PDA

View Full Version : ACF June 2007 Ratings



Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 12:48 AM
The ACF June 2007 rating lists have been sent to the ACF Webmaster and the State Rating Officers.

For the June 2007 rating period there were 139 Tournaments rated (99 Classic, 40 Rapid) and 10737 games of which 7032 were in the ACF Classic rating system and 3705 were in the ACF Rapid rating system.


Top Players
2624!! 16 NSW Rogers, Ian [GM]
2548!! 18 NSW Zhao, Zong-Yuan [IM]
2479! 0 NSW Wohl, Aleksander H [IM]
2476!! 30 QLD Solomon, Stephen J [IM]
2468!! 25 VIC Smerdon, David C [IM]
2445!! 23 VIC Johansen, Darryl K [GM]
2444! 12 SA Chapman, Mark [IM]
2428!! 23 NSW Bjelobrk, Igor [FM]
2409!! 41 NSW Lane, Gary W [IM]
2391!! 28 VIC Goldenberg, Igor [FM]
2378!! 10 NSW Xie, George [IM]
2378! 7 QLD Froehlich, Peter [IM]
2345! 0 VIC Sandler, Leonid [IM]
2322!! 7 NSW Canfell, Gregory J [FM]
2309!! 5 VIC Baron, Michael [FM]
2297!! 9 VIC Chow, Samuel
2291!! 25 VIC West, Guy [IM]
2288! 9 NSW Feldman, Vladimir [IM]
2284!! 28 NSW Rej, Tomek
2283! 0 NSW Tan, Justin
2273!! 18 NSW Smirnov, Vladimir
2267! 23 QLD Ly, Moulthun
2264!! 11 WA Boyd, Tristan
2254!! 27 VIC Rujevic, Mirko [IM]
2248!! 30 VIC Wallis, Christopher
2242! 0 VIC Depasquale, Chris J [FM]
2239! 16 NSW Yu, Ronald
2236! 0 QLD Humphrey, Jonathan [FM]
2227! 0 VIC Jordan, Bill [FM]
2225!! 9 NSW Ayvazyan, Armen
2215!! 16 ACT Ikeda, Junta
2210! 7 NSW Flatow, A (Fred) [FM]
2192! 0 WA Horstmann, Michael
2183! 0 NSW O'Chee, Kevin
2183! 16 VIC Hamilton, Douglas G [FM]
2181! 0 NSW Bouchaaya, Tony
2181!! 15 NSW Suttor, Vincent
2172! 0 NSW Scott, Ronald
2169!! 33 VIC Stojic, Dusan
2166! 6 NSW Vojvodic, Branislev
2166!! 9 ACT Oliver, Gareth
2162!! 0 VIC Levi, Eddy L [FM]
2158! 0 NSW Halpin, Patrick
2154! 9 NSW Berezina - Feldman, Irina [IM]
2144!! 7 SA Zaric, Srboljub
2141!! 16 NSW Wright, Neil S
2139!! 16 VIC Jager, Jesse
2137!! 37 VIC Pyke, Malcolm L
2124!! 0 NSW Bird, Andrew
2124! 1 NSW Malik, Hani
2123! 8 NSW Zvedeniouk, Ilia
2122!! 22 NSW Broekhuyse, Paul
2122! 0 WA Barber, Haydn J [FM]
2119! 9 QLD Caoili, Arianne B [WFM]
2112!! 0 NSW Morris, Michael
2111! 7 VIC Booth, Stewart
2111! 7 QLD Mastilovic, Rajko
2110! 0 NSW Eriksson, Ingela
2107!! 29 NSW Bolens, Johny
2106!! 16 ACT Wei, Michael

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 12:49 AM
Top Females
2154! 9 NSW Berezina - Feldman, Irina [IM]
2119! 9 QLD Caoili, Arianne B [WFM]
2110! 0 NSW Eriksson, Ingela
2097! 7 SA Nguyen, Giang
2075! 0 NSW Dekic, Biljana [WIM]
2053!! 21 NSW Moylan, Laura A [WIM]
1902!! 10 NSW Musaeva, Aina
1803! 9 NSW Lane, Nancy L [WIM]
1789!! 0 ACT Oliver, Shannon [WFM]
1767!! 16 WA Maris, Natalie A
1722! 15 NSW Harris, Rebecca
1705!! 31 QLD Jule, Alexandra
1702!! 23 VIC Szuveges, Narelle S [WIM]
1690! 7 VIC Holmes, Irene
1688! 0 WA Payne, Sophie
1588!! 31 ACT Guo, Emma
1561! 7 NSW Rogers, Cathy L [WFM]
1559!! 14 QLD Kinder, Jessica
1530!! 8 NSW Troshenkova, Irina
1505!! 29 VIC Yu, Sally

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 12:49 AM
Top Under 20
2297!! 19 VIC Chow, Samuel
2267! 15 QLD Ly, Moulthun
2248!! 16 VIC Wallis, Christopher
2239! 18 NSW Yu, Ronald
2215!! 15 ACT Ikeda, Junta
2183! 19 NSW O'Chee, Kevin
2181!! 18 NSW Suttor, Vincent
2169!! 17 VIC Stojic, Dusan
2166!! 18 ACT Oliver, Gareth
2139!! 18 VIC Jager, Jesse
2112!! 18 NSW Morris, Michael
2106!! 17 ACT Wei, Michael
2103!! 14 NSW Illingworth, Max
2097!! 13 VIC Lin, Zhigen Wilson
2096!! 19 NSW Hu, Jason
2035!! 12 VIC Morris, James
2034!! 16 QLD Lazarus, Benjamin
1995! 19 ACT Lattimore, Tor
1983! 16 VIC Vijayakumar, Rukman
1965! 19 SA Stevens, Tristan

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 12:50 AM
Top Under 18
2267! 15 QLD Ly, Moulthun
2248!! 16 VIC Wallis, Christopher
2215!! 15 ACT Ikeda, Junta
2169!! 17 VIC Stojic, Dusan
2106!! 17 ACT Wei, Michael
2103!! 14 NSW Illingworth, Max
2097!! 13 VIC Lin, Zhigen Wilson
2035!! 12 VIC Morris, James
2034!! 16 QLD Lazarus, Benjamin
1983! 16 VIC Vijayakumar, Rukman
1915!! 14 ACT Brown, Andrew
1912!! 16 WA Donaldson, Thomas
1907! 15 NSW Huang, Justin
1879!! 12 VIC Schon, Eugene
1866!! 17 WA Viswanath, Ganesh
1864!! 17 WA Haselgrove, Miles
1857!! 16 ACT Guo-Yuthok, Sherab
1854! 17 NSW Mandla, Blair
1847!! 14 VIC Yu, Derek
1844! 16 NSW Boyce, Jamie

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 12:50 AM
Top Under 16
2267! 15 QLD Ly, Moulthun
2215!! 15 ACT Ikeda, Junta
2103!! 14 NSW Illingworth, Max
2097!! 13 VIC Lin, Zhigen Wilson
2035!! 12 VIC Morris, James
1915!! 14 ACT Brown, Andrew
1907! 15 NSW Huang, Justin
1879!! 12 VIC Schon, Eugene
1847!! 14 VIC Yu, Derek
1840!! 14 NSW Harris, Benjamin
1819!! 11 QLD Nakauchi, Gene
1815! 13 NSW Xu, William
1812! 14 NSW Wu, Edwin
1809!! 14 SA Zulfic, Fedja
1807! 12 VIC Antolis, Cedric
1802! 14 WA Choong, Yita
1793!! 11 ACT Yuan, Yi
1778! 15 ACT Hoang, Khoi
1768! 13 VIC Tang, Jason
1735! 15 NSW Tse, Jeffrey

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 12:51 AM
Top Under 14
2097!! 13 VIC Lin, Zhigen Wilson
2035!! 12 VIC Morris, James
1879!! 12 VIC Schon, Eugene
1819!! 11 QLD Nakauchi, Gene
1815! 13 NSW Xu, William
1807! 12 VIC Antolis, Cedric
1793!! 11 ACT Yuan, Yi
1768! 13 VIC Tang, Jason
1655!! 13 VIC Vijayakumar, Rengan
1652! 13 VIC Buda, Alexander
1614!! 13 VIC Dalton, Samuel
1600!! 10 QLD Stahnke, Alexander
1591!! 13 QLD Grigg, Sam
1590!! 13 NSW Papp, Alexander
1588!! 11 ACT Guo, Emma
1557! 13 QLD Lei, Yitao
1527!! 12 ACT Chow, Justin
1522! 13 VIC Bhattacharya, Devraj
1516! 13 VIC Tambasco, Jean-Luc
1512!! 10 VIC Matheson, Laurence

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 12:51 AM
Top Under 12
1819!! 11 QLD Nakauchi, Gene
1793!! 11 ACT Yuan, Yi
1600!! 10 QLD Stahnke, Alexander
1588!! 11 ACT Guo, Emma
1512!! 10 VIC Matheson, Laurence
1486! 11 VIC Liu, Nicholas
1468!! 9 QLD Liu, Yi
1440! 9 WA Sam, Ryan
1421! 10 TAS Horton, Vincent
1376!! 9 NSW Wang, Oscar
1311!! 11 ACT Li, James
1294! 10 ACT Zhang, Taiyang
1225! 8 NSW Koh, Cedric
1205! 9 NSW Chen, Peng Yu
1173! 11 VIC Feng, Thomas
1171! 11 NSW Wan, Kinto
1145! 9 VIC Ng, Isaac
1135! 11 ACT McCook, Jake
1131! 9 ACT Zhang, Yijun
1107!! 10 ACT Setiabudi, Megan

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 12:52 AM
Top Under 10
1468!! 9 QLD Liu, Yi
1440! 9 WA Sam, Ryan
1376!! 9 NSW Wang, Oscar
1225! 8 NSW Koh, Cedric
1205! 9 NSW Chen, Peng Yu
1145! 9 VIC Ng, Isaac
1131! 9 ACT Zhang, Yijun
969! 9 VIC Gurevich, Andrew
860! 9 NSW Koh, Clarise
834! 9 ACT Lee, Bevan

