.

But feel free to keep this up as it just highlights you as the troll you are.

John Blaikie's rating, (Burnie Club), seems to have gone up 22 points between Sep 06 and Dec 06. He hasn't played at the Club for over a year.
Did he play some other games somewhere else in the period?If you were not comprehension challenged you would realise that it was already explained. :hand:

Basil
05-12-2006, 09:24 AM
Hi Howard. I think I can speak for Guy on this as I know this is the case...
Noted. Appreciated.

PhilD707
05-12-2006, 11:27 AM
You call this the "BCC analysis". Has it been duly approved as an official club position by the BCC?

Yes I call this the BCC analysis. End of story. If you want to know more write a letter to the BCC and the cluib will respond in due course.
By the way, where is the other letter that you threatened? Lost in the mail?


Lewis's rating has not generally shown a declining trend over the time period mentioned. .... ..... you will see that he has the odd bad ratings period like this from which he consistently bounces back in subsequent periods.
Considering a drop of 59 points over three years to be a significant decrease is unreasonable because players often bounce around that much from period to period under Glicko.


First the interval was not 3 years. Check your facts again.

You have ignored the fact that, as demonstrated in the table, the small sample population has shown a clear collective decline in their ratings.
For a person who purports to be a scientist(??) your failure to acknowledge the evidence right in front of your eyes does neither you nor those who trained you any credit whatsover.
It is reasonable to take out the outlier Pavicic but you can't continue to discount players because their performance does not gel with with the conclusions that you would like to arrive at with or without factual support.



One would think if Phil had a clue about anything it would be his own rating! He writes "It is also reasonable to exclude myself, Phil Donnelly, from the sample as a concerted period of study in 2005 saw jump [sic] rating jump from mid 1600's to mid 1700's. As evidence of this improvement I won a major event at the BCC for the 1st time in 2005)." Not correct as Phil's rating was above 1700 throughout 2005 except for one period in which it was 1697. It seems here Phil is just fishing for silly excuses to exclude his own record from the analysis because it happens to be inconvenient to his theory.


My rating did go up around 80 to 100 points but it may have been earlier than I stated and certainly the benefits were seen in 2005.

You can take out Mile if you like, take out Nigel too and leave my increase in.
In this way you will have massaged the data to elicit the most favourable result to suit you pre-formed opinion.
You will still find that the ratings of the control group have dropped by 20 points each.
So even if you work it the most the advantageous way to suit your pre-formed opinion, the ratings of the control group are going down and this is in spite of Bill's Christmas ratings bonus.



Phil refers to improving adult players but based on ratings trajectory Dylan Kuzmic is the only adult at the BCC who is improving. The others do not show evidence of consistent improvement but are up and down.


Wrong again. Robert Onfray is improving.



Phil's suggested fix would be inflationary as established players' ratings would only be affected by games against players of stable or declining strength except in the relatively rare cases where a well established player made an improvement. Games against players of declining strength would result in point gains for the established player which they would seldom lose against improving players since their games against improving players would generally not be rated. Yet another ill-advised reinvention of the wheel by Phil Donnelly. :wall:

The current situation is demonstrably deflationary.
An attempt to correct it has been made by means of a knee jerk reaction of recalculating ratings.
No documentation that attempts to rigorously justfy this on any thing other than fingers crossed and a "she'll be right" basis.

Relatively mild inflation is very much better than serious deflation which is known to cause players to lose heart.
The effects of mild inflation could of course be countered judiciously without too much difficulty.

And for the record my proposition is:

Novice players do improve.
At any time during their improvment their ratings are very likely to be unreliable.
atings systems are based on mathematical statistics.
If an established player meets a novice over the board in a game and a ratings officer uses the result of that game to adjust the rating of the established player then the ratings officer is making a serious mathematical error.
The Novice player's rating is quite simply unknown.

OK. So what's the fix?Easy. While a novice, (Junior or otherwise), is improving his games against experienced players should be used in the Novice's rating calculation but NOT in the experienced player's rating calculation.

But how do you determine when the Novice has stopped improving?
Easy. All novice players could be ASSUMED to be improving until their ratings indicate no significant improvement over a period of a minimum number (eg 3) of ratings periods during which a minimum number (eg 24) games had been played.

PhilD707
05-12-2006, 11:51 AM
For clueless the whinging ignoramus :drool: (phil) Bill said in the first post of this thread.


