PDA

View Full Version : ACF September 2007 Ratings



Bill Gletsos
01-09-2007, 01:10 AM
The ACF September 2007 rating lists have been sent to the ACF Webmaster and the State Rating Officers.

For the September 2007 rating period there were 130 Tournaments rated (96 Classic, 34 Rapid) and 11122 games of which 7246 were in the ACF Classic rating system and 3876 were in the ACF Rapid rating system.

Top Players
2605!! 21 NSW Rogers, Ian [GM]
2560!! 7 NSW Zhao, Zong-Yuan [IM]
2471!! 20 VIC Smerdon, David C [IM]
2447!! 26 QLD Solomon, Stephen J [IM]
2424!! 7 VIC Johansen, Darryl K [GM]
2423!! 23 NSW Bjelobrk, Igor [FM]
2406!! 7 NSW Xie, George [IM]
2405!! 7 NSW Lane, Gary W [IM]
2391!! 12 VIC Goldenberg, Igor [FM]
2375! 7 SA Tao, Trevor
2365!! 13 QLD Froehlich, Peter [IM]
2359! 13 SA Chapman, Mark [IM]
2328!! 20 VIC West, Guy [IM]
2327!! 7 VIC Chow, Samuel
2322! 0 NSW Canfell, Gregory J [FM]
2319!! 12 VIC Sandler, Leonid [IM]
2309! 0 VIC Baron, Michael [FM]
2288! 0 NSW Feldman, Vladimir [IM]
2281! 3 NSW Tan, Justin
2280! 13 QLD Ly, Moulthun
2279!! 14 NSW Rej, Tomek
2260!! 5 NSW Smirnov, Vladimir
2248! 9 VIC Jordan, Bill [FM]
2242! 0 VIC Depasquale, Chris J [FM]
2239! 8 NSW Scott, Ronald
2237!! 7 NSW Ayvazyan, Armen
2236! 4 QLD Humphrey, Jonathan [FM]
2235! 7 SA Obst, James
2232! 5 QLD Sarfati, Jonathan [FM]
2223!! 9 WA Boyd, Tristan
2216!! 16 VIC Rujevic, Mirko [IM]
2212!! 10 NSW Yu, Ronald
2202!! 35 VIC Wallis, Christopher
2199!! 23 NSW Wright, Neil S
2196!! 15 WA Horstmann, Michael
2183! 0 NSW O'Chee, Kevin
2181! 0 NSW Bouchaaya, Tony
2179!! 8 NSW Flatow, A (Fred) [FM]
2176! 17 NSW Dilla, Edsil
2176!! 14 ACT Ikeda, Junta
2172! 5 VIC Sorokina, Anastasia [WIM]
2172! 1 NSW Suttor, Vincent
2166! 0 NSW Vojvodic, Branislev
2163! 7 SA Nguyen, Giang
2158!! 7 ACT Oliver, Gareth
2158! 0 NSW Halpin, Patrick
2157! 7 QLD Caoili, Arianne B [WFM]
2156!! 9 VIC Levi, Eddy L [FM]
2154!! 20 VIC Hamilton, Douglas G [FM]
2154! 0 NSW Berezina - Feldman, Irina [IM]
2152!! 9 NSW Morris, Michael
2147!! 5 NSW Bird, Andrew
2147!! 13 VIC Jager, Jesse
2144! 13 WA Kurniawan, Stephanus
2142!! 40 VIC Stojic, Dusan
2139!! 42 VIC Dragicevic, Domagoj
2128! 3 QLD Mastilovic, Rajko
2124! 0 NSW Malik, Hani
2122!! 0 NSW Broekhuyse, Paul
2122! 0 WA Barber, Haydn J [FM]

Bill Gletsos
01-09-2007, 01:11 AM
Top Females
2172! 5 VIC Sorokina, Anastasia [WIM]
2163! 7 SA Nguyen, Giang
2157! 7 QLD Caoili, Arianne B [WFM]
2154! 0 NSW Berezina - Feldman, Irina [IM]
2075! 0 NSW Dekic, Biljana [WIM]
2017!! 7 NSW Moylan, Laura A [WIM]
1915!! 23 NSW Song, Angela [WFM]
1902!! 0 NSW Musaeva, Aina
1803! 0 NSW Lane, Nancy L [WIM]
1798!! 7 ACT Oliver, Shannon [WFM]
1757!! 7 WA Maris, Natalie A
1748!! 40 QLD Jule, Alexandra
1699!! 32 VIC Szuveges, Narelle S [WIM]
1688! 0 WA Payne, Sophie
1668!! 16 NSW Harris, Rebecca
1658! 7 VIC Holmes, Irene
1594! 8 ACT Guo, Emma
1588!! 34 VIC Yu, Sally
1588!! 20 QLD Kinder, Jessica
1530!! 0 NSW Troshenkova, Irina

Bill Gletsos
01-09-2007, 01:12 AM
Top Under 20
2327!! 19 VIC Chow, Samuel
2280! 15 QLD Ly, Moulthun
2235! 16 SA Obst, James
2212!! 18 NSW Yu, Ronald
2202!! 16 VIC Wallis, Christopher
2183! 19 NSW O'Chee, Kevin
2176!! 15 ACT Ikeda, Junta
2172! 18 NSW Suttor, Vincent
2158!! 18 ACT Oliver, Gareth
2152!! 18 NSW Morris, Michael
2147!! 18 VIC Jager, Jesse
2142!! 17 VIC Stojic, Dusan
2118!! 19 NSW Hu, Jason
2106! 17 ACT Wei, Michael
2097!! 14 NSW Illingworth, Max
2095!! 13 VIC Lin, Zhigen Wilson
2088!! 12 VIC Morris, James
2077! 19 NSW Xie, Ken
2058! 16 QLD Lazarus, Benjamin
2013!! 16 WA Donaldson, Thomas

Bill Gletsos
01-09-2007, 01:12 AM
Top Under 18
2280! 15 QLD Ly, Moulthun
2235! 16 SA Obst, James
2202!! 16 VIC Wallis, Christopher
2176!! 15 ACT Ikeda, Junta
2142!! 17 VIC Stojic, Dusan
2106! 17 ACT Wei, Michael
2097!! 14 NSW Illingworth, Max
2095!! 13 VIC Lin, Zhigen Wilson
2088!! 12 VIC Morris, James
2058! 16 QLD Lazarus, Benjamin
2013!! 16 WA Donaldson, Thomas
1972! 14 WA Choong, Yita
1947!! 14 ACT Brown, Andrew
1921!! 14 NSW Harris, Benjamin
1915!! 14 NSW Song, Angela [WFM]
1888!! 12 VIC Schon, Eugene
1877!! 11 ACT Yuan, Yi
1874!! 17 NSW Mandla, Blair
1870!! 11 QLD Nakauchi, Gene
1865! 15 NSW Levin, Joshua
1865! 17 WA Haselgrove, Miles

Bill Gletsos
01-09-2007, 01:12 AM
Top Under 16
2280! 15 QLD Ly, Moulthun
2176!! 15 ACT Ikeda, Junta
2097!! 14 NSW Illingworth, Max
2095!! 13 VIC Lin, Zhigen Wilson
2088!! 12 VIC Morris, James
1972! 14 WA Choong, Yita
1947!! 14 ACT Brown, Andrew
1921!! 14 NSW Harris, Benjamin
1915!! 14 NSW Song, Angela [WFM]
1888!! 12 VIC Schon, Eugene
1877!! 11 ACT Yuan, Yi
1870!! 11 QLD Nakauchi, Gene
1865! 15 NSW Levin, Joshua
1850!! 14 VIC Yu, Derek
1817! 12 VIC Antolis, Cedric
1784!! 14 SA Zulfic, Fedja
1782! 15 NSW Tse, Jeffrey
1769! 13 NSW Xu, William
1750! 14 NSW Wu, Edwin
1738! 14 TAS Dyer, Alastair

Bill Gletsos
01-09-2007, 01:13 AM
Top Under 14
2095!! 13 VIC Lin, Zhigen Wilson
2088!! 12 VIC Morris, James
1888!! 12 VIC Schon, Eugene
1877!! 11 ACT Yuan, Yi
1870!! 11 QLD Nakauchi, Gene
1817! 12 VIC Antolis, Cedric
1769! 13 NSW Xu, William
1689!! 13 VIC Vijayakumar, Rengan
1679!! 13 VIC Tang, Jason
1676!! 13 QLD Grigg, Sam
1652! 13 VIC Buda, Alexander
1637!! 13 VIC Dalton, Samuel
1615!! 10 QLD Stahnke, Alexander
1611!! 13 NSW Papp, Alexander
1605!! 12 NSW Papantoniou, John
1594! 11 ACT Guo, Emma
1588!! 12 VIC Yu, Sally
1572! 13 VIC Tambasco, Jean-Luc
1525! 12 ACT Chow, Justin
1524!! 12 NSW Cheung, Benjamin

Bill Gletsos
01-09-2007, 01:13 AM
Top Under 12
1877!! 11 ACT Yuan, Yi
1870!! 11 QLD Nakauchi, Gene
1615!! 10 QLD Stahnke, Alexander
1594! 11 ACT Guo, Emma
1510!! 9 QLD Liu, Yi
1505!! 9 NSW Wang, Oscar
1500! 9 WA Sam, Ryan
1488!! 10 VIC Matheson, Laurence
1460!! 10 NSW Lau, Joshua
1428!! 11 VIC Liu, Nicholas
1419!! 10 TAS Horton, Vincent
1354!! 8 NSW Koh, Cedric
1309!! 11 ACT Li, James
1270! 10 NSW Perera, Pasan
1269! 10 ACT Zhang, Taiyang
1252!! 11 VIC Feng, Thomas
1213! 11 NSW Wan, Kinto
1206!! 9 VIC Ng, Isaac
1193! 9 VIC Tan, Justin
1188! 11 ACT McCook, Jake

Bill Gletsos
01-09-2007, 01:13 AM
Top Under 10
1510!! 9 QLD Liu, Yi
1505!! 9 NSW Wang, Oscar
1500! 9 WA Sam, Ryan
1354!! 8 NSW Koh, Cedric
1206!! 9 VIC Ng, Isaac
1193! 9 VIC Tan, Justin
1172! 7 NSW Gu, Sean
1112! 9 NSW Chen, Peng Yu
1095!! 9 VIC Gurevich, Andrew
1071! 9 SA Bortsova, Natasha