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 12:52 AM
Top Females Under 20
1722! 17 NSW Harris, Rebecca
1705!! 17 QLD Jule, Alexandra
1588!! 11 ACT Guo, Emma
1559!! 15 QLD Kinder, Jessica
1505!! 12 VIC Yu, Sally
1496! 17 NSW Reid, Vaness
1492! 13 QLD McGarity, Molly
1474! 17 ACT Ikeda, Miona
1458! 15 ACT Oliver, Tamzin L
1439! 17 QLD Lyons, Kieran C [WFM]
1430! 14 NSW Ng, Deborah
1391!! 13 SA Eustace, Sophie
1316! 13 ACT Smith, Kayleigh
1269! 13 ACT Russell, Luthien
1248! 14 NSW Behne-Smith, Sarah
1246!! 15 ACT Chibnall, Alana
1107!! 10 ACT Setiabudi, Megan
1086! 15 QLD Goh, Jily
1054! 10 QLD Kanagarajah, Abbie
998! 12 SA Knapp, Katrina

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 12:52 AM
Top Seniors
2254!! 60 VIC Rujevic, Mirko [IM]
2210! 69 NSW Flatow, A (Fred) [FM]
2183! 65 VIC Hamilton, Douglas G [FM]
2166! 60 NSW Vojvodic, Branislev
2144!! 66 SA Zaric, Srboljub
2074! 63 NSW Capilitan, Romeo
2050!! 61 NSW Wettstein, Marcus
2019!! 69 WA Partis, Michael T
2013!! 79 NSW Viner, Phillip J
1981! 62 NSW Degroen, Mark S
1976!! 68 NSW Ghenzer, Charles
1956!! 66 WA Ellis, David
1954! 71 NSW Purdy, John S
1949! 72 NSW Jens, Henk W
1903!! 67 VIC Voon, Richard
1902!! 70 NSW Hutchings, Frank P
1883!! 78 WA Leonhardt, Wolfgang
1883!! 60 NSW Chen, Yu-Shiun
1868!! 68 NSW Benson, Lachlan
1855!! 62 QLD Lovejoy, David

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 12:53 AM
Top Improvers
969 232 VIC Gurevich, Andrew
1054 230 QLD Kanagarajah, Abbie
1440 201 WA Sam, Ryan
1171 193 NSW Wan, Kinto
527 189 ACT Warner, Jack
640 189 VIC Ng, Joshua
1131 188 ACT Zhang, Yijun
1135 176 ACT McCook, Jake
1600 171 QLD Stahnke, Alexander
725 148 QLD Byrne, Alannah
1618 142 ACT Setiabudi, Allen
2103 140 NSW Illingworth, Max
1811 139 VIC Muthusamy, Reubban
1295 138 TAS Hendrey, Kevin
697 137 ACT Spooner, Andrew
1330 132 QLD Edwards, Regina
1145 131 VIC Ng, Isaac
1294 125 ACT Zhang, Taiyang
1596 123 QLD Walker, Tyson
1468 122 QLD Liu, Yi
278 119 ACT Lee, Cory
2035 119 VIC Morris, James
1512 117 VIC Matheson, Laurence
1819 116 QLD Nakauchi, Gene
1465 112 NSW Papantoniou, John
2166 109 ACT Oliver, Gareth
1347 100 QLD Eriksson, Caleb
1700 96 NSW Wong, Ted
1502 95 QLD Barrett, Daniel J (Somerset)
1336 93 NSW Marton, Alan G
1705 93 QLD Jule, Alexandra

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 12:53 AM
Busiest Players
1546 60 NSW Parker, Trent
1524 55 NSW Greenwood, Norman
1903 54 VIC Voon, Richard
1450 52 NSW Losh, Gary
1608 52 NSW Christensen, Joshua
1833 50 NSW Huynh, Arthur
2087 44 VIC Dragicevic, Domagoj
1600 44 QLD Stahnke, Alexander
1929 44 WA Vlietstra, Marc
2103 43 NSW Illingworth, Max
1956 43 VIC Dizdarevic, Mehmedalija
2409 41 NSW Lane, Gary W
2096 40 NSW Hu, Jason
1468 40 QLD Liu, Yi
1798 39 ACT Ali, Mosaddeque
1819 39 QLD Nakauchi, Gene
1789 38 ACT Grcic, Milan
1910 38 NSW Ilic, Ilija
1879 38 VIC Schon, Eugene
2097 38 VIC Lin, Zhigen Wilson
1537 38 QLD Buciu, Aurel-John
1819 37 VIC Davis, Tony J
2137 37 VIC Pyke, Malcolm L
1369 37 NSW Waters, Mick
953 35 QLD Buciu, Alex
1618 34 ACT Setiabudi, Allen
1211 34 QLD Cigelj, David
2169 33 VIC Stojic, Dusan
1255 33 NSW Wilkie, Mary E
1376 32 NSW Wang, Oscar
1857 32 WA Dunlop, Gordon
1915 31 ACT Brown, Andrew
1857 31 ACT Guo-Yuthok, Sherab
1588 31 ACT Guo, Emma
1705 31 QLD Jule, Alexandra
1956 31 WA Ellis, David
1809 30 SA Zulfic, Fedja
2248 30 VIC Wallis, Christopher
2476 30 QLD Solomon, Stephen J
794 29 ACT Teymant, Roy
1729 29 NSW Canfell, Mike J
2107 29 NSW Bolens, Johny
1833 29 NSW Tulevski, Vasil G
1847 29 VIC Yu, Derek
1505 29 VIC Yu, Sally
840 29 VIC Tan, Justin
1616 29 QLD Alkin, John
1855 29 QLD Lovejoy, David
1676 29 QLD Korenevski, Oleg
1929 29 WA Kuklinski, Andrew
1865 29 WA Fedec, John

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 12:53 AM
Category Players Percentage
2600..2699 1 0.04
2500..2599 1 0.08
2400..2499 7 0.37
2300..2399 9 0.74
2200..2299 25 1.77
2100..2199 38 3.33
2000..2099 81 6.67
1900..1999 79 9.92
1800..1899 135 15.48
1700..1799 179 22.85
1600..1699 223 32.03
1500..1599 237 41.79
1400..1499 248 52.00
1300..1399 213 60.77
1200..1299 196 68.83
1100..1199 123 73.90
1000..1099 105 78.22
900.. 999 117 83.04
800.. 899 84 86.50
700.. 799 78 89.71
600.. 699 56 92.01
500.. 599 55 94.28
400.. 499 58 96.67
300.. 399 27 97.78
200.. 299 26 98.85
100.. 199 28 100.00