The point that you have missed dopey is that Bill actually wrote

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
"I realise this is difficult for you to understand, but no one did improve by not playing. There was no automatic uplift. "

This statement is wrong. Now of course he has explained somewhere else previously what he means to say and if other people have read that then they may understand him.

The point of my remark is that Bill's lack of communication skills continues to be counterproductive.

The same lack of communication skills has prevented the BCC being made aware of several issues related to tournaments submitted for rating.
If you couple this with occasional bad grammar and frequent spelling errors you have a person with a serious communication problem.

Now do you get it?

bergil
05-12-2006, 12:03 PM
The point that you have missed dopey is that Bill actually wrote

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
"I realise this is difficult for you to understand, but no one did improve by not playing. There was no automatic uplift. "

This statement is wrong. Now of course he has explained somewhere else previously what he means to say and if other people have read that then they may understand him.

The point of my remark is that Bill's lack of communication skills continues to be counterproductive.

The same lack of communication skills has prevented the BCC being made aware of several issues related to tournaments submitted for rating.
If you couple this with occasional bad grammar and frequent spelling errors you have a person with a serious communication problem.

Now do you get it?No you are just stupid! There was no rating uplift (which is what Bill said) :doh: the ratings since glicko was introduced was recalculated thus the change

Watto
05-12-2006, 12:42 PM
[FONT="Times New Roman"][SIZE="3"]
Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
"I realise this is difficult for you to understand, but no one did improve by not playing. There was no automatic uplift. "

This statement is wrong. Now of course he has explained somewhere else previously what he means to say and if other people have read that then they may understand him.

The point of my remark is that Bill's lack of communication skills continues to be counterproductive.
No automatic uplift. It's all been explained on this thread. It’s the playing they’ve done in the past six years which has led to the revised ratings (in many cases, but not all, an improved rating – I’m one of the rare people whose rating dropped but still better than I was fearing lol- we do exist). As I understand it, if someone had not played for that entire 6 year period or has not played any players whose ratings have been revised, their rating should show no change (if I'm wrong, someone please correct me). The way the ACF have recalculated the past 6 years worth of ratings is the way they’ll be calculating ratings from now on ie it’s a systemic change designed to better deal with improving players. A key factor I think is that players will take longer to achieve a reliable rating. I'm not sure what the other changes are (but would be interested to know.)

PhilD707
05-12-2006, 12:51 PM
No automatic uplift. It's all been explained on this thread. It’s the playing they’ve done in the past six years which has led to the revised ratings (in many cases, but not all, an improved rating – I’m one of the rare people whose rating dropped but still better than I was fearing lol- we do exist). As I understand it, if someone had not played for that entire 6 year period or has not played any players whose ratings have been revised, their rating should show no change (if I'm wrong, someone please correct me). The way the ACF have recalculated the past 6 years worth of ratings is the way they’ll be calculating ratings from now on ie it’s a systemic change designed to better deal with improving players. A key factor I think is that players will take longer to achieve a reliable rating. I'm not sure what the other changes are (but would be interested to know.)

The BCC is an excellent test sample to demonstrate the effectiveness or otherwise of this strategy as we have such a high proportion of novice players.
So far the net result has been the deflation of experienced players ratings as per my post 112 above.

Bill Gletsos
05-12-2006, 02:29 PM
No automatic uplift. It's all been explained on this thread.Exactly.

It’s the playing they’ve done in the past six years which has led to the revised ratings (in many cases, but not all, an improved rating – I’m one of the rare people whose rating dropped but still better than I was fearing lol- we do exist). As I understand it, if someone had not played for that entire 6 year period or has not played any players whose ratings have been revised, their rating should show no change (if I'm wrong, someone please correct me).Correct. If a player has not played since August 2000 then their rating is the same in the December 2006 list as it was in the September 2006 list.
e.g Robert Jamieson is 2438?? on both lists.

pax
06-12-2006, 08:45 AM
The BCC is an excellent test sample to demonstrate the effectiveness or otherwise of this strategy as we have such a high proportion of novice players.
Codswallop. It is a tiny sample, of almost no merit in making observations about the system as a whole. The ACT is an excellent test sample - why don't you analyse that?

PhilD707
06-12-2006, 10:31 AM
Codswallop. It is a tiny sample, of almost no merit in making observations about the system as a whole. The ACT is an excellent test sample - why don't you analyse that?