Bill Gletsos
01-09-2007, 01:14 AM
Top Females Under 20
1915!! 14 NSW Song, Angela [WFM]
1748!! 17 QLD Jule, Alexandra
1668!! 17 NSW Harris, Rebecca
1594! 11 ACT Guo, Emma
1588!! 12 VIC Yu, Sally
1588!! 15 QLD Kinder, Jessica
1496! 17 NSW Reid, Vaness
1480!! 15 ACT Oliver, Tamzin L
1414!! 13 SA Eustace, Sophie
1307! 13 ACT Russell, Luthien
1299!! 15 ACT Chibnall, Alana
1256!! 17 VIC Anton, Sarah
1155!! 10 ACT Setiabudi, Megan
1098! 10 QLD Kanagarajah, Abbie
1071! 9 SA Bortsova, Natasha
992! 13 TAS Horton, Nina
924! 12 SA Knapp, Katrina
907!! 12 QLD Kinder, Danielle
856!! 9 NSW Koh, Clarise
789! 10 QLD Simmonds, Leteisha

Bill Gletsos
01-09-2007, 01:15 AM
Top Seniors
2216!! 60 VIC Rujevic, Mirko [IM]
2179!! 69 NSW Flatow, A (Fred) [FM]
2166! 60 NSW Vojvodic, Branislev
2154!! 65 VIC Hamilton, Douglas G [FM]
2106!! 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
1950!! 66 WA Ellis, David
1917! 64 SA Mdinaradze, Edgar
1902! 70 NSW Hutchings, Frank P
1898! 72 NSW Jens, Henk W
1891!! 68 NSW Benson, Lachlan
1883!! 78 WA Leonhardt, Wolfgang
1883! 60 NSW Chen, Yu-Shiun
1878!! 67 NSW Tulevski, Vasil G
1868!! 62 QLD Lovejoy, David

Bill Gletsos
01-09-2007, 01:16 AM
Top Improvers
789 254 QLD Simmonds, Leteisha
1158 246 SA Searle, Zachary
927 195 QLD Peck, Robbie
1972 170 WA Choong, Yita
1266 169 WA Yeung, Evan
987 166 NSW Shan, Caroline
788 148 VIC Ng, Joshua
1093 148 QLD Wu, Kantley
1709 147 VIC Cameron, James
1605 145 NSW Papantoniou, John
1374 137 QLD O'Flynn, Alexander
1505 129 NSW Wang, Oscar
1354 129 NSW Koh, Cedric
1095 126 VIC Gurevich, Andrew
1301 115 TAS Kuzmic, Dylan
838 107 VIC Muthusamy, Jayan
1170 106 ACT Redpath, Nicholas
1392 104 WA Boni, Christopher
1397 102 TAS Hendrey, Kevin
1902 101 NSW Norman, Brendon
2013 101 WA Donaldson, Thomas
1455 100 NSW Ryan, Mark
1379 96 QLD Pedersen-Lee, Lachlan
1642 92 QLD Chelebichanin, Nenad
787 90 ACT Spooner, Andrew
1575 90 VIC Potter, Michael
1598 90 QLD Fotinos, Charles
616 89 ACT Walker, Joshua
722 89 QLD Jack, Martin
1568 88 VIC Brotheridge, Jamie

Bill Gletsos
01-09-2007, 01:16 AM
Busiest Players
1256 53 VIC Anton, Sarah
1852 44 VIC Voon, Richard
1667 44 VIC Chmiel, Rad
1888 43 VIC Schon, Eugene
686 43 VIC Yuan, Daniel
1788 43 ACT Ali, Mosaddeque
2139 42 VIC Dragicevic, Domagoj
1842 41 NSW Huynh, Arthur
1210 41 QLD Cigelj, David
2142 40 VIC Stojic, Dusan
1700 40 VIC Escribano, Jose
1748 40 QLD Jule, Alexandra
1507 38 VIC Hopkins, Rhys
1918 37 VIC Dizdarevic, Mehmedalija
2119 35 VIC Pyke, Malcolm L
2202 35 VIC Wallis, Christopher
1675 35 VIC Tionko, Efrain
1308 35 VIC Podbury, Brendan
1155 34 ACT Setiabudi, Megan
1814 34 VIC Mijatovic, Bosko
1588 34 VIC Yu, Sally
1193 34 VIC Tan, Justin
1505 33 NSW Wang, Oscar
1850 33 VIC Yu, Derek
709 33 VIC Huang, Dominic
1354 32 NSW Koh, Cedric
1699 32 VIC Szuveges, Narelle S
1206 32 VIC Ng, Isaac
788 32 VIC Ng, Joshua
511 32 VIC Yuan, David
1761 32 VIC Chung, Francisco
1870 32 QLD Nakauchi, Gene
1798 31 ACT Grcic, Milan
1299 31 ACT Chibnall, Alana
1414 31 SA Eustace, Sophie
1428 31 VIC Liu, Nicholas
1676 31 QLD Grigg, Sam
1947 30 ACT Brown, Andrew
1670 30 ACT Setiabudi, Allen
1093 30 ACT Bishop, Joshua
1784 30 SA Zulfic, Fedja
1689 30 VIC Lawson, Shane
1095 30 VIC Gurevich, Andrew
1466 30 QLD Buciu, Aurel-John
1677 30 QLD Muller, Jonas

Bill Gletsos
01-09-2007, 01:17 AM
Category Players Percentage
2600..2699 1 0.04
2500..2599 1 0.08
2400..2499 7 0.38
2300..2399 11 0.83
2200..2299 22 1.75
2100..2199 45 3.63
2000..2099 74 6.72
1900..1999 68 9.56
1800..1899 133 15.11
1700..1799 179 22.58
1600..1699 219 31.72
1500..1599 229 41.28
1400..1499 245 51.50
1300..1399 208 60.18
1200..1299 180 67.70
1100..1199 141 73.58
1000..1099 102 77.84
900.. 999 107 82.30
800.. 899 84 85.81
700.. 799 75 88.94
600.. 699 66 91.69
500.. 599 49 93.74
400.. 499 63 96.37
300.. 399 37 97.91
200.. 299 28 99.08
100.. 199 22 100.00

Bill Gletsos
01-09-2007, 01:19 AM
Normal Tournaments Rated
ACT
12/07/2007 43 9 2007 ACT Junior Championships
17/06/2007 15 7 2007 ACT Women and Girls' Championship
29/07/2007 37 7 2007 ANU Minor
29/07/2007 26 7 2007 ANU Open
01/08/2007 12 6 2007 ANU Winter Swiss
06/08/2007 18 7 2007 Brindabella Snows
29/08/2007 8 7 2007 Cold Comfort Cup
06/07/2007 19 5 2007 Community Centre Cup
01/06/2007 16 5 2007 Swanson Sprint
NSW
14/07/2007 6 10 2007 Australian Girls Masters
14/07/2007 10 9 2007 Australian Junior Masters
14/07/2007 10 9 2007 Australian Young Masters
11/06/2007 50 7 2007 NSW Open
11/06/2007 57 7 2007 NSW Open - Under 1600
12/06/2007 16 8 2007 Wollongong KO
16/07/2007 12 7 Canterbury Winter Swiss 2007
24/07/2007 13 7 Central Coast District Championship 2007
05/06/2007 14 1 Central Coast Versus the Rest of the Coast
01/06/2007 12 11 Coffs Harbour Chess Club 60 minute 2007
30/07/2007 9 9 Ettalong Autumn 2007
25/06/2007 17 9 Hakoah Cup 2007
05/08/2007 12 6 Hunter Valley Open 2007
04/06/2007 2 3 Manly Grade C 2007 Play-off
16/07/2007 36 9 NSW Grade 2007 Open
24/07/2007 32 10 NSW Grade 2007 Under 1300
01/08/2007 49 10 NSW Grade 2007 Under 1500
01/08/2007 61 9 NSW Grade 2007 Under 1700
24/07/2007 40 10 NSW Grade 2007 Under 1900
13/07/2007 59 10 NSW Junior Championship - Under 12
13/07/2007 34 9 NSW Junior Championship - Under 18
22/07/2007 38 7 NSWCA July Weekender 2007
07/08/2007 2 2 Norths C Division Play-off 2007
07/08/2007 19 7 Wgong 2007 Grading Swiss
QLD
28/06/2007 14 4 2007 BCC Lasker Memorial Division A
28/06/2007 12 4 2007 BCC Lasker Memorial Division B
31/05/2007 27 5 2007 BCC Tal Memorial
26/08/2007 36 6 2007 Bundaberg Weekend Tournament
24/06/2007 33 7 2007 Gold Coast Open
24/06/2007 45 7 2007 Gold Coast Under 1000
24/06/2007 33 7 2007 Gold Coast Under 1600
05/08/2007 7 7 2007 Mackay Open
12/08/2007 18 7 2007 North Queensland Open
09/08/2007 65 12 2007 Qld Interclub
29/06/2007 22 7 2007 Qld Under 18 Championships
11/06/2007 8 7 2007 Queensland Championship
08/07/2007 10 6 2007 Queensland Girls Championship
11/06/2007 21 6 2007 Queensland Reserve Championship
29/05/2007 5 5 2007 Townsville Autumn Round Robin Division A
29/05/2007 5 5 2007 Townsville Autumn Round Robin Division B
10/04/2007 17 5 2007 Townsville Autumn Swiss
31/07/2007 14 7 2007 Townsville Championships
17/06/2007 60 6 Darling Downs Open 2007
18/06/2007 17 7 Gold Coast Junior Masters T2, 2007
18/06/2007 16 7 Gold Coast Junior Masters T2, 2007 B Grade
01/06/2007 13 7 The Gap Chess Club - Flood Cup 2007
13/02/2007 17 5 Townsville Chess Club Summer Swiss
SA
08/07/2007 49 7 Checkmate Under 1600 2007
26/06/2007 45 9 Interclub A 2007
26/06/2007 40 9 Interclub b 2007
08/07/2007 51 7 Lidums Checkmate Open 2007
10/06/2007 20 6 Queen's Birthday 2007
TAS
28/06/2007 14 13 Burnie Chess Club Championships 2007
27/08/2007 15 15 Hobart International Club Champs
11/06/2007 32 6 Tasmanian Open 2007
VIC
12/07/2007 12 11 Ballarat Club Championship
22/06/2007 59 9 Box Hill Club Championship
05/06/2007 22 7 Canterbury Autumn Swiss
28/08/2007 10 9 Canterbury FIDE Rated Tournament
28/08/2007 6 5 Canterbury Grades Tournament (A Grade)
28/08/2007 10 5 Canterbury Grades Tournament (B Grade)
28/08/2007 9 5 Canterbury Grades Tournament (C Grade)
18/06/2007 38 9 City of Melbourne Open
28/06/2007 14 5 Croydon Morphy Tournament
27/06/2007 42 7 Dandenong Autumn Open
29/08/2007 7 7 Dandenong Grades Tournament (A Grade)
29/08/2007 8 7 Dandenong Grades Tournament (B Grade)
29/08/2007 8 7 Dandenong Grades Tournament (C Grade)
29/08/2007 8 7 Dandenong Grades Tournament (D Grade)
29/08/2007 8 7 Dandenong Grades Tournament (Premier Grade)
22/07/2007 45 5 Geelong Open
05/08/2007 25 5 Hobsons Bay/Yarraville Best in the West
31/07/2007 17 7 Hobsons Bay/Yarraville Cup
25/07/2007 12 11 Latrobe Valley Club Championship
23/08/2007 8 7 Melbourne Under 1600
13/08/2007 17 7 Melbourne Under 2000
28/06/2007 8 7 Mentone Open
11/08/2007 24 9 Noble Park Club Championship
14/06/2007 10 7 Ranges Club Championship
01/07/2007 79 7 Victorian Junior Under 12 Championship
05/07/2007 38 9 Victorian Junior Under 18 Championship
11/06/2007 81 7 Victorian Open
WA
04/06/2007 22 6 2007 Foundation Day
27/07/2007 10 9 2007 Huntingdale Masters
10/07/2007 38 7 2007 Metro Open
13/07/2007 9 9 State Junior Open
13/07/2007 10 9 State Junior U14