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 12:54 AM
Normal Tournaments Rated
ACF
12/05/2007 14 9 Oceania Womens Zonal 2007
12/05/2007 30 9 Oceania Zonal 2007
ACT
09/05/2007 10 5 2007 ANU Fall Tournament
18/03/2007 13 6 2007 Autumn Junior Weekender
18/03/2007 21 6 2007 Autumn Junior Weekender Reserves
30/03/2007 29 8 2007 Belconnen Open
28/03/2007 19 7 2007 Canberra CC Championship
09/05/2007 14 5 2007 Canberra Cup
09/04/2007 44 7 2007 Doeberl Cup - Major
09/04/2007 68 7 2007 Doeberl Cup - Minor
09/04/2007 72 7 2007 Doeberl Cup - Premier
09/04/2007 12 7 2007 Doeberl Cup - Seniors
28/05/2007 31 7 2007 Tuggeranong CC Championship
12/03/2007 23 5 2007 Woden Cup
NSW
07/12/2006 33 7 2006 Parramatta Club Championship
14/05/2007 10 7 2007 C'town Collegians Autumn Club Champs
07/05/2007 15 7 2007 Canterbury Championships
04/03/2007 21 7 2007 City of Sydney Championship
04/03/2007 20 7 2007 City of Sydney Under 1700
20/05/2007 30 7 2007 John Kellner Memorial
01/05/2007 12 11 2007 Norths Club Championship
01/05/2007 12 11 2007 Norths Club Championship Candidates Division
01/05/2007 12 11 2007 Norths Club Championships Reserves A Division
01/05/2007 12 11 2007 Norths Club Championships Reserves B Division
01/05/2007 17 11 2007 Norths Club Championships Reserves C Division
30/04/2007 21 9 2007 WSCP Division A
30/04/2007 19 9 2007 WSCP Division B
10/05/2007 28 10 2007 WSCP Division C
01/05/2007 24 10 2007 WSCP Division D
13/03/2007 14 9 2007-Wollongong-Handicap
15/12/2006 6 5 Albury Major Championship 2006 Part 1
15/12/2006 6 5 Albury Major Championship 2006 Part 2
15/12/2006 9 9 Albury Minor Championship 2006
15/05/2007 82 1 Big Boards North Sydney vs St. George May 2007
22/05/2007 27 10 Central Coast InterClub Teams 2007
25/03/2007 21 6 Dubbo RSL Open 2007
29/04/2007 6 5 Gosford March 2007 All Play All Division 1
29/04/2007 6 5 Gosford March 2007 All Play All Division 2
27/03/2007 15 6 Gosford Summer Swiss 2007
02/04/2007 21 9 Henry Greenfield Cup 2007
06/05/2007 17 7 Laurieton May Open 2007
15/05/2007 6 1 Little Big Board 1st Leg 2007
08/05/2007 26 1 Little Board Norths v Manly 1st Leg 2007
07/05/2007 11 11 Manly Club Championships 2007 Grade A
07/05/2007 12 11 Manly Club Championships 2007 Grade B
07/05/2007 15 11 Manly Club Championships 2007 Grade C
27/05/2007 24 6 Mingara Major Open 2007
09/05/2007 9 9 Ryde Eastwood Prelim A 2007
18/04/2007 8 7 Ryde Eastwood Prelim B 2007
18/04/2007 8 7 Ryde Eastwood Prelim C 2007
01/05/2007 10 9 St. George Club Champs 2007 Championship Division
01/05/2007 10 9 St. George Club Champs 2007 Division 2
01/05/2007 10 9 St. George Club Champs 2007 Division 3
01/05/2007 12 11 St. George Club Champs 2007 Division 4
01/05/2007 10 9 St. George Club Champs 2007 Division 5
01/05/2007 6 10 St. George Club Champs 2007 Division 6
14/04/2007 143 9 Sydney International Open 2007
11/03/2007 20 7 Toukley Open 2007
16/04/2007 21 7 Wyong Shire Cup 2007
QLD
19/04/2007 26 6 2007 BCC Autumn Swiss
08/03/2007 31 6 2007 BCC Summer Swiss
18/03/2007 58 7 2007 March Madness Tournament
09/04/2007 31 7 2007 Queensland Open
04/04/2007 14 6 2007 Tal Memorial
20/05/2007 41 7 2007 Under 1600 Triple Treat
07/05/2007 46 7 42 Peninsula Open
26/04/2007 12 1 BCC - Bullwinkle 26/04/07
26/03/2007 8 7 Gold Coast Junior Masters T1 2007
26/03/2007 15 7 Gold Coast Term 1 Gp 2 2007
26/03/2007 14 7 Gold Coast Term 1 Gp 3 2007
25/05/2007 12 5 The Gap Chess Club - Odd Knights 2007 (Autumn)
SA
03/04/2007 20 9 SA Candidates 2007
20/03/2007 8 7 South Australian Chess Championship 2007
TAS
12/03/2007 32 7 Tas Championship 2007
VIC
14/02/2007 2 3 2006 Victorian Championship Play Off
12/03/2007 106 7 Ballarat Begonia Open
30/03/2007 60 7 Box Hill Autumn Cup
27/03/2007 33 6 Canterbury New Season Swiss
15/03/2007 11 5 Croydon Alekhine Tournament
17/05/2007 11 5 Croydon Lasker Tournament
02/05/2007 41 5 Dandenong Easter Cup
21/03/2007 44 8 Dandenong Summer Swiss
28/04/2007 7 7 Elwood Round Robin
17/04/2007 19 5 Hobsons Bay/Yarraville CJS Purdy Cup
22/04/2007 12 5 MCC Anzac Day Weekender
02/04/2007 33 9 Melbourne Club Championship
24/05/2007 2 2 Melbourne Club Championship Play Off
28/04/2007 29 9 Noble Park Open
WA
09/04/2007 27 6 2007 Gufeld Cup
04/04/2007 21 7 2007 Perth Chess Club Championship
18/03/2007 32 6 2007 Perth Open
23/03/2007 12 7 Chart Zylstra 2007
22/05/2007 10 7 Fremantle Open 2007
06/05/2007 26 6 Kingsley Open
17/05/2007 12 11 Metro Club Championship A
26/03/2007 10 9 Metro Club Championship B
17/05/2007 12 11 Metro Club Championship C
23/05/2007 12 11 Metro Club Championship D
17/05/2007 12 11 Metro Club Championship E

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 12:54 AM
Rapid Tournaments Rated
ACT
15/12/2006 30 8 2006 Norths Juniors Term 4 Rapid
25/03/2007 44 9 2007 ACT Girls' Allegro Championship
28/03/2007 8 6 2007 ANU Autumn Rapid
12/04/2007 36 7 2007 Curtin Primary Term 1
27/03/2007 49 7 2007 Girls' Secondary Championship
13/04/2007 23 8 2007 Norths Juniors Term 1 Rapid
05/04/2007 24 9 2007 Souths Juniors Term 1 Rapid
02/04/2007 18 5 2007 Vikings Allegro
10/02/2007 14 7 Street Chess - 10 Feb 07
10/03/2007 12 7 Street Chess - 10 Mar 07
14/04/2007 13 7 Street Chess - 14 April 07
17/02/2007 14 7 Street Chess - 17 Feb 07
17/03/2007 12 7 Street Chess - 17 Mar 07
24/02/2007 12 7 Street Chess - 24 Feb 07
24/03/2007 12 7 Street Chess - 24 Mar 07
27/01/2007 16 7 Street Chess - 27 Jan 07
03/03/2007 11 7 Street Chess - 3 Mar 07
31/03/2007 10 7 Street Chess - 31 Mar 07
07/04/2007 11 7 Street Chess - 7 April 07
NSW
06/05/2007 62 7 2007 NSW Teams Challenge 1
12/03/2007 17 9 Canterbury Allegro March 2007
01/04/2007 29 7 City of Sydney Rapid 2007
QLD
23/02/2007 42 7 Somerville House HS Invitational AB Grades
SA
10/04/2007 16 5 April Allegro 2007
24/04/2007 13 6 April Rapid 2007
27/04/2007 12 11 City of Adelaide Junior U12
27/04/2007 14 10 City of Adelaide Junior U21
VIC
26/03/2007 71 7 Boroondara Secondary Interschool Championship (Term 1)
03/04/2007 6 5 Canterbury Allegro (April)
27/03/2007 34 7 Canterbury Junior Coaching Group Tournament (Term 1)
15/04/2007 38 7 Canterbury Rookies & Queens Cup (April)
18/03/2007 42 7 Canterbury Rookies & Queens Cup (March)
13/05/2007 50 7 Canterbury Rookies & Queens Cup (May)
27/03/2007 17 5 DHC GWPS Championship (Term 1)
27/03/2007 18 8 DHC GWPS Championship 2 (Term 1)
29/03/2007 16 6 DHC HPS Championship (Term 1)
30/03/2007 63 10 Dark Horse Junior Club Championship (Term 1)
24/03/2007 31 7 King Of The Mountain Junior Chess Competition
25/05/2007 76 7 Monash Primary Interschool Championship (Term 2)
11/05/2007 67 7 Port Phillip Interschool Championship (Term 2)

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 12:55 AM
Some regular BB posters ratings:

Ian Rogers - 16 2624!!
Igor Goldenberg - 28 2391!!
George Xie - 10 2378!!
Leonid Sandler - 0 2345!!
Greg Canfell - 7 2322!!
Michael Baron - 5 2309!
Guy West - 25 2291!!
drug - 18 2273!!
Tristan Boyd - 11 2264!!
Ronald Yu - 16 2239!
Brett Tindall - 0 2230
Comrade Zukovsky - 0 2172!
macavity - 37 2137!!
Jono - 17 2129
paulb - 22 2122!!
Jason Hu - 40 2096!!
Gareth Charles - 0 2093!!
D Dragicevic - 44 2087!!
Laura Moylan - 21 2075!!
Brian Jones - 6 2062!!
eremita - 10 2055!!
Chernz - 19 2055!!
bobby1972 - 7 2053!!
Goughfather - 0 2030!
Lee Jones - 2 2023!
Kerry Stead - 0 2009!
Kevin Bonham - 7 1984!!
Peter Knight - 7 1982
firegoat7 - 0 1971
Jason Chan - 21 1967!!
rob - 18 1941!!
pballard - 0 1907
White Elephant - 0 1897
an Rout - 25 1859!!
EZbeet - 0 1856!
Boris - 26 1824!!
elevatorescapee - 7 1819!
Barry Cox - 0 1775!!
Shaun Press - 0 1774!
pax - 0 1764?
GeorgeL - 27 1756!!
Amiel Rosario - 14 1748!!
Belthaser - 0 1728
David Richards - 0 1691
DavidFlude - 20 1684!!
The_Wise_Man - 1 1662!
PhilD707 - 6 1646!!
Dozy - 24 1628!! +31
JGB - 0 1626
frog - 0 1613?
Joshua Christensen - 52 1603!!
altecman - 2 1601
JonasMuller - 21 1590!!
Liberace - 0 1582!
heaviestknight - 12 1564!!
Frosty - 0 1566!
skip - 1 1547?
Trent Parker - 60 1546!!
Arrogant-One - 7 1527!
starter - 12 1524!!
bergil - 21 1521!!
antichrist - 0 1515?
Phil Bourke - 13 1505!
Howard Duggan - 19 1498!!
Candy Cane - 16 1496
Scott Colliver - 9 1471!
Paul Sike - 0 1468!!
Careth - 6 1463!!
bunta - 11 1455!!
themovingman - 11 1428!!
EGOR - 11 1390!!
AES - 0 1354!
PHAT - 24 1337!!
Garvin Gray - 19 1294!!
qpawn - 0 1275?
cameronD - 10 1274!
alana - 20 1246!!
watto- 22 1180!
skaro - 14 1164!

Basil
01-06-2007, 12:58 AM
As always, Bill. Thanks. Much appreciated. Timely. Informative. :clap:

CameronD
01-06-2007, 01:19 AM
Cameron is very, very, very , very, very, very impressed by the performance of the rating officer and others involved in producing the ratings in a quick manner. It shows that they take there job very seriously.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Congratulations

Cameron

Basil
01-06-2007, 01:21 AM
It should be noted, and with all sincerity that James Morris' performance is a standout. Congratulations to him especially, but all the BBers on their activity and their endeavour.


It shows that they take there job very seriously.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Congratulations

Cameron

Shouldn't that be 'congratulations Bill'? ;)

CameronD
01-06-2007, 01:27 AM
I'm congratulating everyone involved

Bill
State representatives
Unknown others

Everyone needs to do there job for such great results. I'm sure Bill would agree with the team concept.

Basil
01-06-2007, 01:30 AM
Of course mate. I knew what you meant. You were quite clear. It was just a little joke. No confusion or disrespect intended.

Kevin Bonham
01-06-2007, 01:49 AM
TCA ratings lists have been forwarded to clubs and TCA Exec. If anyone else would like a copy, please email or PM me.