I don't have the data on the ACT.
If you have access to better data than I have then go for it.
If not, then just keeping walloping your Cod.

Oepty
06-12-2006, 05:00 PM
None at present.

But this morning Allan Goldsmith asked me to enter the same as last year.
He will confirm after meeting on Wednesday?

The SACA meeting is the 13th I believe not tonight, but Brian I would be shocked and more than a little disappointed if the three weekenders do not go ahead the same as this year.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
06-12-2006, 10:31 PM
Yes I call this the BCC analysis. End of story. If you want to know more write a letter to the BCC and the cluib will respond in due course.

That's awfully tempting but you should be aware I'm not into wasting the time of the rest of the BCC on this sort of stuff where I can possibly avoid it.


By the way, where is the other letter that you threatened? Lost in the mail?

I only threatened it if there was not a satisfactory response on the issue of my ability to publish my games. It seemed to be effective enough (albeit barely - and a true literalist might argue that the gibberish that came with it rendered it not so) so there was no need to carry it out.


First the interval was not 3 years. Check your facts [misleading five letter word snipped - KB.]

Thankyou for the correction. It was indeed two and a half. All salient points are unaffected by this small difference.


You have ignored the fact that, as demonstrated in the table, the small sample population has shown a clear collective decline in their ratings.

I have not ignored it at all. I have simply given your feeble attempt to explain that decline the short shrift it deserves, and additionally pointed out that your attempt to construct a sample population composed exclusively of those with declining ratings is a joke.


For a person who purports to be a scientist(??) your failure to acknowledge the evidence right in front of your eyes does neither you nor those who trained you any credit whatsover.

This from someone who purports to be able to operate anything up the line from a one-bead abacus? :rolleyes:

I'm certainly acknowledging the evidence. I'm disputing your packaging of it and your interpretation.


It is reasonable to take out the outlier Pavicic but you can't continue to discount players because their performance does not gel with with the conclusions that you would like to arrive at with or without factual support.


As you did in discounting yourself, you mean?

I'm not arriving at any conclusions here, just pointing out why your analysis is wrong. I'm not saying there is or isn't anything untoward here, just proving that your attempt to show there is is a joke.


My rating did go up around 80 to 100 points but it may have been earlier than I stated and certainly the benefits were seen in 2005.

*sigh* You don't even know your own past rating trajectory when anyone above beginner level in the ratings debate is well aware that ratings trajectories are freely available - an excellent service provided by Brian Jones. It's only a sticky thread at the top of this very subforum; even you should have been able to find it!

Benefits seen in 2005? Indeed they were! In the first period of the year you had no games rated, in the second one you lost 19 points. In the third one you lost another 17. Yes in the final period you gained them all back plus another 11 as well but an 11 point increase over one year is hardly a historic triumph. (Note: these are the official figures - different by a point or two here and there from Brian's presumably because there are sometimes minor reruns shortly after lists are published for various reasons.)

You won a BCC tournament - so what, it was bound to happen eventually. You had already tied for first in a much stronger event way back in 2001 (albeit with some assistance from a dead wrong Swiss Perfect draw which some fool arbiter failed to notice and correct.) Players are silly in so readily drawing conclusions that if they worked on their game then did well, the two must be correlated. Many of them keep working just as hard and then decline thereafter.


You can take out Mile if you like, take out Nigel too and leave my increase in.
In this way you will have massaged the data to elicit the most favourable result to suit you pre-formed opinion.
You will still find that the ratings of the control group have dropped by 20 points each.

So even if you work it the most the advantageous way to suit your pre-formed opinion, the ratings of the control group are going down and this is in spite of Bill's Christmas ratings bonus.

I'd seriously suggest we also take out Ledger and Radosavljevic on account of age and Blaikie for inactivity, except that leaves only you and on no account should you be made to feel so special!

The ratings of a meaninglessly small group of players, two of whom are elderly and one of whom is inactive, have declined by somewhat more than would be expected for the average ageing player based on age alone - so what? Different players decline in response to age at different rates.

By the way, you say "control group" but you appear not to have a clue what the term actually means.


Wrong again. Robert Onfray is improving.

May be but the ratings do not prove it. Player appears to have been only had games rated in three ratings periods - initial rating may have been well below actual strength as a result of small sample size. It is risky drawing any conclusions with ratings well below 1000.