Bill Gletsos
01-09-2007, 01:20 AM
Rapid Tournaments Rated
ACT
11/07/2007 13 7 2007 ACT Rapid Championship
24/06/2007 65 9 2007 ACT Under 10 Championship
25/08/2007 86 7 2007 ACT Under 12 Championship
05/08/2007 32 7 2007 ACT Under 8 Championship
29/08/2007 13 6 2007 ANU Other Winter Rapid
12/06/2007 13 6 2007 ANU Winter Rapid
13/06/2007 13 7 2007 CCC Autumn Rapid
19/07/2007 26 7 2007 Canberra Chess Chicks
06/07/2007 27 8 2007 Norths Juniors Term 2 Rapid
20/07/2007 22 9 2007 Souths Juniors Term 2 Rapid
12/05/2007 10 7 Street Chess - 12 May 2007
19/05/2007 14 7 Street Chess - 19 May 2007
05/05/2007 9 7 Street Chess - 5 May 2007
NSW
12/08/2007 56 7 2007 NSW Teams Challenge 2
14/08/2007 45 9 2007 St. George Allegro
13/08/2007 14 9 Canterbury Winter Rapid Play
24/06/2007 33 7 NSW Rapid 2007
09/08/2007 21 11 Parramatta Club Allegro 2007
SA
10/07/2007 17 5 July Allegro 2007
VIC
11/08/2007 28 7 Billanook Junior Under 10 Classic
11/08/2007 26 7 Billanook Junior Under 12 Classic
11/08/2007 19 7 Billanook Junior Under 18 Classic
17/08/2007 76 7 Boroondara Secondary Interschool Championship (Term 3)
26/06/2007 10 5 Canterbury Allegro (June)
05/06/2007 53 7 Canterbury Junior Coaching Group Tournament (Term 2)
12/08/2007 58 7 Canterbury Rookies & Queens Cup (August)
15/07/2007 46 7 Canterbury Rookies & Queens Cup (July)
17/06/2007 74 7 Canterbury Rookies & Queens Cup (June)
12/06/2007 18 7 DHC GWPS Championship (Term 2)
12/06/2007 20 8 DHC GWPS Championship 2 (Term 2)
14/06/2007 10 8 DHC HPS Championship (Term 2)
09/06/2007 59 16 Dark Horse Junior Club Championship (Term 2)
29/06/2007 58 7 Monash Secondary Interschool Championship (Term 2)
21/06/2007 20 7 Ranges Junior Club Championship

Bill Gletsos
01-09-2007, 02:20 AM
Some regular BB posters ratings:

Ian Rogers - 21 2605!!
George Xie - 7 2406!!
Igor Goldenberg - 12 2391!!
Guy West - 20 2328!!
Greg Canfell - 0 2322!!
Leonid Sandler - 12 2319!!
Michael Baron - 0 2309!
drug - 5 2260!!
Comrade Zukovsky - 8 2239!
Jono - 5 2232!
Brett Tindall - 0 2230
Tristan Boyd - 9 2223!!
Ronald Yu - 10 2212!!
D Dragicevic - 42 2139!!
paulb - 22 2122!!
macavity - 35 2119!!
Jason Hu - 29 2118!!
Gareth Charles - 18 2100!!
bobby1972 - 16 2097!!
Lee Jones - 18 2086!
eremita - 10 2053!!
Brian Jones - 14 2044!!
Goughfather - 1 2042!
Chernz - 15 2036!!
Laura Moylan - 7 2017!!
Kerry Stead - 0 2009!
Jason Chan - 7 1999!!
Peter Knight - 14 1982!
rob - 7 1976!!
pballard - 5 1973!
firegoat7 - 0 1971
Kevin Bonham - 20 1960!!
White Elephant - 0 1897
Boris - 5 1874!!
Ian Rout - 14 1867!!
EZbeet - 0 1856
elevatorescapee - 0 1819!
Barry Cox - 15 1807!!
charleschadwick - 12 1782!!
pax - 0 1764?
Shaun Press - 5 1763!
Amiel Rosario - 0 1748!
Belthaser - 0 1728
GeorgeL - 24 1697!!
David Richards - 0 1691
DavidFlude - 27 1679!!
JonasMuller - 30 1677!!
JGB - 0 1626
The_Wise_Man - 7 1611!
Joshua Christensen - 24 1601!!
altecman - 0 1601
PhilD707 - 12 1600!!
frog - 2 1595
Dozy - 7 1584!!
Liberace - 0 1582
Frosty - 5 1567!
skip - 0 1547?
starter - 2 1525!
Howard Duggan - 15 1523!!
antichrist - 0 1515?
santeb72 - 14 1499!
Candy Cane - 0 1496!
bergil - 16 1492!!
Trent Parker - 19 1488!!
Arrogant-One - 8 1488!
Paul Sike - 0 1468!
Careth - 0 1463
Phil Bourke - 7 1462!
heaviestknight - 22 1452!!
bunta - 13 1437!!
Scott Colliver - 12 1394!
themovingman - 15 1385!!
EGOR - 12 1355!!
AES - 0 1354
cameronD - 12 1347!
Kruupy - 20 1327!
alana - 31 1299!!
PHAT - 14 1284!!
qpawn - 0 1275?
Garvin Gray - 22 1266!!
queenant89 - 53 1256!!
watto - 19 1185!
Eurotrash - 14 1178
eclectic - 0 1164!

Desmond
01-09-2007, 09:14 AM
Thanks Bill

EGOR
01-09-2007, 11:06 AM
Bill, don't you concider yourself a regular poster?

Garvinator
01-09-2007, 11:40 AM
Bill, don't you concider yourself a regular poster?
and unless I am mistaken, permanently banned posters arent regular posters anymore and shouldn't be shown :P

EGOR
01-09-2007, 11:51 AM
and unless I am mistaken, permanently banned posters arent regular posters anymore and shouldn't be shown :P
Wow!:eek: Bill's been permanently banned, way cool!:owned:

Bill Gletsos
01-09-2007, 01:38 PM
Bill, don't you concider yourself a regular poster?The bb poster list is put up for the benefit of those posters to see their rating.

I already know my rating, hence I dont need to list it for me to see it. ;)

sonyrobocup
01-09-2007, 02:00 PM
Where is the full list?

EGOR
01-09-2007, 02:05 PM
The bb poster list is put up for the benefit of those posters to see their rating.

I already know my rating, hence I dont need to list it for me to see it. ;)
Yeah, but I want to see it!;)

ER
01-09-2007, 04:09 PM
Thanks Bill, excellent work of the usual high standards and quality!

Spiny Norman
02-09-2007, 08:05 AM
Well my prediction of joining my friends in Slumpsville proved unfounded ... I gained 1 point!

... and before I forget, thanks Bill et al for your hard work on processing/publishing the ratings ... we appreciate it!

Ian Rout
02-09-2007, 09:06 AM
Where is the full list?

They are normally posted here (though at this stage aren't up yet):

http://www.auschess.org.au/ratings/acfrate.htm

For ACT players the ratings are at

http://www.ianandjan.com/ian/ratings/

Some other states also extract and post their own ratings so you could try your state's page.

Zwischenzug
02-09-2007, 07:12 PM
Hello people. I have a quick question about ratings. How many games does it take to get a "!!" by your rating? Still new to tournament chess, so my rating is still low (1222). Depending on how reliable my online rating is, my chess rating should be around 1500.

CameronD
02-09-2007, 07:48 PM
Online ratings are not reliable for the following reasons

1. The time control
2. You choose your opponents (filter) online
3. Rating system numbers aren't transferable as they compare different pool of players
4. I have a 1800 fics and fritz rating, way over a realistic ACF rating for mine.

sonyrobocup
03-09-2007, 12:27 AM
hmm, my ACF rating is actually higher than my online rating. haha

Trent Parker
03-09-2007, 10:39 AM
Well my prediction of joining my friends in Slumpsville proved unfounded ... I gained 1 point!

Well I've paid my visit. dropped 68 points.


... and before I forget, thanks Bill et al for your hard work on processing/publishing the ratings ... we appreciate it!

ditto

Trent Parker
03-09-2007, 10:42 AM
Whoa talk about visiting slumpsville.... what happened to Candy Canes Rating? I know she had a shocking SIO but.......

Kevin Bonham
08-09-2007, 10:16 PM
I see that PhilD707 has published various claims about this rating list and its impact on Burnie players. I shall quote some if requested.

As regular readers would be aware Phil is a serial offender when it comes to alarmist nonsense about the rating system. His December 2006 claims (which he is still boasting about) were debunked here (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=133404&postcount=100)

Phil notes that before and after BCC ratings can be seen in the Robert Isted crosstable, but omits his own. These then are the before and after adult ratings for the Burnie Club Champs players:

"Veterans":

Radosavljevic was 1675 now 1603
Lewis was 1507 now 1415
Ledger was 1503 now 1528
Donnelly was 1693 now 1600
Net result for this group -232 points

Other adults:

C Kuzmic was 1333 now 1315
R Horton was 1311 now 1350
D Kuzmic was 1186 now 1301
Onfray was 679 now 1093 (Note Phil's lack of comment on this remarkable gain which proves that Glicko does not let players be hamstrung by early poor performances.)
Net result for this group +550 points (excluding Onfray +136)

Juniors:
Dyer was 1696 now 1738
Fifield was UNR now 1313
Smith was 1069 now 1176
V Horton was 1421 now 1419
N Horton was 927 now 992
K Hendrey was 1295 now 1397
Net result for this group +314 points

The 12 active players other than Onfray and Fifield have between them gained 218 points. In my view at most seven of these players are improving (C Kuzmic is stable) so the BCC ratings pool has gained at least 31 points per improving player this period; also Onfray has got a massive boost and Fifield has got a good start rating. That 31 points is consistent with an average annual gain of 124 points per improving player.