Garrett
01-06-2007, 06:44 AM
Great work Bill, the force was obviously with you.

Thanks to all others.

Go the sense of humour Howie !

Cheers
George.

Spiny Norman
01-06-2007, 07:00 AM
<echo>What Cameron said</echo>

Garrett
01-06-2007, 07:34 AM
Might be worthwhile adding Jono to the regular BB posters list when you get a chance Captain.

Cheers
George

Phil Bourke
01-06-2007, 10:14 AM
Thanks Bill and all involved in the compilation. And to those that think thanks is redundant because they are just doing their job, think of all the times when someone saying thank you made a difference to how you felt about the job you were doing!
Anyone know if someone has the full list up for perusal yet?

Ian Rout
01-06-2007, 11:14 AM
For ACT players see here (http://www.netspeed.com.au/ianandjan/IansPage/ratings/RatingsACT07Jun.htm).

zigzag
01-06-2007, 12:38 PM
Category Players Percentage
2600..2699 2 0.04
2500..2599 2 0.08



Is there another player besides Rogers who is above 2600,or am I misreading this?:hmm:

Watto
01-06-2007, 12:39 PM
Anyone know if someone has the full list up for perusal yet?
Has just gone up. http://www.auschess.org.au/ratings/acfrate.htm

Garvinator
01-06-2007, 01:09 PM
Is there another player besides Rogers who is above 2600,or am I misreading this?:hmm:
Speculating, I would imagine there is some overseas player that would have a rating above 2600, but hasnt played in Australia for quite a while.

themovingman
01-06-2007, 01:15 PM
Is there another player besides Rogers who is above 2600,or am I misreading this?:hmm:


is the table from the active list or from the master list ?

from the master list

2617? OS Ftacnik, Lubomir

and also there seems to only 2 in the active above 2500

what might be interesting from the active list as well if there wer asny difference - hmm I better fire up excel then

Garrett
01-06-2007, 01:27 PM
Speculating, I would imagine there is some overseas player that would have a rating above 2600, but hasnt played in Australia for quite a while.

Spectacular speculation Garvo.

Phil Bourke
01-06-2007, 01:35 PM
Thanks again, got the relevant info :)
Question: First column is new rating, 2nd column is nr of games played in the period prior to June 1, 3rd and 4th columns represent what?

Phil Bourke
01-06-2007, 01:37 PM
For ACT players see here (http://www.netspeed.com.au/ianandjan/IansPage/ratings/RatingsACT07Jun.htm).
Nice page Ian.

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 02:36 PM
Might be worthwhile adding Jono to the regular BB posters list when you get a chance Captain.Done.

MichaelBaron
01-06-2007, 02:43 PM
This is hilarious..Katrin Aladjova-Wills played one tournament only...and got her rating down from 2150 or so to 1650....just in 7 games...How ridiculous is that...you have one bad tournament...and lose 500 points :(.


Shocking...:(

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 02:47 PM
Is there another player besides Rogers who is above 2600,or am I misreading this?:hmm:No the table is simply wrong. :doh:

When I added the code to show the players rankings on the active list it meant I needed to pass the file twice.
Unfortunately I added their ratings to the precentage table twice.

Hence the precentages are correct but the number of players per category is double what they should be. :wall: :wall: :wall:

Dozy
01-06-2007, 02:48 PM
Thanks again, got the relevant info :)
Question: First column is new rating, 2nd column is nr of games played in the period prior to June 1, 3rd and 4th columns represent what?It's a good question, Phil. I was wondering the same thing.

Any comment please, Bill?

rob
01-06-2007, 02:52 PM
Thanks again, got the relevant info :)
Question: First column is new rating, 2nd column is nr of games played in the period prior to June 1, 3rd and 4th columns represent what?
3rd = Your ranking within Australia
4th = Your ranking within your State

rob
01-06-2007, 02:54 PM
Thanks again, got the relevant info :)
Question: First column is new rating, 2nd column is nr of games played in the period prior to June 1, 3rd and 4th columns represent what?

Isn't the first column year of birth :)

Vlad
01-06-2007, 02:54 PM
My guess would be they are some kind of rankings. One is among all players, the other one is in some subgroup, possibly only among players with !!.

WhiteElephant
01-06-2007, 02:57 PM
This is hilarious..Katrin Aladjova-Wills played one tournament only...and got her rating down from 2150 or so to 1650....just in 7 games...How ridiculous is that...you have one bad tournament...and lose 500 points :(.


Shocking...:(

:eek: :(

I wonder when she will play next....

Phil Bourke
01-06-2007, 03:24 PM
Isn't the first column year of birth :)
Geez, I would be very happy if my rating got to my year of birth :)
But would be long dead if it were the other way around :)

Dozy
01-06-2007, 03:36 PM
3rd = Your ranking within Australia
4th = Your ranking within your StateGrazie, Rob, but now you've explained it I don't know whether I really want to know.

Still, it's reassuring to realise that I only have to pass 714 people before getting to challenge Ian Rogers for the top spot. :rolleyes:

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 04:05 PM
It's a good question, Phil. I was wondering the same thing.

Any comment please, Bill?From the ACF ratings page:
The ACF active list now shows the players active australia wide rank
(excluding OS) and their active state rank.

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 05:17 PM
This is hilarious..Katrin Aladjova-Wills played one tournament only...and got her rating down from 2150 or so to 1650....just in 7 games...How ridiculous is that...you have one bad tournament...and lose 500 points :(.


Shocking...:(A bad tournament would have been if she had performed at around 1800-1900. Her perfomance rating in the event was below 1600.

Between 1992 and 1994 she played only 5 games and prior to this event had not played since 1994.

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 07:00 PM
An corrected percentage breakdown is now in post http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=156628&postcount=13

Kevin Bonham
01-06-2007, 07:09 PM
This is hilarious..Katrin Aladjova-Wills played one tournament only...and got her rating down from 2150 or so to 1650....just in 7 games...How ridiculous is that...you have one bad tournament...and lose 500 points :(.

This is a common complaint about Glicko, but what people are really complaining about is, in effect, that the system retains the old rating.

Suppose that the system completely scrubbed an old rating for a player inactive for >5 years starting them again from scratch. The player performed at 1600 and their new rating was 1600. No one would complain.

Yet people complain because someone "loses" 500 points compared to an irrelevant 13-year old rating that was almost meaningless as an indicator of present-day playing strength anyway.

Perhaps ratings more than 5 years old should be called "expired ratings" (ie the player no longer "has" that rating, it is just held on file to find their new rating when they play again) so that people no longer pretend ancient ratings are an indicator of anything, or that points losses of this kind are anything unusual.

Basil
01-06-2007, 07:17 PM
This is hilarious..Katrin Aladjova-Wills played one tournament only...and got her rating down from 2150 or so to 1650....just in 7 games...How ridiculous is that...you have one bad tournament...and lose 500 points.Shocking...A bad tournament would have been if she had performed at around 1800-1900. Her perfomance rating in the event was below 1600.

Between 1992 and 1994 she played only 5 games and prior to this event had not played since 1994.
Mike, I'm posting this now, as opposed to earlier because I can see from the computer 'last activity' that you had an opportunity to read Bill's reply. I feel this is where you now acknowledge the response, after applying the 'ridiculous' proposition.

I don't object to any proposition being labelled as 'ridiculous'. That's not my point. My point is that you negatively assessed a situation (with negative implications against either the system or the officer managing it), and now that a reasonable explanation has appeared, I think it would be great to acknowledge the attention shown to your query, and perhaps withdraw the suggestion of ridiculousness if you accept the point.

If none of this grabs you, perhaps ease back when making the initial query and instead turn it into a question as opposed to a judgement.

Otherwise ratings officers just become a dumping recepticle.

Dozy
01-06-2007, 07:37 PM
A bad tournament would have been if she had performed at around 1800-1900. Her perfomance rating in the event was below 1600.

Between 1992 and 1994 she played only 5 games and prior to this event had not played since 1994.I had a similar experience.

I played chess on and off during the 70s and 80s then had a 17 year hiatus until 2004. Before the break I managed to sneak above 1500 for the first time, but when I came back I found that about 200 points had been added to my rating due to a couple of adjustments in the meantime. I was surprised to find that I was now rated 1718. Great!

After my first tournament my rating zoomed down to 1510 and since then has hovered around the 1600-mark, give or take a few points.

It was a bit hard on the ego to see it plummet so quickly but results have shown that the lower rating was a lot more accurate.

Still, that 1718 provided a nice target to aim at. One day I might even claw my way back there.

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 07:47 PM
I'm congratulating everyone involved

Bill
State representatives
Unknown others

Everyone needs to do there job for such great results. I'm sure Bill would agree with the team concept.I agree. The State Rating Officers are a great bunch.

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 07:49 PM
Thanks Bill and all involved in the compilation. And to those that think thanks is redundant because they are just doing their job, think of all the times when someone saying thank you made a difference to how you felt about the job you were doing!Thanks Phil.

Anyone know if someone has the full list up for perusal yet?It went up earlier today on the ACF website.

MichaelBaron
01-06-2007, 07:55 PM
Mike, I'm posting this now, as opposed to earlier because I can see from the computer 'last activity' that you had an opportunity to read Bill's reply. I feel this is where you now acknowledge the response, after applying the 'ridiculous' proposition.

I don't object to any proposition being labelled as 'ridiculous'. That's not my point. My point is that you negatively assessed a situation (with negative implications against either the system or the officer managing it), and now that a reasonable explanation has appeared, I think it would be great to acknowledge the attention shown to your query, and perhaps withdraw the suggestion of ridiculousness if you accept the point.

If none of this grabs you, perhaps ease back when making the initial query and instead turn it into a question as opposed to a judgement.

Otherwise ratings officers just become a dumping recepticle.