The current situation is demonstrably deflationary.

If it is, you have demonstrably failed to demonstrate it. (Indeed, previous evidence has suggested that deflation is not occurring to any significant degree, which is why the latest changes have affected adult players so little.)


An attempt to correct it has been made by means of a knee jerk reaction of recalculating ratings.

The change has nothing to do with your BCC waffle.


Relatively mild inflation is very much better than serious deflation which is known to cause players to lose heart.

I suggest you reread all the past debates involving Cat and other wafflers in this section. There is no evidence of serious deflation and never has been under any version of Glicko excepting a few localities with specific problems that could arise in any system.


The effects of mild inflation could of course be countered judiciously without too much difficulty.

By docking every player in the country 20 points? Gee, I'm sure they'd love that! :uhoh:


And for the record my proposition is

silly.

:hmm:

pax
07-12-2006, 12:44 PM
I don't have the data on the ACT. If you have access to better data than I have then go for it.
It's not my job to prove your half-arsed hypothesis, just because you can't be bothered to find a decent dataset.


If not, then just keeping walloping your Cod.
That's charming - coming from someone who keeps complaining about being the victim of personal attacks on this board.

PhilD707
07-12-2006, 01:15 PM
I only threatened it if there was not a satisfactory response on the issue of my ability to publish my games. It seemed to be effective enough (albeit barely - and a true literalist might argue that the gibberish that came with it rendered it not so) so there was no need to carry it out.

I have not ignored it at all. I have simply given your feeble attempt to explain that decline the short shrift it deserves, and additionally pointed out that your attempt to construct a sample population composed exclusively of those with declining ratings is a joke.


This from someone who purports to be able to operate anything up the line from a one-bead abacus? :rolleyes:

I'm not arriving at any conclusions here, just pointing out why your analysis is wrong. I'm not saying there is or isn't anything untoward here, just proving that your attempt to show there is is a joke.


*sigh* You don't even know your own past rating trajectory when anyone above beginner level in the ratings debate is well aware that ratings trajectories are freely available - an excellent service provided by Brian Jones. It's only a sticky thread at the top of this very subforum; even you should have been able to find it!

The change has nothing to do with your BCC waffle.

I suggest you reread all the past debates involving Cat and other wafflers in this section. There is no evidence of serious deflation and never has been under any version of Glicko excepting a few localities with specific problems that could arise in any system.

By docking every player in the country 20 points? Gee, I'm sure they'd love that! :uhoh:

silly.

:hmm:


I am not going to respond to your post for this reason:
You have, as you always do, resorted to a stream of verbal abuse, sarcasm and ridicule to prop up your case.
In this way you continue to betray your scientific background by arguing like a fishwife.
It's a great shame because your argument, that the BCC figures showing an untoward decline in ratings may not be statistically significant, may have some merit although I am yet to be convinced.

Like all fishwives, I know that you must have the last word so I'll leave it you.

Kevin Bonham
07-12-2006, 03:17 PM
[FONT="Times New Roman"][SIZE="3"]I am not going to respond to your post for this reason:
You have, as you always do, resorted to a stream of verbal abuse, sarcasm and ridicule to prop up your case.
In this way you continue to betray your scientific background by arguing like a fishwife.
It's a great shame because your argument, that the BCC figures showing an untoward decline in ratings may not be statistically significant, may have some merit although I am yet to be convinced.

Phil, you can debate my points or make excuses for evading them on the grounds that you don't like my debating style when it is actually no less untoward than yours. Either way you will generally lose.

In your previous post you:

* engaged in irrelevant trolling over the now-moot issue of my threat to embarrass the living daylights out of you by writing to the BCC.
* totally and blatantly misrepresented my position
* groundlessly insulted my credibility and expertise as a scientist.

And now you're complaining because you got flamed in reply. Want Kleenex with that?

If you evade my points, everyone can see that it is really because you have no satisfactory answer to the main parts of my argument. Furthermore, who cares whether you are "convinced" or not? My main aim is to ensure that when you are talking rubbish, no one else will be convinced. I don't expect you to suddenly come to some degree of sense on this, though if that happens I will take it as an unexpected bonus.

And as for your claim that you are quitting this debate, I don't believe a word of it given your poor past record for quitting threads, but:


Like all fishwives, I know that you must have the last word so I'll leave it you.

I never knew you were a fishwife!

One learns something new every day in this here business! :D