Taking the four active adults and their outcomes in the last ratings period one by one:

Donnelly: while losing to Kevin Hendrey contributed to Donnelly's ratings loss the major causes were his bad results against the other adults - a draw with Russell Horton and a loss to Dylan Kuzmic, the latter at the time rated over 500 points below him.

Radosavljevic: Radosavljevic's loss of ratings points was caused by him forfeiting against Alastair Dyer and Charlie Smith. Especially the forfeit to Smith was significant. The BCC Champs allowed adjournments and Radosavljevic withdrew after Dyer was permitted to adjourn mid-game while very short of time. Whether this was the real cause of Radosavljevic's withdrawal or whether it had more to do with him blowing a won game we will never know. However the effect was that Radosavljevic's adjourned games in progress against Dyer and Smith were lost. While the organisers ruled these as 1F:0F it is standard practice to rate such games as rated losses, for the extremely obvious reason that if this was not done, players in bad positions could evade ratings point loss by forfeiting in this kind of manner. It has nothing to do with Smith being a junior since the same outcome against an adult of the same rating would have a similar (indeed perhaps a stronger!) effect.

Ledger: gained ratings points in this period.

Lewis: was the only one of the four whose rating dropped where the primary cause of the drop was results obtained OTB by normal methods against juniors. He lost to all of Dyer, K Hendrey, V Horton, and N Horton, drawing with Smith and defeating Fifield. He also drew with Onfray and lost to D Kuzmic, so it seems he wasn't having a good tournament anyway, but perhaps Lewis is one of a number of players in Tasmania whose aggressive style is dangerous against adults (even ones rated 400-500 points higher) but who are not reliable against juniors. As the juniors become strong enough to take advantage of this, the rating system will reduce the ratings of such adults.

Phil claims "Phil, Nigel and Dragan have all dropped in the order of 140 points in less than 2 years." but fails to note that this latest rating period is the bulk of that in all three cases, and is due to exceptional circumstances in the case of Dragan, and primarily due to losses to other adults in the case of Phil.

If Phil believes the ratings of BCC players are deflated then the correct way to show this is through sufficient results against players from elsewhere, adequately controlled for any home/away effects that may exist. This same point was made repeatedly to David Richards during a similar debate.

I am not taking a position on whether any Burnie players are or are not underrated in this post, but I am saying that (i) Phil has again failed to demonstrate that they are and (ii) again, most of the rating losses Phil complains about are clearly attributable to factors other than the system's handling of underrated juniors.

PhilD707
09-09-2007, 10:27 AM
I see that PhilD707 has published various claims about this rating list and its impact on Burnie players... and blah blah blah .

This pile of poppycock has been well and truly busted on the Oz Chess Forum.

Kevin Bonham
09-09-2007, 01:41 PM
This pile of poppycock has been well and truly busted on the Oz Chess Forum.

Oh no it hasn't.

Your claim that I didn't refer to the decline over the past two years is nonsense - I explicitly referred to it and disposed of it where I wrote "Phil claims "Phil, Nigel and Dragan have all dropped in the order of 140 points in less than 2 years." but fails to note that this latest rating period is the bulk of that in all three cases, and is due to exceptional circumstances in the case of Dragan, and primarily due to losses to other adults in the case of Phil." Looks like the reason you exempted yourself from your one-Freddo reward is that you hadn't earned it by reading to the end.

You can't argue that there is an "obvious trend [unnecessary shouting not quoted-KB] of serious loss of points" over the past 2 years when those four players combined lost more points in the last ratings period than in the rest of the two years, for reasons I've discussed above (and indeed considering Sep 2005-Sep 2007 the points loss for Lewis and Donnelly comes almost entirely in the Sep 2007 period).

Furthermore I didn't use Russell Horton and Dylan Kuzmic to argue against the trend - I included them as improving players, and even on that basis concluded that the ratings system, based on the last period, gave the BCC ratings pool the equivalent of 124 ratings points per improving player per year. Actually that is on the assumption that all the "veteran adults" are of stable strength, but all of the four except Lewis are of an age where some decline is to be expected, so really the figure of 124 is conservative. I'm not saying whether such a rate of gain for the improving players is or isn't enough on average, but you have not shown that it isn't, and you don't seem to have even comprehended the concept that your club is gaining ratings points. Under the old ELO system the BCC ratings pool would not be gaining points at all and the juniors' ratings would be rising far more slowly, dragging all the adults down to hundreds of points below their actual strength.

As for "trends" we have been through this before; a sample size of four is not enough to generate a statistical "trend" especially not when the "trend" turns out to be mainly made up of one ratings period in which one member of the sample went against the "trend" and two others followed it for reasons largely unrelated to its claimed cause. Just like David Richards you have absolutely no idea how to assemble a statistically compelling argument but perhaps even he would have been embarrassed to use such pitifully small sample sizes as you do as claims of a general pattern with uniform cause.

And if you expected a "revised" response then you were obviously hopelessly overestimating your own contribution as usual - of course I stand by everything I said above and your response was feeble even by your standards. Hint: try ditching the capitals. :lol:

*sigh* Far too easy.

Kevin Bonham
09-09-2007, 07:44 PM
Hmmm, I see Matthew Sweeney (and I well recall what a glorious flop his idea of ratings "trends" was the one time he tried to put it into practice) has had a go too. He alleges that this statement:


Under the old ELO system the BCC ratings pool would not be gaining points at all and the juniors' ratings would be rising far more slowly, dragging all the adults down to hundreds of points below their actual strength.

...is contradictory, but provides no evidence, which is hardly surprising, since there is none. Juniors would gain hundreds of points under ELO too but would do it far more slowly.

Matt also blathers about the issue of pooling being common knowledge but provides no evidence that Burnie is a real case of ratings-pool deflation; for every case of claimed rating-pool deflation that has proved to be true there have been others that have been inconclusive or nonsense, and in any case the use of different ratings systems and/or modifications of this system mean that conclusions drawn from past cases are not reliable in this case.

Perhaps Phil really doesn't want to publish the ratings on his site because he doesn't want to admit his own has deservedly crashed to 1600 despite the use of the 30-second increment he believed would make him a much stronger player.

Kevin Bonham
09-09-2007, 10:45 PM
Alex has also been in on the act, rather reposting my post under my name as an unregistered user, then acknowledging that he had posted it. Oddly enough, that post vanished when I signed up an account there, which I did for the purposes of permitting people to see that any such further impostures (perhaps less acknowledged than that one) that might occur are not me (some clown believed to be firegoat7 pretended to be me on UCJ). I do not currently intend using the account to post.

An obvious sign of Alex's extreme cluelessness on the issue is that he has referred to a new rating system beginning in 2005 but in fact Glicko began in 2000 and Glicko2 in 2002. Alex's usual response when caught with his pants down on an issue of fact is to edit his post without acknowledgment; however I have kept a copy of the original.

Alex asks whether anyone apart from myself and Bill disagrees that juniors are underrated. Any perusal of old debates in this section will see that it was far from just Bill and I defending the system against David Richards' nonsense - and the system has since had further refinements that should make its handling of improving juniors even more dynamic.

Alex hypothesises that Phil's rating has gone down because of losing to underrated juniors but ignores that I have already explained where Phil's points loss in the Sep 07 period came from.

Alex then goes off with some strange load of unsubstantiated babble which suggests I am trying to compare the different groups I have highlighted above. He completely misses the points of the breakdown which are firstly to inform the discussion and secondly to demonstrate that there has been net points gain to the pool as a whole during this period.

There's more, but the lack of evidence (or at times relevant) in Alex's comments means it isn't worth the bother.

Once again (because some people really are soooooo thick that it needs to be repeated ad infinitum) I am certainly not saying there are no underrated juniors - and nor did I say so with regards David Richards' claims. What I am saying is that Donnelly, just like Richards, cannot make a convincing case.

Basil
10-09-2007, 01:52 AM
Alex has also been in on the act, rather reposting my post under my name as an unregistered user...
Which leads to me ask (again) how the freedom fighters can become so incensed over so many insignificant (and largely false) beat-ups, yet apparently not turn a hair at such behaviour. 'Hypocritical' doesn't begin to describe them, however I have many adjectives that do.

None of them worth my breath; poor saps.

Vlad
10-09-2007, 09:57 AM
Once again (because some people really are soooooo thick that it needs to be repeated ad infinitum) I am certainly not saying there are no underrated juniors - and nor did I say so with regards David Richards' claims. What I am saying is that Donnelly, just like Richards, cannot make a convincing case.

I have to admit I do not know the details of the current case but in the past I have got a very strong belief that nobody can make Kevin convinced of anything. He just takes a particular position and then defends it. For him it is a debating game rather than search for the actual truth.

It goes pretty much like this.

Axiom #1 : The set of convincing cases is empty.
Axiom #2 : If the set of convincing cases is non-empty please refer to the Axiom #1.

Basil
10-09-2007, 11:24 AM
One Axiom is more than enough. Please refrain from suggesting otherwise this side of midday in the future! ;)

As for the meat and potatoes of what you say, I disagree on three fronts.
i) Perhaps your sample pool (discussions with Kevin which require (in your mind) a change of heart from him is too small to make the judgement. I'd be interested in a list if you disagree.
ii) I have found KB to be intransigent in the past (but only to a similar degree that others are, say me or you). For instance, if my next point changes your mind, will you acknowledge it? ;)
iii) There have been instances that I can recall where Kevin has changed his mind or modified his position; and this final point seems to defeat your assertion.

Southpaw Jim
10-09-2007, 12:42 PM
iii) There have been instances that I can recall where Kevin has changed his mind or modified his position; and this final point seems to defeat your assertion.

I have similar recollections (but don't ask me when/what).

Kevin Bonham
10-09-2007, 06:56 PM
Which leads to me ask (again) how the freedom fighters can become so incensed over so many insignificant (and largely false) beat-ups, yet apparently not turn a hair at such behaviour. 'Hypocritical' doesn't begin to describe them, however I have many adjectives that do.

I'm not sure his behaviour was all that bad given that he did immediately admit to posting it without any prompting from anyone else. However a better way to do it would have been to simply make a post quoting my post, rather than reproduce it under my name and then acknowledge.


I have to admit I do not know the details of the current case but in the past I have got a very strong belief that nobody can make Kevin convinced of anything.

Well, your very strong belief is incorrect! To disprove your claim by a single counterexample (although there are many more), a poster on this site convinced me that it is better to have an odd number of rounds for a Swiss than an even number, whereas I had previously believed the reverse.