As someone who has been playing chess competitively for 25 years, I still think that the very fact that someone can lose 500 points based on performance rating for 1 tournament is "RIDICULOUS". It is simply unfair! Everyone can have a bad tournament! I had tournaments where i performed at U2000 level. I also had events where i performed above my rating. It does not mean that my rating should jump up and down if only I do not play for a couple of years prior to the event.

It contradicts not only the Elo (Fide) rating system but also the common sense!

By the way, would be interesting to run a poll on the Glicko system among the chess-players rated 2000+ and see what they think of it. :doh:

Also, i would like to hear what Chess Masters on this forum (e.g. Jono, Gattaca, 2 Igors, Ian Rogers,George Xie etc.) have to say in defence of the Glicko system.

Kevin Bonham
01-06-2007, 08:03 PM
As someone who has been playing chess competitively for 25 years, I still think that the very fact that someone can lose 500 points based on performance rating for 1 tournament is "RIDICULOUS". It is simply unfair! Everyone can have a bad tournament!

No one who is playing anywhere near regularly "loses" 500 points in one tournament. According to Barry's glicko calculator, even if Ian Rogers loses to PhilD707 nine times in a row, Ian's rating only goes down 248 points!


It does not mean that my rating should jump up and down if only I do not play for a couple of years prior to the event.

13 years isn't "a couple".


It contradicts not only the Elo (Fide) rating system but also the common sense!

Both these commodities are very overrated.

Aaron Guthrie
01-06-2007, 08:13 PM
Both these commodities are very overrated.Which wouldn't be the case if they operated under Glicko! ;)

paulb
02-06-2007, 01:22 AM
From the ACF ratings page:
The ACF active list now shows the players active australia wide rank
(excluding OS) and their active state rank.


Thanks for putting up the rankings Bill

One question: on the best players list I come 52nd, but elsewhere I am listed as 70th. Is the first figure active players and the second active+inactive?

Spiny Norman
02-06-2007, 08:58 AM
There is a good side to Glicko which I'd like to mention. I played a lot as a junior, back in the late 70's and early 80's. When I finally finished playing regularly, my rating was around 1300 from memory. The last written record I have from those days says it was 1334 (I was maybe 25 years old).

I then stopped playing competitively for around 15 years or so. When I returned to competitive chess in late 2004, my rating shown on the ACF website lists was 1114 (with a ?? confidence level of course). I thought this was low, and queried Bill about it at the time. Never mind ... lets play some chess!

I played one game, in passing, at a Box Hill tournament, because they were a player short and I happened to be visiting there that evening to see Trevor Stanning. That was my only game for that ratings period. In the next list, my rating showed as 1191 (+74pts). I happened to have drawn my game at Box Hill, against a guy rated in the 1300's (funny about that!).

Since then I have been working hard at my chess, getting coaching, and Glicko has tracked that improvement:

1114 (09/2004)
1191 (12/2004) +74
1261 (06/2005) +70
1360 (09/2005) +99
1434 (03/2006) +74
1435 (06/2006) +1
1482 (09/2006) +47
1566 (12/2006) +84

I'd be curious to know how Elo might have tracked my progress over that time, but I can't be bothered working it out myself.

Anyway, the way the ratings system rapidly responded to my efforts to improve (and of course my improved performances in tournament games) has been a key part of encouraging me to continue playing. I'll readily admit that I'm a numbers-driven person, that I am highly motivated by personal improvement. I yam what I yam (apologies to Popeye!).

Just wanted to point out that there's a flipside to the "I lost 500 pts in one tournament" which is "I gained 74 pts from one game". :uhoh:

Bill Gletsos
02-06-2007, 09:47 AM
Thanks for putting up the rankings Bill

One question: on the best players list I come 52nd, but elsewhere I am listed as 70th. Is the first figure active players and the second active+inactive?The top players list only includes players who are ! and !! from the active list.

MichaelBaron
02-06-2007, 10:24 AM
Just wanted to point out that there's a flipside to the "I lost 500 pts in one tournament" which is "I gained 74 pts from one game". :uhoh:

I am sure that since you feel the rating system is fair you would be equally impressed with it in case you lose 74 points in one game :owned:

Rincewind
02-06-2007, 10:39 AM
I am sure that since you feel the rating system is fair you would be equally impressed with it in case you lose 74 points in one game :owned:

The terminology of "losing" or "gaining" rating points is the problem. It has the effect of attaching a sense of ownership to each rating point as if they were a currency that can be traded between players.

A rating is just a number which is a best guess as to your playing strength. If you haven't played for a while the system loses confidence in your rating and then if you put in some weaker results, then your rating moves to the level that your recent play indicates is your current playing strength.

You haven't lost anything. You just get a new best estimate of playing strength.

Bill Gletsos
02-06-2007, 12:40 PM
There is a good side to Glicko which I'd like to mention. I played a lot as a junior, back in the late 70's and early 80's. When I finally finished playing regularly, my rating was around 1300 from memory. The last written record I have from those days says it was 1334 (I was maybe 25 years old).

I then stopped playing competitively for around 15 years or so. When I returned to competitive chess in late 2004, my rating shown on the ACF website lists was 1114 (with a ?? confidence level of course). I thought this was low, and queried Bill about it at the time. Never mind ... lets play some chess!

I played one game, in passing, at a Box Hill tournament, because they were a player short and I happened to be visiting there that evening to see Trevor Stanning. That was my only game for that ratings period. In the next list, my rating showed as 1191 (+74pts). I happened to have drawn my game at Box Hill, against a guy rated in the 1300's (funny about that!).

Since then I have been working hard at my chess, getting coaching, and Glicko has tracked that improvement:

1114 (09/2004)
1191 (12/2004) +74
1261 (06/2005) +70
1360 (09/2005) +99
1434 (03/2006) +74
1435 (06/2006) +1
1482 (09/2006) +47
1566 (12/2006) +84

I'd be curious to know how Elo might have tracked my progress over that time, but I can't be bothered working it out myself.

Anyway, the way the ratings system rapidly responded to my efforts to improve (and of course my improved performances in tournament games) has been a key part of encouraging me to continue playing. I'll readily admit that I'm a numbers-driven person, that I am highly motivated by personal improvement. I yam what I yam (apologies to Popeye!).

Just wanted to point out that there's a flipside to the "I lost 500 pts in one tournament" which is "I gained 74 pts from one game". :uhoh:Due to the change implemented in December 2006 which resulted in all rating periods from December 2000 being rerun your history now is as follows:

1114 (09/2004)
1216 (12/2004) +102
1296 (06/2005) +80
1395 (09/2005) +99
1473 (03/2006) +78
1475 (06/2006) +2
1526 (09/2006) +51
1566 (12/2006) +40

Under the old Elo system your rating history would be:

1114 (09/2004)
1116 (12/2004) +2
1124 (06/2005) +8
1140 (09/2005) +16
1192 (03/2006) +52
1204 (06/2006) +12
1234 (09/2006) +30
1270 (12/2006) +36

Vlad
02-06-2007, 12:55 PM
I think in general the Glicko is doing a better job than the ELO for the majority of the players.

To be fair it does provide some disincentive to play if you are at the top (see what happened to ratings of G. Lane and G. West in the last period) but on the other hand it generates much stronger incentives for growing youngsters.

There is something though I believe could be done to improve the current rating system. It is not doing a good job for ratings below 1000. I understand that it is partly because the majority of players are above 1000 and it is difficult to have a right mix of opponents for players below 1000. Still something need to be done, because most of these players are juniors and in the long run they grab the rating points from others, creating visible deflation (the one that Kevin does not want to tell us about:)).

I can give you an example of what I am talking about. Take two kids, my son and another boy. I have coached both for a while and can see what they can and canít do. Their acf ratings are about 250 and 750 respectively. I believe their chess strength and chess understanding is about the same. In fact, their ratings on playchess are about 1400 and 1200 (the one with 250 has a higher playchess rating). So, now one can ask - why did that happen? 500 points is a huge difference in ratings. The system that gives such an error is not doing fine.

Well, I believe partly it was a question of luck of getting the right opponents and being in the right mood. At the end of the day they are kids. But that even gets aggravated by the way results are evaluated. As far as I understand, if one plays against somebody unrated, the result does not count. So if you play in a tournament and score 50% but all your opponents whom you beat are unrated your rating is treated the same way as if you scored zero. That is why the change in rating could be so dramatic.

I suggest introducing an amendment that is currently used by NSWJCL. Namely, make the minimum possible rating. Say 500 or 200 or anything hopefully positive. Now that is not going to make any difference for the majority of players. But it will at least partly resolve problems with ratings under 1000.

Gattaca
02-06-2007, 02:47 PM
Hi all.

Just a quick hello from my holiday villa in Slumpsville. I can't stay here long unfortunately, just for one more rating period. The weather is beautiful and it's a carefree lifestyle here, with no pressure.

I'm staying in the same block as Gary Lane and just down the road is Doug Hamilton's apartment. There's a rather exclusive block of townhouses up the hill on the right where Arianne Caoili is staying. I've heard Dusan Stojic is sharing a pad with Domagoj Dragicevic just across the road from her, two doors up from Irina Berezina's new place.

If you keep going right up to the top of the hill there is a massive mansion with an expansive view out over the whole of Slumpsville. Rumour has it that it's Katrin Wills' new home and that she has moved there permanently.

On my way into town I saw Mirko Rujevic heading the other way and he waved at me as we passed. Another car heading out of town was pulled over on the side of the road and the driver was getting done for speeding. Couldn't swear to it, but the driver looked a hell of a lot like Gareth Oliver.

Anyway, hope you all get a chance to check this place out at some point...just wish I could stay longer!

Missing you all :)

Guy.

Basil
02-06-2007, 03:10 PM
Great post, G. Quality stuff. Tres amusant :clap:

{Grave accent please, Elliott}.

MichaelBaron
02-06-2007, 03:17 PM
Hi all.

Just a quick hello from my holiday villa in Slumpsville. I can't stay here long unfortunately, just for one more rating period. The weather is beautiful and it's a carefree lifestyle here, with no pressure.

I'm staying in the same block as Gary Lane and just down the road is Doug Hamilton's apartment. There's a rather exclusive block of townhouses up the hill on the right where Arianne Caoili is staying. I've heard Dusan Stojic is sharing a pad with Domagoj Dragicevic just across the road from her, two doors up from Irina Berezina's new place.

If you keep going right up to the top of the hill there is a massive mansion with an expansive view out over the whole of Slumpsville. Rumour has it that it's Katrin Wills' new home and that she has moved there permanently.

On my way into town I saw Mirko Rujevic heading the other way and he waved at me as we passed. Another car heading out of town was pulled over on the side of the road and the driver was getting done for speeding. Couldn't swear to it, but the driver looked a hell of a lot like Gareth Oliver.

Anyway, hope you all get a chance to check this place out at some point...just wish I could stay longer!

Missing you all :)

Guy.

LOL :clap:

Kevin Bonham
02-06-2007, 05:01 PM
Still something need to be done, because most of these players are juniors and in the long run they grab the rating points from others, creating visible deflation (the one that Kevin does not want to tell us about:)).

I'll tell you about visible deflation if you can prove that it exists statistically using an adequate and appropriate sample rather than hand-picked examples or theoretical models that do not work.


As far as I understand, if one plays against somebody unrated, the result does not count. So if you play in a tournament and score 50% but all your opponents whom you beat are unrated your rating is treated the same way as if you scored zero. That is why the change in rating could be so dramatic.

This is incorrect. Games against unrated players in the Glicko system do count (based on that unrated player's performance) but have less impact than games against rated players due to the uncertainties involved.


I suggest introducing an amendment that is currently used by NSWJCL. Namely, make the minimum possible rating. Say 500 or 200 or anything hopefully positive. Now that is not going to make any difference for the majority of players. But it will at least partly resolve problems with ratings under 1000.

There is already a rating floor of 100.

However there are plenty of unrated junior players who are so weak that they are more or less consistently losing to other juniors with ratings below 400. Naturally beating such unrated players does not count for very much.

Sure, ratings for juniors below about say 700 are very rubbery, and it's hard for juniors to improve their ratings playing other juniors if the other juniors are also getting better. But put a junior who is really say 800 strength up against 1000-rated adults and they will very soon score points. If a 300 junior is really 800 strength and plays against weak adults there is no way their rating will stay that low for any length of time.

I have coached juniors who in casual games would often seem to really know what was going on and who would play at 1200 or even 1400 strength and give me a decent game in a quiet room with no spectators. But that is not the same thing as beating experienced players under tournament conditions and such players might still only perform at 450 or so in tournaments.

ER
02-06-2007, 09:44 PM
Great post, G. Quality stuff. Tres amusant :clap:

{Grave accent please, Elliott}.

TrŤs amusant :)
Cheers and good luck!

Spiny Norman
02-06-2007, 10:50 PM
... [Glicko system] ... as follows:
1114 (09/2004)
<snip>
1566 (12/2006)

Under the old Elo system your rating history would be:
1114 (09/2004)
<snip>
1270 (12/2006)
Wow ... huge difference ... :eek:

Sam
03-06-2007, 10:59 AM
I'll tell you about visible deflation ...

There is already a rating floor of 100.



If there is no deflation,why was there rating points added to the system 3 times?:hmm:

As for there being a rating floor of 100,whats the point?:hmm:
Are you syaing that the juniors who are currently rated betwwen 100 and 200 would actually be rated below 100 if no such "floor" existed?:hmm:

Kevin Bonham
03-06-2007, 01:03 PM
If there is no deflation,why was there rating points added to the system 3 times?:hmm:

Ratings points were actually added to the system only twice.

The purpose of both the 150-point uplift and the 70-point uplift was to improve alignment with the FIDE list. The FIDE list has a historical tendency to inflate because of bad design, and also to allow players to enter at unreasonably high ratings, although hopefully now that they are lowering their ratings floor progressively these problems will go away over time.

There may have been some deflation corrected by the 150-point uplift, but if so it was deflation that occurred under the old ELO system.

What you are probably thinking of as the third addition was a retrospective re-run aimed at improving the system's sensitivity to rapidly improving players. For some players this resulted in large rating gains but for the vast majority it made only around say 20 points difference (don't recall the exact average) over seven years - not significant.


As for there being a rating floor of 100,whats the point?:hmm:

Primarily, that having a published rating below 100 is insulting.


Are you syaing that the juniors who are currently rated betwwen 100 and 200 would actually be rated below 100 if no such "floor" existed?:hmm:

No. Players who have been performing below 100 remain without a published rating.

Bill Gletsos
03-06-2007, 02:02 PM
No. Players who have been performing below 100 remain without a published rating.Yes, players who have never performed above 100 remain listed as unrated.
Those players that had a published rating of above 100 but have since dropped below 100 have a published rating of 100.

Trent Parker
03-06-2007, 03:01 PM
TCN notices that SEC was not rated :whistle:

where's antichrist when ya need him? :lol:

Garrett
04-06-2007, 06:45 AM
Hi all.

Just a quick hello from my holiday villa in Slumpsville. I can't stay here long unfortunately, just for one more rating period. The weather is beautiful and it's a carefree lifestyle here, with no pressure.

I'm staying in the same block as Gary Lane and just down the road is Doug Hamilton's apartment. There's a rather exclusive block of townhouses up the hill on the right where Arianne Caoili is staying. I've heard Dusan Stojic is sharing a pad with Domagoj Dragicevic just across the road from her, two doors up from Irina Berezina's new place.

If you keep going right up to the top of the hill there is a massive mansion with an expansive view out over the whole of Slumpsville. Rumour has it that it's Katrin Wills' new home and that she has moved there permanently.

On my way into town I saw Mirko Rujevic heading the other way and he waved at me as we passed. Another car heading out of town was pulled over on the side of the road and the driver was getting done for speeding. Couldn't swear to it, but the driver looked a hell of a lot like Gareth Oliver.

Anyway, hope you all get a chance to check this place out at some point...just wish I could stay longer!

Missing you all :)

Guy.

haha ha

yes - well done Westy

And thanks for the lift into town. I am staying at the pub because I won't be here long.

I won't be here long...

Oepty
04-06-2007, 06:14 PM
Bill, why did my rating go up? I was expecting it to go down a little bit. The way I have been playing I am way overrated. What was my performance?
Scott

eclectic
04-06-2007, 06:22 PM
The appearance of a positive trend is not necessarily a talent or a dedication. ;)

Bill Gletsos
04-06-2007, 08:18 PM
Bill, why did my rating go up? I was expecting it to go down a little bit. The way I have been playing I am way overrated. What was my performance?
ScottYour performance was 1491 hence the increase.

bergil
04-06-2007, 11:52 PM
TCN notices that SEC was not rated :whistle:It was Ernest Dorn's decision. :hand:



where's antichrist when ya need him? :lol:Don't know its never happened before. ;)

Oepty
05-06-2007, 05:56 PM
Your performance was 1491 hence the increase.
Thanks Bill. I was extremely lucky in most of my wins, so my level of play was generally way less than the raw results indicate.
Scott

Rincewind
06-06-2007, 12:19 AM
Thanks Bill. I was extremely lucky in most of my wins, so my level of play was generally way less than the raw results indicate.
Scott

Don't worry, Scott. The law of exponential error will catch up with you eventually. ;)

Kevin Bonham
06-06-2007, 12:35 AM
Thanks Bill. I was extremely lucky in most of my wins, so my level of play was generally way less than the raw results indicate.

That's the way the system works; I've been getting away with being 200 points worse than my rating for at least a decade now.

zigzag
06-06-2007, 11:28 AM
That's the way the system works; I've been getting away with being 200 points worse than my rating for at least a decade now.

So the benefit of playing in a small rating pool like Tasmania is that if you are near the top it makes it harder to fall?

Watto
06-06-2007, 01:30 PM
haha ha

yes - well done Westy

And thanks for the lift into town. I am staying at the pub because I won't be here long.

I won't be here long...
hehe. Ö donít know whether youíve heard yet George, but a few of the players have just started up the Slumpsvillle Chess Club (meets all hours in the room next to the pool in our block) and membership is booming. Iím one of the lowest rated so Iím learning a lot!

ER
06-06-2007, 01:45 PM
... the Slumpsvillle Chess Club (meets all hours in the room next to the pool in our block) and membership is booming. I’m one of the lowest rated so I’m learning a lot!

Hi Jean
Is the SCC membership "permanent"? Is it CV affiliated? Will they be lodging in their tournament results for rating purposes? Also please let me know about tournaments and other activities so I can include it in my "Club Power Thread"
Cheers and good luck!
I hear you had a very good win vs Brendan the other night! Excellent!

Watto
06-06-2007, 01:58 PM
Hi Jean
Is the SCC membership "permanent"? Is it CV affiliated? Will they be lodging in their tournament results for rating purposes? Also please let me know about tournaments and other activities so I can include it in my "Club Power Thread"
Cheers and good luck!
I hear you had a very good win vs Brendan the other night! Excellent!
hi hk. As far as I know, yes, SCC is as permanent as you get. A neverending supply of new and departing members... they love their chess and play through the night but they won't be running rated tournaments so no lodging of results. :) I don't think they're affiliated with anyone. But I've heard they're considering challenging the Richmond Football team to a chess footy match (Guy mentioned it to me yesterday- said he saw the Richmond team down at the Slumpsville beach... ;))

zigzag
06-06-2007, 02:35 PM
hehe. Ö donít know whether youíve heard yet George, but a few of the players have just started up the Slumpsvillle Chess Club (meets all hours in the room next to the pool in our block) and membership is booming. Iím one of the lowest rated so Iím learning a lot!