Put your own personal bias on the underrated junior issue aside and look at the contributions (?) by Phil (and previously David) in a neutral and rigorous fashion and you will see that even if you agree with what they are claiming (as you may well do), they have nonetheless failed to prove their case.

PhilD707
10-09-2007, 07:12 PM
I have to admit I do not know the details of the current case but in the past I have got a very strong belief that nobody can make Kevin convinced of anything. He just takes a particular position and then defends it. For him it is a debating game rather than search for the actual truth.

It goes pretty much like this.

Axiom #1 : The set of convincing cases is empty.
Axiom #2 : If the set of convincing cases is non-empty please refer to the Axiom #1.


In this pit of human excrement a small miracle has occurred.
A little pearl of wisdom shines with the brightness that only the self-evident truth can.
Well done mate.
You have restored my confidence in human nature.

Basil
10-09-2007, 07:17 PM
I'm not sure his behaviour was all that bad given that he did immediately admit to posting it without any prompting from anyone else.
It appears I have misunderstood what occurred. Apologies to Alex and others captured by my erroneous belief and subsequent posting.

Kevin Bonham
10-09-2007, 10:58 PM
You have restored my confidence in human nature.[/SIZE]

What, that there's a sucker born for your trolling every minute? :hand:

Sucking up to someone whose point has been objectively demolished by the facts is not going to get you anywhere.

Kevin Bonham
10-09-2007, 11:54 PM
I don't know who blank frank is (their arguments are very similar to those peddled by David Richards a few years ago) but obviously they are not aware of the elements already present in the system, including reliability and volatility figures, and use of interim ratings.

blank frank is also clearly not aware that the ACF rating system does now (a recent change) specifically track known juniors and there are now differences in the way the ratings of juniors are treated.

Phil is continuing to push his ridiculous proposal that while players are improving their results should not affect the ratings of others. I already demolished this on 4 Dec 2006 when I wrote:

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.

Phil again ignores the fact that a large contributor to Radosavljevic's ratings loss in the last period was Radosavljevic's withdrawal from a tournament causing him to forfeit an adjourned game against a junior rated way below him.

Various posters refer to the four adults as if they are a stable bunch of players but since three of them are at the age where some decline in strength is to be expected such an assumption is unreliable.

If we are to believe that Lewis is currently playing 1500 strength chess against the juniors and that he is only losing points to the juniors because they are way underrated, then that means that the six juniors who played him played 1700 strength chess against him. Yet, as impressive as all of the juniors who played him in the BCC champs are, ignoring their ratings we can still say that only one of them exceeds 1700 strength, two others might be (debatably) approaching it and the other three are still far below that level - at least based on results up to and including the last ratings period. I prefer my theory above that Lewis is one of many players in Tasmania who is dangerous against strong opposition (don't I know it, with two losses from five games against him!) but inconsistent against lower rated players. Only for many years at the BCC there have hardly been any much lower rated players for him to lose ratings points to. (Milutin Ivkovic and Graham Richards are two other examples of the same thing.)

Matt also falsely suggests I am arguing the changes are entirely due to other factors. What I am actually arguing is that the changes are due in significant part to other factors that Phil is failing to acknowledge, and that he is also failing to prove anything about the causes of the changes. There may or may not be an improving-player-induced deflation issue at Burnie - I'd just like to see better evidence for it than Phil's weak efforts.

eclectic
11-09-2007, 02:10 AM
It appears I have misunderstood what occurred. Apologies to Alex and others captured by my erroneous belief and subsequent posting.

rumours concerning a corresponding retraction elsewhere are sure to come dribbling through

come to think of it it's a wonder that site hasn't been shut down or has it been turned into some kind of sulking room in which one can keep score by notching up accumulated petty grievances?

:hand:

Basil
11-09-2007, 09:48 AM
a sulking room

:lol:

Vlad
11-09-2007, 12:13 PM
I don't know who blank frank is (their arguments are very similar to those peddled by David Richards a few years ago) but obviously they are not aware of the elements already present in the system, including reliability and volatility figures, and use of interim ratings.

blank frank is also clearly not aware that the ACF rating system does now (a recent change) specifically track known juniors and there are now differences in the way the ratings of juniors are treated.

Phil is continuing to push his ridiculous proposal that while players are improving their results should not affect the ratings of others. I already demolished this on 4 Dec 2006 when I wrote:

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.

Phil again ignores the fact that a large contributor to Radosavljevic's ratings loss in the last period was Radosavljevic's withdrawal from a tournament causing him to forfeit an adjourned game against a junior rated way below him.

Various posters refer to the four adults as if they are a stable bunch of players but since three of them are at the age where some decline in strength is to be expected such an assumption is unreliable.

If we are to believe that Lewis is currently playing 1500 strength chess against the juniors and that he is only losing points to the juniors because they are way underrated, then that means that the six juniors who played him played 1700 strength chess against him. Yet, as impressive as all of the juniors who played him in the BCC champs are, ignoring their ratings we can still say that only one of them exceeds 1700 strength, two others might be (debatably) approaching it and the other three are still far below that level - at least based on results up to and including the last ratings period. I prefer my theory above that Lewis is one of many players in Tasmania who is dangerous against strong opposition (don't I know it, with two losses from five games against him!) but inconsistent against lower rated players. Only for many years at the BCC there have hardly been any much lower rated players for him to lose ratings points to. (Milutin Ivkovic and Graham Richards are two other examples of the same thing.)

Matt also falsely suggests I am arguing the changes are entirely due to other factors. What I am actually arguing is that the changes are due in significant part to other factors that Phil is failing to acknowledge, and that he is also failing to prove anything about the causes of the changes. There may or may not be an improving-player-induced deflation issue at Burnie - I'd just like to see better evidence for it than Phil's weak efforts.

It is quite possible that you have changed and my strong belief is wrong. I have to admit that the things you talk about in the above post seem to be reasonable to me.
Why did I think that you can not be persuaded of anything? I can give you a couple of examples.

First, I remember we talked about whether the current rating system experiences any deflation and you were saying that there is no proof for it. The fact that in the last 5 years we had at least 3 uplifts in the rating is a proof. One really does not need to go further than that. You can call them differently but from a point of view of the final outcome they are uplifts. I personally do not find any problem with the fact that there is a deflation. I believe it is normal. I also think the current rating system is very good (possibly the best) in handling very heterogeneous pool of players from 100 to 2600 ratings. Certainly, I believe it performs better than ELO. My point is that you do not accept something obvious. I would expect you to say either a) or b).
a) Yes, there have been deflation but we fixed it. (To prove this claim we probably need to live another 5 years without uplifts and no significant changes in the rating pool.)
b) Yes, there is a deflation and there is nothing wrong with it because at the end of the day it is relative ranking.
Instead you were saying that there have been no deflation.

Second, I still strongly believe that the ranking for ratings below 1000 does not really make much sense. The reason is that the majority of players are above 1000. As a result if you say have a real strength around 800-900 you could easily never cross the 300 line. In one of the posts you were saying (I guess talking about Anton) that some players have online ratings more than 1000 points above their OTB ratings. I believe the only reason why it could happen is because the OTB rating is a very bad estimator of a particular player strength. Again, there is nothing wrong with it. The majority of players are above 1000 anyway. If you just admitted the problem it would be fine. It is quite possible the problem does not have a solution or too time-consuming to deal with. Instead you claim that everything works perfectly.

Garvinator
11-09-2007, 12:29 PM
Hello Vlad,

I am sure Bill will have more to say about this, but just to make sure others don't go around commenting without more information.

The 'uplifts' were to try and bring the upper end of the acf ratings more in line with fide ratings, so that players had similar acf and fide rating, so that they were more comparable. It was provided to all players so as to not skew the acf ratings inside the acf rating system.

In this end, it has been reasonably successful.

If my understanding is correct, the uplifts were not to counter act deflation.

Bill Gletsos
11-09-2007, 12:39 PM
Hello Vlad,

I am sure Bill will have more to say about this, but just to make sure others don't go around commenting without more information.

The 'uplifts' were to try and bring the upper end of the acf ratings more in line with fide ratings, so that players had similar acf and fide rating, so that they were more comparable. It was provided to all players so as to not skew the acf ratings inside the acf rating system.

In this end, it has been reasonably successful.

If my understanding is correct, the uplifts were not to counter act deflation.Correct they were to bring the ACF and FIDE pools closer inline at the top end
Also there has only been two uplifts.
The first was in April 2000 and was under the old ACF Elo system.
The second was in April 2004.

Rincewind
11-09-2007, 01:43 PM
The first was in April 2000 and was under the old ACF Elo system.
The second was in April 2004.

Are we due another one in around 7 months time? ;)

Brian_Jones
11-09-2007, 02:37 PM
Are we due another one in around 7 months time? ;)


Yes, I would think we are due for an ACF Rating uplift in April 2008.

Why? Because FIDE ratings are based on typically 90 + 30 time limits whereas
ACF ratings include 60 + 10 games which produce more random results.

So the ACF ratings drift down again for many players. This is to be expected until we develop a system that differientiates between the many different time limits.

Rincewind
11-09-2007, 03:43 PM
Yes, I would think we are due for an ACF Rating uplift in April 2008.

Why? Because FIDE ratings are based on typically 90 + 30 time limits whereas
ACF ratings include 60 + 10 games which produce more random results.

So the ACF ratings drift down again for many players. This is to be expected until we develop a system that differientiates between the many different time limits.

Doesn't random mean that some players will drift up as well?

Aaron Guthrie
11-09-2007, 04:03 PM
Doesn't random mean that some players will drift up as well?Also if a player is drifting down via randomness, some other players will be drifting up (at least relative to what they 'should' be). Which means this ought negate any effect also, as these inflated players will give points back.

edit-maybe this is just what you were saying...

eclectic
11-09-2007, 04:13 PM
So the ACF ratings drift down again for many players. This is to be expected until we develop a system that differientiates between the many different time limits.

why doesn't fide (and consequently other member nations) adjust the system such that a different set of K numbers according to rating levels is used for differently timed tournaments perhaps based on the expected elapsed time for 60 moves?

Brian_Jones
11-09-2007, 04:17 PM
Doesn't random mean that some players will drift up as well?

Yes, but there is a greater movement towards the mean. For example, if the higher rated player should in theory win 8-2 then with faster time limits this can drift towards 7-3, 6-4 and even 5-5!

Think about bullet chess where the chess skill is replaced by hand dexterity and the result can often be 5-5.

Conversely if there was infinite time available then the higher rated player should rarely lose (or at least always win 8-2)?

Also, because FIDE has a higher rating floor than the ACF the drift is less pronounced.

Aaron Guthrie
11-09-2007, 04:26 PM
Yes, but there is a greater movement towards the mean. For example, if the higher rated player should in theory win 8-2 then with faster time limits this can drift towards 7-3, 6-4 and even 5-5!