Make sure it doesnt end up like the BigBrother House.:lol:

Oepty
06-06-2007, 06:01 PM
Don't worry, Scott. The law of exponential error will catch up with you eventually. ;)

Barry I am sure it will, I am probably not performing to my rating in interclub that I am currently playing. I have played a lot better than I am playing now, my game against Andrew Short excepted, yet I have reached my best rating. It just does not seem right.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
06-06-2007, 07:44 PM
So the benefit of playing in a small rating pool like Tasmania is that if you are near the top it makes it harder to fall?

It's not a rating pool issue. Actually it is harder to keep a rating high if you are near the top in any ratings pool because you sometimes have to concede draws to lower-rated players to ensure tournament wins.

What I was getting at is that some players can keep their rating high by consistently having "lucky" wins (swindling and so on.)

I once, back in the days of the dinosaurs circa AD 2002, won 38 rated games in a row. I was losing 13 of them.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-06-2007, 10:14 AM
It's not a rating pool issue. Actually it is harder to keep a rating high if you are near the top in any ratings pool because you sometimes have to concede draws to lower-rated players to ensure tournament wins.

What I was getting at is that some players can keep their rating high by consistently having "lucky" wins (swindling and so on.)

I once, back in the days of the dinosaurs circa AD 2002, won 38 rated games in a row. I was losing 13 of them.

There are many things that determine the strength of the player (including ability to swindle). One win in a lost position is a luck. Many wins in a lost position is a trend, or an indication of a particular strength.

zigzag
07-06-2007, 10:59 AM
It's not a rating pool issue. Actually it is harder to keep a rating high if you are near the top in any ratings pool because you sometimes have to concede draws to lower-rated players to ensure tournament wins.


Shouldnt you be beating those lower rated players to win tournaments.:)

peter_parr
07-06-2007, 11:57 AM
This is hilarious..Katrin Aladjova-Wills played one tournament only...and got her rating down from 2150 or so to 1650....just in 7 games...How ridiculous is that...you have one bad tournament...and lose 500 points :(.


Shocking...:(

Katrin scored 3 out of 7 at the weekender in Ballarat and lost 481 rating points.

Under a FIDE rating system and under the previous ACF rating system the rating loss would be about 50 (not 481).

Australia remains the only country in the world where a massive rating loss occurs in one weekender (it would have been a much greater loss if Katrin scored less than 3 points).

A player rated 2100??

May lose just over 500 rating points one weekend and win a substantial first prize in an under 1600 rated weekender the following weekend - one reason the USA would never adopt this Glicko system (from the USA).

Well over 90 per cent of all chess players on the ACF rating list are officially regarded as inactive.

All of these thousands of players are punished immediately if they play again below par with increased punishment for every year of inactivity.

The ACF Ratings officer and NSWCA President reported a net loss of $11,000 on NSWCA tournaments at the last AGM - unprecedented in our history.

Inactive players very frequently enquire about playing again.
Their first question is always - do I pick up my last rating and carry on?

Suppose you dear reader played 200 rated games and you had steadily improved to a 2000 rating. You got married, had a few kids and ten years later wanted to play in a weekender.

If you lived in England, USA or any other country your rating would be picked up at 2000 and you would gain or lose about 15 rating points for every point above or below your expected score.
Fair enough the inactive player will always play again.

In Australia however his 2000 rating over 200 games could be wiped out - down 500 or more rating points in one weekend for a below par result.

I have most unfortunately had to explain our rating system (compared to FIDE and other countries)countless times and the fact is numerous inactive players decide not to play.

I strongly believe that a major contributing factor to our low entries to NSWCA tournaments is due to the harsh treatment for inactive players (over 90%) if they ever play again.

Surely it is in the interest of everyone that we welcome back these inactive players without punishment for their inactivity - like FIDE etc.

Last time this subject was discussed I mentioned the excellent lengthy article by the highly respected author and strong Grandmaster John Nunn (who has the same opinion as I do on inactive players).

John Nunn is also a mathematical genius having been the youngest person in 500 years to be accepted into the prestigious Oxford University.

Nunn's opinion was dismissed by some Australian chess officials as biased - how impertinent and disgraceful to such an eminent person.

Common sense will tell us that we should be in line with the rest of the world. I want to get back thousands of inactive players and all I ask is they be treated sensibly and many will return.

Sadly one official attacks common sense itself by stating it is over-rated - how silly is that?

The same official suggests deleting all players after 5 years of inactivity.

Why delete thousands of players?

Government support etc is often based on numbers of players.

If you delete all these players and the NSW Championships are due to start in 3 divisions - title event 1900 and above, under 1900 and under 1600 I ask what section you put the deleted players 2100??, 1800??, 1500??

Common sense tells us which division these three should play in but if they are already deleted what may I ask does the arbiter do?

A rating floor of at least 600(not 100) seems sensible.

Finally the production of the rating list on time by ACF ratings officers Graham Saint and Bill Gletsos for each rating period is highly commendable.

The data is processed very well but the treatment of inactive players is clearly wrong.

Put yourself in the shoes of an inactive player who should be encouraged to return and not punished for inactivity.

Kevin Bonham
07-06-2007, 12:06 PM
Shouldnt you be beating those lower rated players to win tournaments.:)

Not if it's the final round and you only need a draw and are very short of cash, as happens sometimes when people are too slow paying my invoices. I took an ultra-gutless 20-mover with black vs a then c.1700 player in the final round of the Tas Open last year. If I hadn't needed the $$$ so badly at the time I would have played more aggressively and gone for the 6/6.

In the 2002 Tas Champs I only needed a draw for outright first in the final round as well, but my opponent was one of those no-draw types and launched a massive kingside attack which I spent much of the game holding off. Gradually his position deteriorated and at a certain point, with my position clearly better but still requiring care, he offered me a draw. I noticed at that point that my pursuer had also drawn meaning that even a loss would give me outright 1st, so I refused the draw and played on and won.

Kevin Bonham
07-06-2007, 12:08 PM
There are many things that determine the strength of the player (including ability to swindle). One win in a lost position is a luck. Many wins in a lost position is a trend, or an indication of a particular strength.

Yes - that is exactly what I was getting at. If RS is now finding himself winning many bad positions then perhaps it's not just luck!

Basil
07-06-2007, 12:11 PM
May we have a thread split, please? And then I can get 'busy'. There is not an insignificant volume of information here that is not particularly relevant to the June 2007 Ratings.

You'll have to go along way to find an clumsier double negative than that!

Aaron Guthrie
07-06-2007, 12:13 PM
You'll have to go along way to find an clumsier double negative than that!Gavagai

Kevin Bonham
07-06-2007, 12:28 PM
May we have a thread split, please? And then I can get 'busy'. There is not an insignificant volume of information here that is not particularly relevant to the June 2007 Ratings.

It's common for a ratings thread to eventually turn into something like this. Carry on and if a split is necessary once a coherent theme emerges it will be done.

Basil
07-06-2007, 12:30 PM
Gavagai
The 'road to gavagai' is as torturous as strangulations of the language, sometimes. Really bad pun. Can you tell I'm really bored?

Kevin Bonham
07-06-2007, 02:14 PM
May lose just over 500 rating points one weekend and win a substantial first prize in an under 1600 rated weekender the following weekend - one reason the USA would never adopt this Glicko system (from the USA).

The important difference is the USA has substantial first prizes in U1600 tournaments so there is actually an incentive for players to deliberately bomb their ratings to get them. In Australia, it's really not worth doing and there is no evidence that anyone does it.


Last time this subject was discussed I mentioned the excellent lengthy article by the highly respected author and strong Grandmaster John Nunn (who has the same opinion as I do on inactive players).

Which is not surprising as he is one of them, as pointed out by Bill in the previous thread. Furthermore, Nunn was attacking a proposal to subtract points for inactivity, not a proposal to treat inactive players more dynamically, so his views and yours may not be the same after all.


Sadly one official attacks common sense itself by stating it is over-rated - how silly is that?

Do you have any evidence it is silly?


The same official suggests deleting all players after 5 years of inactivity.

Why delete thousands of players?

Government support etc is often based on numbers of players.

This misrepresents my views - what I've proposed was actually:

One solution to the problem would be to declare that a player's rating is only valid when they have been active in the last five years, and therefore that a player who is inactive for longer than that has their old rating stored and used to seed their new rating, and can have it used to seed them in tournaments (at the organisers' discretion), but is officially unrated. That way there would be no disincentive for inactive players to return, because an inactive player could not say "I have a rating of 2000 and if I return it might drop to 1700". All they could say is "I used to have a rating of 2000 when last active."

Inactive players on the master list could be listed as UNR(xxxx) where xxxx is their old rating.

... which does not involve any deletion of players from the list; rather their ratings have expired and they become unrated, with their old rating stored. They remain listed on the master list as players and there is no problem with using them as such for statistical purposes.


If you delete all these players and the NSW Championships are due to start in 3 divisions - title event 1900 and above, under 1900 and under 1600 I ask what section you put the deleted players 2100??, 1800??, 1500??

Under my proposal these players are unrated, not deleted as you falsely claim. I have already answered this question by pointing out that they are unrated players but their old (expired) ratings could be used to seed them at the organisers' discretion. What is normally done with unrated players (say, who have a USCF rating) who wish to enter the NSW Champs?


Put yourself in the shoes of an inactive player who should be encouraged to return and not punished for inactivity.

But my proposal is the ultimate encouragement to return (since until you return you don't have a rating at all!) and the ultimate disencouragement to be inactive (since if you are inactive too long, your rating expires and you become formally unrated). I think you should be supporting my proposal!

If the Glicko system caused a drop in interest in tournament chess you would expect the number of active players to have declined notably since the system was put in place. This hasn't happened. Whatever is going on with attendances in some specific (not all) Sydney events is down to local factors.

zigzag
08-06-2007, 10:02 AM
Well over 90 per cent of all chess players on the ACF rating list are officially regarded as inactive.


This seems like a ridiculously high figure to me.
I have seen the current rating list on the auschess.org site and there would appear to be at least 2,000 players on those published lists.
Are you suggesting that only a couple of hundred people are playing rated games in any given rating period or that their are over 5 thousand players who havnt played in quite awhile?:hmm:

Watto
08-06-2007, 11:01 AM
This seems like a ridiculously high figure to me.
I have seen the current rating list on the auschess.org site and there would appear to be at least 2,000 players on those published lists.
Are you suggesting that only a couple of hundred people are playing rated games in any given rating period or that their are over 5 thousand players who havnt played in quite awhile?:hmm:
Just had a quick check of the ACF master list. Has roughly 27,460 players on it. The ACF active list has roughly 3080 (I couldn't be bothered deleting blank rows to get the exact number).

I'm not making any judgements about how you treat the master list btw. It's a rather wonderful historical record but there are a lot of players on it who are no longer potential players (to state the obvious :))

MichaelBaron
08-06-2007, 11:15 AM
Just had a quick check of the ACF master list. Has roughly 27,460 players on it. The ACF active list has roughly 3080 (I couldn't be bothered deleting blank rows to get the exact number).

:(

zigzag
08-06-2007, 11:39 AM
Just had a quick check of the ACF master list. Has roughly 27,460 players on it. The ACF active list has roughly 3080 (I couldn't be bothered deleting blank rows to get the exact number).

Didnt think the master list would be that high.:uhoh:
3080 is more than 10% of 27,460.;) ...so Peter's figures still look rubbery.
I have been told there are a fair few DEAD players on that list,if you took off all the DEAD players on that list I wonder what the real figure would be.:hmm:

Phil Bourke
08-06-2007, 11:45 AM
I have been told there are a fair few DEAD players on that list,if you took off all the DEAD players on that list I wonder what the real figure would be.:hmm:
:hmm: What impact would a bad tournament have on their rating ;)

Brian_Jones
08-06-2007, 11:58 AM
:hmm: What impact would a bad tournament have on their rating ;)

With retrospective (posthumous) adjustments, what impact would a bad tournament for somebody have on the rating of a previous (now dead) opponent?

Maybe they could make the top players list if not the most active? ;)

eclectic
08-06-2007, 12:25 PM
Just had a quick check of the ACF master list. Has roughly 27,460 players on it. The ACF active list has roughly 3080 (I couldn't be bothered deleting blank rows to get the exact number).

I'm not making any judgements about how you treat the master list btw. It's a rather wonderful historical record but there are a lot of players on it who are no longer potential players (to state the obvious :))

Those "no longer potential" players still "vote" in our chess players union elections! :rolleyes:

I shan't say a word about branch stacking allegations ... :silenced::hand:

;)

Garvinator
08-06-2007, 12:29 PM
Those "no longer potential" players still "vote" in our chess players union elections! :rolleyes:

I shan't say a word about branch stacking allegations ... :silenced::hand:

;)
Another version of the faceless men ;)

zigzag
08-06-2007, 12:29 PM
:hmm: What impact would a bad tournament have on their rating ;)

This may sound crazy,but imagine what would happen if a player from victoria was to play in a tournament in NSW using a dead victorian players rating,in order to win a rating prize group.
Would the NSW organisers be aware that the name they were using was of a dead player from the master list?:hmm:

I'm not saying there are a bunch of nasty cheats out there perusing the masterlist for dead players names to hijack,but the possibility does seem to exist for people to do that kind of thing.

I think the players who are known to be dead should be removed from the master list. Maybe there should be a side list created by the ACF that lists players who have died for posterity reasons, call it a memoriam list perhaps.:hmm:

Brian_Jones
08-06-2007, 12:36 PM
I think the players who are known to be dead should be removed from the master list. Maybe there should be a side list created by the ACF that lists players who have died for posterity reasons, call it a memoriam list perhaps.:hmm:

It has been suggested before that unfinancial players should also be treated in this way (using a side list).

But it would require more admin effort. And Bill is not keen on doing more work otherwise we would have had a nice player history (audit) feature built into the (on-line) rating system.

BTW zigzag, I have booked to play in Nelson!

zigzag
08-06-2007, 12:45 PM
But it would require more admin effort. And Bill is not keen on doing more work otherwise we would have had a nice player history (audit) feature built into the (on-line) rating system.


Maybe if the masterfile was sorted into state lists so those statelists could be sent to state admins to go through and sort out the known dead players.
The state admins would also be in a better position to pick out names of the players in their state who they knew had died.

MichaelBaron
08-06-2007, 01:23 PM
Maybe if the masterfile was sorted into state lists so those statelists could be sent to state admins to go through and sort out the known dead players.
The state admins would also be in a better position to pick out names of the players in their state who they knew had died.

Sorting out the known 'dead" players will be one hell of a job...as the are plenty of inactive players who lost touch with chess community years ago.:hmm:

Phil Bourke
08-06-2007, 01:33 PM
Sorting out the known 'dead" players will be one hell of a job...as the are plenty of inactive players who lost touch with chess community years ago.:hmm:
Therefore, for our (Chess) purposes they are the equivalent of dead and gone. And if the lists were readily available, I am sure that a 'dead' player could be resurrected if the need ever arose. :)

Phil Bourke
08-06-2007, 01:48 PM
This may sound crazy,but imagine what would happen if a player from victoria was to play in a tournament in NSW using a dead victorian players rating,in order to win a rating prize group.
Would the NSW organisers be aware that the name they were using was of a dead player from the master list?:hmm:
Would it ever be picked up that a player had returned from the grave to once again play the noble game :) Leaving the names on any list that can be used for tournament play only gives rise to the possibility of this sort of thing happening. I know that when I returned to tournament play that I actually had the experience of being two people, I played my first tournament back as "Phillip Bourke NSW 1367" and in the 2nd I was surprised that upon submitting the result of the 1st round game, that I was listed as unrated. I mentioned this to the DOP and investigation found that he had selected "Phillip Bourke ACT UR" because the 2nd tournament was in Canberra. This probably arose because I had played my first ever tourneys in the ACT, as a NSW resident, and had been submitted as an ACT player because of their join the ACTCA policy on tournament entries.
I have another surreptitious thought, because these dead players details are available to all, and the ACF rates everyone's games regardless of their being a member of a Chess Association or not, could I "organise" a tournament where by using a few of these dodos, I could actually engineer some juniors establishing their ratings. Certainly would save a lot of travelling :)

zigzag
08-06-2007, 02:56 PM
Sorting out the known 'dead" players will be one hell of a job...as the are plenty of inactive players who lost touch with chess community years ago.:hmm:

If they are KNOWN to be dead it shouldnt be hard to sort them out at all.:P

Igor_Goldenberg
08-06-2007, 02:59 PM
3080 is more than 10% of 27,460.;) ...so Peter's figures still look rubbery.

11.2% to be precise, which means 88,8% instead of claimed 90%. Rubbery indeed, way of the mark :doh:

Bill Gletsos
08-06-2007, 03:08 PM
Just had a quick check of the ACF master list. Has roughly 27,460 players on it.A significant number of which are QLD juniors who have never played a normal rated game and many of which have not played enough rateable rapid games (9) to get a published rating.

zigzag
08-06-2007, 05:36 PM
11.2% to be precise, which means 88,8% instead of claimed 90%. Rubbery indeed, way of the mark :doh:

Excuse the Monty Python pun...but we havnt even taken out the DEAD yet.

Do you believe Peter's claim that most of those "inactive" players are choosing not to play because they are afraid of being punished by Glicko?:hmm:

And Bill seems to be saying that there are plenty of juniors with rapid ratings as well. You cant tell me they are avoiding to play because of Glicko.:lol:

Bill,can you give a rough estimate of how many of that 27,000+ are people with rapid ratings and people who are short of the 9 rated games.

Axiom
08-06-2007, 07:00 PM
If they are KNOWN to be dead it shouldnt be hard to sort them out at all.:P
but what about THE CURSE OF THE UNKNOWN DEAD ?? :eek:

Denis_Jessop
08-06-2007, 08:53 PM
It has been suggested before that unfinancial players should also be treated in this way (using a side list).

But it would require more admin effort. And Bill is not keen on doing more work otherwise we would have had a nice player history (audit) feature built into the (on-line) rating system.

BTW zigzag, I have booked to play in Nelson!

Didn't that idea apply to publication of the ratings of active players? It would be rather hard to police and perhaps apply unfairly now as the ACF does not have an individual memberships scheme, nor does Chess Victoria, if one were to fall back on State Association membership. FIDE has such a rule now but how it is applied to national federations that do not have individual members I'm not sure. (Nor am I inviting Peter Parr to give us another address on the alleged transgression of FIDE laws by the ACF as we already know about it :D )

DJ

Basil
08-06-2007, 10:00 PM
Nor am I inviting Peter Parr to give us another address on the alleged transgression of FIDE laws by the ACF as we already know about it :D DJ

:P

pax
08-06-2007, 10:32 PM
What kind of vanity does it take to *not* play chess again in order to protect your rating? Does this actually happen, or is it merely urban myth? What use is a rating if you never play chess again??

I have to say that chess (meaning FIDE) is extremely unusual among international sports in allowing players to come back to the game after a layoff of many years with the same ranking that they had before. You don't see complaints from tennis players who lose hundreds of ranking positions due to injury layoffs. There is something about ratings that chess players seem to see as very personal.

As a currently inactive player myself, I can certainly say that effects on my rating are not a consideration on deciding when next to play.

sm38
19-06-2007, 08:22 PM
Just wondering, how many games do you need to play before you get a rating (rapid and standard)? cheers!!

eclectic
19-06-2007, 08:27 PM
9 provisional 30 established against rated players if i recall correctly

Kevin Bonham
19-06-2007, 08:31 PM
9 provisional 30 established against rated players if i recall correctly

The provisional/established distinction no longer exists in the ACF system. Because there is a sliding scale for how sensitive the rating is, there is no need for it. A rating based on nine games is a real rating, but one that may go up or down very rapidly with more results as the system notes it as unreliable.