Think about bullet chess where the chess skill is replaced by hand dexterity and the result can often be 5-5.

Conversely if there was infinite time available then the higher rated player should rarely lose (or at least always win 8-2)?

Also, because FIDE has a higher rating floor than the ACF the drift is less pronounced.Assuming this is true, doesn't this just mean the ACF ratings are accurate for the games that they are rating?

Brian_Jones
11-09-2007, 04:48 PM
Assuming this is true, doesn't this just mean the ACF ratings are accurate for the games that they are rating?

Yes, I am not disputing that! :)

Vlad
11-09-2007, 04:53 PM
Yes, but there is a greater movement towards the mean. For example, if the higher rated player should in theory win 8-2 then with faster time limits this can drift towards 7-3, 6-4 and even 5-5!


It could drift the other way as well. Say, my rating is about 200 points higher than yours. I am expected to score about 7 out of 10 against you in a normal game. If we will play a match with 3 minutes each (or even less), I will most likely score at least 9 out of 10. As you can see it does not drift to the middle. It just showing that you are not comfortable with quicker time controls. It has nothing to do with deflation.

CameronD
11-09-2007, 05:31 PM
In my own experience, the longer the time control, the more likely I can create an upset as I'm given time to compute and not make errors. I'm absolutely useless at chess at time controls under an hour and dont play it (disregard my allegro rating, its why overrated from 1 tournament). My favorite time controls that I've played is 80+60 and I'll just sit there for as long as it takes.

It depends on a persons style and abilities which there better at, I dont think you can generaly say it floats in either direction, it just depends on whose playing. I think generally, leave the rating system alone for now, if you want to change the K value for different time control, then you should change the percentages based on being black or white (54% white rate.)

Kevin Bonham
11-09-2007, 08:03 PM
It is quite possible that you have changed and my strong belief is wrong.

Actually I have always changed my views on things if presented with sufficiently convincing (not necessarily overwhelming) arguments. The example I used above probably comes from before you started reading my posts on this sort of issue.


Why did I think that you can not be persuaded of anything? I can give you a couple of examples.

From which it seems you incorrectly generalised, and your examples are wrong anyway:


First, I remember we talked about whether the current rating system experiences any deflation and you were saying that there is no proof for it. The fact that in the last 5 years we had at least 3 uplifts in the rating is a proof.

Wrong for many reasons, as has been pointed out before -

The first two "uplifts" were both for parity with the FIDE system, which is (or was) inflating. So they do not prove the ACF system deflated at any point.

As it happens, the first uplift also corrected for a small degree of deflation under the previous ACF system.

The third so-called uplift was not a formal uplift at all, but rather many players gained a small number of points as a result of seven years of ratings being rerun to better handle improving players. The amount of increase for most players (about 1 point per ratings period) was not significant enough to say whether the system was deflated then, or is inflated now - in either case the difference is trivial.


One really does not need to go further than that.

Well, if you're the one, you may not feel the need to go further but other ones may be more interested in the facts than in weak arguments.


a) Yes, there have been deflation but we fixed it. (To prove this claim we probably need to live another 5 years without uplifts and no significant changes in the rating pool.)

And I have said this, but with reference to the pre-Glicko system only.


b) Yes, there is a deflation and there is nothing wrong with it because at the end of the day it is relative ranking.
Instead you were saying that there have been no deflation.

Wrong again! I have never said that there is no deflation; what I have said is that there is no proof that deflation exists. Not at all the same thing.


Second, I still strongly believe that the ranking for ratings below 1000 does not really make much sense. The reason is that the majority of players are above 1000. As a result if you say have a real strength around 800-900 you could easily never cross the 300 line.

By the same token one could argue that the rankings for ratings above 2000 do not make sense because the majority of players are below 2000, and as a result if you have a real strength of 2000 but performed at 2600 in your first tournament you would have a grandmaster rating for life!

Only if there was a pool of 800-strength players who were rated 300 and these players mainly played just against each other would the players struggle to break out of the 300s. (This sort of thing probably did happen to a degree in the very deflated ACT junior pool that developed under ELO). An 800-900 strength player rated 300 who plays in adult tournaments against a bunch of 1200s will see their rating jump by hundreds of points within a few dozen games.

A good example of how a 300s player goes up rapidly under Glicko is one of the players from Phil Donnelly's own club, Robert Onfray. Onfray's first rating was in the 300s and two years later he is in four figures.


In one of the posts you were saying (I guess talking about Anton) that some players have online ratings more than 1000 points above their OTB ratings.

Newsflash: It's not all about your son! That post was on the Strategic Puzzles thread and what I wrote was:

OK. I'm sure you'd be aware that "online ratings" are often 200-300 points overrated and in some very unusual cases up to around 1050 points out.

The "around 1050" was an in-joke because at the time we were asking andytoh questions about his rating and I had found that there was a player called Andy Toh who was rated 1050 points below andytoh's self-claimed strength.

Nonetheless there probably are players whose online ratings are several hundred points out - and not because the OTB rating is a bad estimate but because (a) online ratings on some sites are generally inflated compared to FIDE or ACF (b) there are ways players can manipulate their ratings.


Instead you claim that everything works perfectly.

No I don't. I just claim that those claiming there is a fault have generally not proven their cases.

It's really tedious having to argue points like this, when if I say "X has not yet been proven true", someone interprets it as if I am saying "X is false". They are not at all the same thing, and this is about the hundredth time I have had to spell this basic difference out, and the next person I have to spell it out to can expect to be billed for my time, at the rate of Phil Donnelly's annual salary per hour. :rolleyes:

Igor_Goldenberg
11-09-2007, 09:51 PM
The third so-called uplift was not a formal uplift at all, but rather many players gained a small number of points as a result of seven years of ratings being rerun to better handle improving players. The amount of increase for most players (about 1 point per ratings period) was not significant enough to say whether the system was deflated then, or is inflated now - in either case the difference is trivial.


I played for less then the year at that point and got about 40 points (about 10 times more then 1 point per period). My case could, of course, be an outlier, but I am sure I am not long.

Kevin Bonham
11-09-2007, 10:04 PM
I played for less then the year at that point and got about 40 points (about 10 times more then 1 point per period). My case could, of course, be an outlier, but I am sure I am not long.

The reason for this is probably that since the active players you had been playing against went up by c. 30 points, and since your current rating would have been strongly based on your new games, it's natural that you would also go up something like 30 points, just as someone getting a new rating would get one that was about 30 points higher than if the recalculation had not occurred. There is a fair amount of variation between players as to exactly how many points different people got.

CameronD
11-09-2007, 10:09 PM
I'd bing playing for a year (around 30 rated games) and picked up an additional 64 points from the uplift. Which is 16 per period or 2 per game played. My performane back then was very volitile though. I'd pick up heaps of points at club level (against adults) and donate them back at weekend tournament to juniors mostly.

Note - I'm not complaining about anything!!!!!

Kevin Bonham
11-09-2007, 10:16 PM
I'd bing playing for a year (around 30 rated games) and picked up an additional 64 points from the uplift.

How are you sure it was from the "uplift" - did you play any games in that period?


My performane back then was very volitile though. I'd pick up heaps of points at club level (against adults) and donate them back at weekend tournament to juniors mostly.

That may explain it then. Players who play a lot of juniors (especially fast-improving ones) would have generally picked up more points.

CameronD
11-09-2007, 10:18 PM
I'm sure as I was on the most improved list for that period, so its basic subtraction

1226 - 118 = 1108 (64 above the previous periods rating

Desmond
11-09-2007, 10:19 PM
Or addition, as the case may be.

Vlad
11-09-2007, 11:09 PM
From which it seems you incorrectly generalised, and your examples are wrong anyway:

Wrong for many reasons, as has been pointed out before -

The first two "uplifts" were both for parity with the FIDE system, which is (or was) inflating. So they do not prove the ACF system deflated at any point.

It is funny how you take that position that I did not prove anything. Off course it is always very easy to claim that whatever somebody else is saying is wrong. It is always easier to destroy rather than construct.

What if I adopt your method of arguing? Where is your proof that there was no deflation and the difference between two rating systems comes only because of inflation in the fide ratings? I am personally not sure there is any method to actually give an answer to this question. Consequently, you DID not prove that I was wrong. Consequently, you were wrong.

Most of your arguments are like the one above. You pretend that you know how to use scientific arguments but in reality it is more blah-blah-blah than anything else. I have to admit it looks nice for somebody who does not know the subject.

Take another example – your analysis of the games. From the way it is written my first reaction is that you are a super specialist. I dig a little bit deeper and it becomes obvious you are just talking without understanding.

Kevin Bonham
11-09-2007, 11:57 PM
It is funny how you take that position that I did not prove anything.

No it isn't, because you haven't. You have not gone anywhere near proving that there has been deflation in the Glicko systems with the arguments you have used on this thread.


It is always easier to destroy rather than construct.

Funny that, because what I am trying to destroy (very successfully) is your failed attempt to destroy my position in the debate by painting me as a person who can't be convinced of anything.

If you have a problem with your argument being destroyed you should not have attempted a destructive argument in the first place!


What if I adopt your method of arguing? Where is your proof that there was no deflation and the difference between two rating systems comes only because of inflation in the fide ratings?

The problem with this is that you are assuming that a person in this argument either believes there is deflation or there isn't. My actual position is merely that no convincing evidence of deflation has been presented. There might be some but no-one has shown it to be so.

If I claimed to be certain there was no deflation and argued the way I do then you would be right to ask me where is my proof, but I do not claim that at all. So my methods are entirely appropriate.


I am personally not sure there is any method to actually give an answer to this question. Consequently, you DID not prove that I was wrong. Consequently, you were wrong.

No I wasn't. What was wrong was your claim that the uplifts are proof of deflation. I have demonstrated that the uplifts do not prove deflation. This does not prove deflation does not exist, but it does prove that your claim about the uplifts was wrong.


Most of your arguments are like the one above. You pretend that you know how to use scientific arguments but in reality it is more blah-blah-blah than anything else.

Oh really? How fascinating. I must have been pretending I knew how to use scientific arguments when I got my PhD in science and published (at last count) twenty refereed scientific papers as well, no doubt.

Just you try getting your proof of deflation or anything as weakly argued as it accepted in a peer-reviewed journal and see how you go. I'll be watching and laughing should you try. :lol:


Take another example – your analysis of the games. From the way it is written my first reaction is that you are a super specialist. I dig a little bit deeper and it becomes obvious you are just talking without understanding.

That is an irrelevant example because being able to analyse a chess game and being able to understand what constitutes good scientific debate are not entirely the same thing; chess understanding is very much more specialised, but being a good chessplayer does not mean you necessarily understand science. So if you want to discuss that it might be better done on another thread.

But if you are referring to the case last night, then that was analysis of a complex position in a game I had played only that evening. Even the greatest players won't see everything in coming to provisional verdicts on complex positions under such circumstances (I like Keres' comment that to really annotate a game properly takes a week), and I have refuted lines offered by players much stronger than myself (including GMs) with far more thought.

If you think that my analytical comments on this board generally reflect a lack of chess understanding then please start a new thread giving at least 25 examples.

Frankly I'm finding the level of personal attack in your last post excessive (given the weakness of evidence advanced for your claims), so I'm going to respond in kind (and with just as little evidence) and call it like I see it: I hypothesise that your own views on the ratings issue are hopelessly biased by your concern about your son's rating. I believe this means you cannot discuss the issue neutrally, which is why your arguments are so weak. You would be better off remaining out of it.

Kevin Bonham
12-09-2007, 12:26 AM
Round-up of detritus from the other place:

Phil's claiming that altering ratings based on games with players of unreliable rating is incorrect. In fact what Glicko does is alter them less than if those players were reliably rated. Phil may think that is incorrect but in fact it is predictively effective - probably because approximate information at low weighting is more useful than no information at all.

Phil continues to claim that the ratings of the experienced players at BCC are unreliable but presents no proof. Actually I've shown alternative explanations (to Phil's hypothesis of deflation caused by improving players) for the cause of ratings change for three of the four players; the only one I haven't tried this for is Donnelly. Perhaps he's playing garbage at the moment, or perhaps not. Maybe if he really reckons he's been outgunned by better players who are inexplicably rated way below him, then he should post his games so we can see this demonstrated? Surely that's the ultimate test ... :P

blank frank (who sounds more and more like David Richards with each post; I'd be surprised if it wasn't him) argues that there are problems with juniors only playing juniors. There can be (though I don't necessarily agree with his model of how this might happen) and this is often solved by simply discouraging the rating of junior in-pool events. However that whole issue is not relevant to BCC because at BCC adults and juniors are constantly playing each other, and indeed most Tasmanian junior players play most of their rated games in non-junior events. BCC is nothing like the kind of almost-closed pool scenario blank frank discusses and so his jargon is irrelevant.

Matthew Sweeney claims to have conducted successful trials of an directional prediction system but until he publishes predictions using them in advance of a ratings period no-one should take his claim seriously. Not that I would be surprised if his claim in that case was true, and indeed there are strong reasons why a good ratings system sometimes should undershoot in its predictions - a little conservatism is better than rampantly overshooting for some players even if the latter brings you greater net accuracy. So I just hope Matt doesn't need space in that filing cabinet any time soon. (By the way under Glicko-1 I once noticed that players who made the Top Improver list tended to also go up in the next ratings period, but I didn't then subject this to a confirmatory test, and anyway, I am unsure if it would apply in the current system.)

Vlad
12-09-2007, 12:44 AM
No it isn't, because you haven't. You have not gone anywhere near proving that there has been deflation in the Glicko systems with the arguments you have used on this thread.


As I said originally it is impossible to prove anything to you.



Oh really? How fascinating. I must have been pretending I knew how to use scientific arguments when I got my PhD in science and published (at last count) twenty refereed scientific papers as well, no doubt.


Kevin, it is not hard to publish in crappy journals. I can easily publish 20 papers a year; I just do not see the point. Do you have any publications in respected journals?

I have just checked the web of science. I found about 20 papers by K Bonham, but he seems to live in Canada and he does some medical research. Are you sure it was you?

I also found some articles in Tasmanian local newspapers. Do you count them as well?




Just you try getting your proof of deflation or anything as weakly argued as it accepted in a peer-reviewed journal and see how you go. I'll be watching and laughing should you try. :lol:


You really behave like a kid. Not only you are incapable of doing anything yourselve, you also seem to be extremely harmful for the society. Any initiative could be killed because you think others do not satisfy what you think is required.



That is an irrelevant example because being able to analyse a chess game and being able to understand what constitutes good scientific debate are not entirely the same thing; chess understanding is very much more specialised, but being a good chessplayer does not mean you necessarily understand science. So if you want to discuss that it might be better done on another thread.


It is extremely relevant because it shows that you can only do talking. Very confident talking I have to admit.




Frankly I'm finding the level of personal attack in your last post excessive (given the weakness of evidence advanced for your claims), so I'm going to respond in kind (and with just as little evidence) and call it like I see it: I hypothesise that your own views on the ratings issue are hopelessly biased by your concern about your son's rating. I believe this means you cannot discuss the issue neutrally, which is why your arguments are so weak. You would be better off remaining out of it.

Frankly, that exactly what I feel about your posts. You seem to be threatening me something. You know I am happy to leave this board; especially given that I more and more agree with the comments other people made about the way moderators behave on this forum.

Kevin Bonham
12-09-2007, 01:16 AM
As I said originally it is impossible to prove anything to you.

You said it, but it was false and I (and not only I) disproved it with evidence of a case where I had changed my mind (and there are many others).

It may be impossible for you to prove anything to me in this debate but that is because you are taking an unsound position and defending it very badly.


Kevin, it is not hard to publish in crappy journals. I can easily publish 20 papers a year; I just do not see the point. Do you have any publications in respected journals?

All the papers I mentioned were in independently refereed non-dodgy journals. Most of them low-profile and local, but some of them are international, and a paper on invertebrates in plantations of which I was the lead author (journal name: Forest Ecology and Management) received reprint requests from all over the globe and resulted in me getting speaking invitations from overseas.

(By the way, the total of 20 includes about six where I was not lead author. I was sole or lead author for the rest.)


I also found some articles in Tasmanian local newspapers. Do you count them as well?

I assume you mean my psephelogical articles in www.tasmaniantimes.com. Of course I do not count them, as they are not refereed - although they do relate to another field in which I have sixteen years' experience and may publish papers someday.

If you came across my academic profile which includes them, then that's because the University includes both refereed publications and other output on its profile pages, to emphasise the activity of its staff and (in my case) HRAs in the community.

If you mean The Tasmanian Naturalist, then it is a formally refereed journal.


You really behave like a kid. Not only you are incapable of doing anything yourselve, you also seem to be extremely harmful for the society.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If you insist on stereotyping me, far be from me to disappoint. Therefore I giggle, pull faces and blow bubbles at the above hysterical nonsense.


Any initiative could be killed because you think others do not satisfy what you think is required.

But if I am wrong in that conclusion then people will expose me as wrong and the initiative can proceed. How curious that this virtually never happens!


It is extremely relevant because it shows that you can only do talking. Very confident talking I have to admit.

No, because even if you showed that I could only do talking with respect to chess game analysis then that would prove nothing about my credibility regarding scientific argument. Geniuses in their own field who are clueless in others are not uncommon - Einstein on politics and philosophy, anyone? - but by the way, how often has your analysis been cited by Dvoretsky lately?

[/namedrop]


Frankly, that exactly what I feel about your posts. You seem to be threatening me something.

No threats at all, I am just pointing out that if you continue to be silly you will look increasingly foolish, as people who have obvious biases and manage them poorly often do.


You know I am happy to leave this board; especially given that I more and more agree with the comments other people made about the way moderators behave on this forum.

I'm not sure if you're serious, or just saying that because it's a flamewar and you want to keep fighting dirty with irrelevant material.

But if you are serious and your problem is that you want to make personal attacks but can't cope with me meeting fire with fire, then I (as a poster) could not care less if you leave.

My posts in this thread are made as a poster not as a mod. As a mod I have nothing to do with this thread. If you have a moderation issue with my posts, take it up with a different mod.

Rincewind
12-09-2007, 01:30 AM
If I claimed to be certain there was no deflation and argued the way I do then you would be right to ask me where is my proof, but I do not claim that at all. So my methods are entirely appropriate.

I suspect most national systems have some form of deflation simply caused by most players retiring at higher ratings than they began with. The question is moot since ratings only have a relative significant anyway and so don't measure anything absolutely and secondly non zero sum systems like Glicko which allow new and inactive players to move more quickly without skewing other ratings will probably suffer less than systems (like Elo) without such measures in place.

Vlad
12-09-2007, 09:44 AM
I suspect most national systems have some form of deflation simply caused by most players retiring at higher ratings than they began with. The question is moot since ratings only have a relative significant anyway and so don't measure anything absolutely and secondly non zero sum systems like Glicko which allow new and inactive players to move more quickly without skewing other ratings will probably suffer less than systems (like Elo) without such measures in place.

That is exactly what I would expect from somebody who understands rather than use crap to push through.

EGOR
12-09-2007, 09:46 AM
The first two "uplifts" were both for parity with the FIDE system, which is (or was) inflating. So they do not prove the ACF system deflated at any point.
Can you prove that the FIDE system was inflating at the time of the "uplifts"?:confused:

Vlad
12-09-2007, 10:16 AM
All the papers I mentioned were in independently refereed non-dodgy journals. Most of them low-profile and local, but some of them are international, and a paper on invertebrates in plantations of which I was the lead author (journal name: Forest Ecology and Management) received reprint requests from all over the globe and resulted in me getting speaking invitations from overseas.

(By the way, the total of 20 includes about six where I was not lead author. I was sole or lead author for the rest.)


Kevin, here is another example of you being a master of talking crap. I have just looked up your cv and if I were you I would be a little bit more modest about your academic achievements. I would say something like the following (if I were you).

"I have published a few papers but really most of them are crap because they are in local journals referred mostly by people I personally know. There is really only one paper that is sort of Ok. It is published in a decent journal in my field. It is written with two PROPER academics and UNDER supervision of my advisor. It does not really do much either. In particular, it does not contain any scientific argument. We just do an experiment and then report the results. It would probably be a reasonable honours thesis. My advisor told me to do this and I did. I am good with my hands. I am not very good when it comes to thinking. I can't even describe the results properly except for using trivial statistics and histograms. Nobody taught me simple econometrics techniques."






But if I am wrong in that conclusion then people will expose me as wrong and the initiative can proceed. How curious that this virtually never happens!


It happens all the time. You just use crap to push your way through. The majority of people here do not have PhDs and they find it difficult to argue with you because you are a master of talking.




No, because even if you showed that I could only do talking with respect to chess game analysis then that would prove nothing about my credibility regarding scientific argument. Geniuses in their own field who are clueless in others are not uncommon - Einstein on politics and philosophy, anyone? - but by the way, how often has your analysis been cited by Dvoretsky lately?


Tell me where is your credibility about anything? Chess analysis is just a very good example where I can easily prove my point. The result of a chess game is deterministic. You can’t hide using your sophisticated crap talking techniques.





No threats at all, I am just pointing out that if you continue to be silly you will look increasingly foolish, as people who have obvious biases and manage them poorly often do.

My posts in this thread are made as a poster not as a mod. As a mod I have nothing to do with this thread. If you have a moderation issue with my posts, take it up with a different mod.

Ok, at least in something you are a decent human being.

Vlad
12-09-2007, 10:34 AM
Can you prove that the FIDE system was inflating at the time of the "uplifts"?:confused:

Yes! That is exactly what my point is! He does not prove that there is an inflation. He just destroys my argument by claiming that I do not prove that there is a deflation. Scientifically, to prove either way is quite a tedious exercise. It could easily take a half year of work for a proper trained econometrician. That is why Kevin is safe. Nobody can defeat his argument. But even if somebody does this analysis which is highly unlikely, Kevin will come up with some new argument which will take a proper econometrician 20 years to prove. I call this crap talking techniques, coming from somebody who has a very limited experience of working with data.

pax
12-09-2007, 12:01 PM
Kevin, here is another example of you being a master of talking crap. I have just looked up your cv and if I were you I would be a little bit more modest about your academic achievements. I would say something like the following (if I were you).

"I have published a few papers but really most of them are crap because they are in local journals referred mostly by people I personally know. There is really only one paper that is sort of Ok. It is published in a decent journal in my field. It is written with two PROPER academics and UNDER supervision of my advisor. It does not really do much either. In particular, it does not contain any scientific argument. We just do an experiment and then report the results. It would probably be a reasonable honours thesis. My advisor told me to do this and I did. I am good with my hands. I am not very good when it comes to thinking. I can't even describe the results properly except for using trivial statistics and histograms. Nobody taught me simple econometrics techniques."

Give it a rest, Vlad. You are only making yourself look bad with this sort of crap.

Vlad
12-09-2007, 12:19 PM
Give it a rest, Vlad. You are only making yourself look bad with this sort of crap.

Pax, I understand I sort of going a little bit dirty here. I just do not like people making claims like... "I have published 20 papers in scientific journals, that means I am always right." At least, I am hoping he will not be using that sort of argument again.

I also understand that you do not want to present your opinion on the matter. Unfortunately, playing safe is not one of my merits.

pax
12-09-2007, 02:08 PM
Pax, I understand I sort of going a little bit dirty here. I just do not like people making claims like... "I have published 20 papers in scientific journals, that means I am always right." At least, I am hoping he will not be using that sort of argument again.

He didn't say any such thing. He was merely defending his understanding of scientific principles from your attack:



"You pretend that you know how to use scientific arguments but in reality it is more blah-blah-blah than anything else."

Really, it is quite poor to be so savagely attacking the an academic whose work you don't know, and whose field you don't know.



I also understand that you do not want to present your opinion on the matter. Unfortunately, playing safe is not one of my merits.

On the whole I agree with Kevin on this issue. None of the critics of the rating system have assembled anything like a valid case based on real data. And none of them have proposed any sensible alternative to the current system.

I have myself been critical of Glicko/Glicko2 in the past. It is far from perfect, and it's theoretical basis is not as sound as Professor Glickman makes out. But I have come to the view that it is the best system on offer at the moment, and significantly superior to ELO. Ironically (given the criticisms flying around)it's superiority to ELO is principally in the speed with which it seems to resolve rapidly changing ratings.

Vlad
12-09-2007, 04:17 PM
On the whole I agree with Kevin on this issue. None of the critics of the rating system have assembled anything like a valid case based on real data. And none of them have proposed any sensible alternative to the current system.

I have myself been critical of Glicko/Glicko2 in the past. It is far from perfect, and it's theoretical basis is not as sound as Professor Glickman makes out. But I have come to the view that it is the best system on offer at the moment, and significantly superior to ELO. Ironically (given the criticisms flying around)it's superiority to ELO is principally in the speed with which it seems to resolve rapidly changing ratings.

Come on! Have you read what I was saying or is it the way you play a neutral observer? The second paragraph in your post is exactly my position. The argument we have is not whether Cligko is bad or not. I have said many times now and in the past that it is the best system we currently have. The argument we have whether there is a deflation. Kevin is bluntly claiming that there is no deflation taking position - "please prove if I am wrong." I am saying it is a very poor form.

I possibly was too harsh on him, but I really find it difficult to understand, how come, Kevin, who claims that he is one of the best Australian scientists, does not follow a simple point that there is a deflation. You can kill me but I really do not get it.

Spiny Norman
12-09-2007, 04:20 PM
Really, it is quite poor to be so savagely attacking an academic whose work you don't know, and whose field you don't know.
Anything containing anything remotely resembling an ad hominem belongs over in the Creation vs Evolution arguments ^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h discussions.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, anything to do with ratings is also a religious argument ... such synchronicity!

eclectic
12-09-2007, 04:23 PM
EDIT: Now that I think about it, anything to do with ratings is also a religious argument ... such synchronicity!

don't religious arguments have more to do with rantings ... ? :rolleyes:

Basil
12-09-2007, 04:29 PM
Can I have a go? :lol:

From the outset, I offer that I am a fan of all three of you - so no silly buggers on that issue thanks ;)

Second, I am NOT a ratings guru ... in fact I'm not a guru of any sort :doh: - so no silly buggers on that one thanks ;)

OK. Let's go.


Come on! Have you read what I was saying or is it the way you play a neutral observer?
Foul ball! Jon's comments were perfectly fine.


The second paragraph in your post is exactly my position. The argument we have is not whether Cligko is bad or not. I have said many times now and in the past that it is the best system we currently have.
Yes, we've all got that - and everyone is in agreement.


The argument we have whether there is a deflation. Kevin is bluntly claiming that there is no deflation taking position - "please prove if I am wrong."
Vlad, Kev has been very clear in his position, which is:

KB is not saying that there is no deflation. He is saying that no-one has presented a credible argument that there is. There is a world of difference. This is the very concept that underpins our criminal justice system (for instance).


I possibly was too harsh on him...
Good man. You were, but we love you.


... but I really find it difficult to understand, how come, Kevin, ..., does not follow a simple point that there is a deflation.
Have I helped?


You can kill me ...
Impale the Vlad? :lol:

pax
12-09-2007, 05:49 PM
The argument we have whether there is a deflation. Kevin is bluntly claiming that there is no deflation taking position - "please prove if I am wrong." I am saying it is a very poor form.

Bill has actually done some fairly comprehensive studies to assess whether inflation or deflation is actually taking place. If you ask nicely, I'm sure he will tell you where you can find those results described (somewhere buried in this forum).

As somebody else has already pointed out, the primary importance of the rating system is to assess the relative strength of players. Inflation/deflation over time is only significant if you wish to compare ACF ratings with some other rating system, or if you wish to compare ACF ratings from two different time periods.

Miguel
12-09-2007, 06:35 PM
Vlad,

I think you have misunderstood Kevin. Kevin is not claiming that rating deflation does not exist (argument from ignorance (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#ignorantiam)). He is saying that because Phil is asserting the existence of deflation, then the burden of proof (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html) rests with Phil (*), and that so far insufficient evidence has been presented to support the assertion. Given the lack of convincing evidence to support the existence of deflation, Kevin is assuming it does not exist (and would probably change his opinion if convincing evidence were presented).

(*) I agree that the burden of proof rests with Phil.

(Kevin, please correct me if I have misrepresented your position.)

Kevin Bonham
12-09-2007, 08:17 PM
Thanks pax, Gunner and Miguel; you are all right about what I am saying.


Yes! That is exactly what my point is! He does not prove that there is an inflation.

I do not need to because it isn't even remotely contentious that the FIDE ratings of the top players in the world at any one time have been increasing over the past few decades. Whether this inflation is justified by an increasing standard of play or not can be argued (rather dubiously) but the fact that it has been happening cannot. It is also consistent with what would be theoretically expected given the use of a too-high ratings floor (which has now been changed; I'd like to say "in response to the problem" but most likely the real reason was to make FIDE some money!).


He just destroys my argument by claiming that I do not prove that there is a deflation. Scientifically, to prove either way is quite a tedious exercise. It could easily take a half year of work for a proper trained econometrician. That is why Kevin is safe. Nobody can defeat his argument.

Something like that, though it is not as difficult to find deflation (if it exists) as you claim and indeed tests are regularly carried out by the Ratings Officers which would probably detect general deflation in the Australian ratings pool if such deflation existed.

(The ideal test actually (as proposed by Glickman) is to monitor the movement in ratings of a large number of experienced and active players in the 35-45 year old age group. I'm not sure if the ACF yet has enough DOB data to do that.)

So now you admit that there is no convincing evidence of deflation in this thread (and that your argument was not sufficient to prove deflation exists), you have agreed with me, since that is all I was arguing. So why were you so dismissive of my position in the first place, and why are you complaining about it being impossible to convince me of things when you now agree that I was right?

Also, why an econometrician? Econometrics has nothing in particular to do with it. Anyone with sufficient experience in statistics from just about any field could have a shot at it.

I did hope from the above quote that you were getting the point, but then I found this:


Kevin is bluntly claiming that there is no deflation taking position - "please prove if I am wrong." I am saying it is a very poor form.

Not sure what you mean by "no deflation taking position". What I am saying is that I have not seen any proof of deflation. I am not necessarily saying that there is no deflation, or that deflation cannot be proven, or even that no-one has proved it. I am saying that every attempt I have personally seen to prove or even suggest that there is widespread deflation in Australia has failed, by a very wide margin. Phil's attempts to prove there is deflation in Burnie are also unconvincing (there may or may not be some, but he doesn't go anywhere near proving it) and the same was true for David Richards' claims re parts of Queensland. In that case, the Ratings Officers eventually found there was a local problem and applied remedies, but the cause of the problem was different to what Richards was claiming and Richards' analysis was still wrong.

And then this:


I possibly was too harsh on him, but I really find it difficult to understand, how come, Kevin, who claims that he is one of the best Australian scientists, does not follow a simple point that there is a deflation.

Well, I don't claim that (although I assume you are being sarcastic there). I will follow the "simple point that there is a deflation" if somebody demonstrates that simple point convincingly. If they cannot do that, it can't be simple!


But even if somebody does this analysis which is highly unlikely, Kevin will come up with some new argument which will take a proper econometrician 20 years to prove. I call this crap talking techniques, coming from somebody who has a very limited experience of working with data.

What you call it is irrelevant because subjecting claims to proper scrutiny and proposing possible alternative models is standard scientific debating procedure, as you would know if you actually knew enough about scientific argument instead of attacking my credibility on it while exposing your own ignorance. If the possible alternative models are not plausible then everyone ignores them, but my possible alternative models in the case of the Burnie players are very plausible indeed (and in some cases objectively true simply from examining the data).

Speaking of scientific argument:


I just do not like people making claims like... "I have published 20 papers in scientific journals, that means I am always right." At least, I am hoping he will not be using that sort of argument again.

Well, I did not like you groundlessly and incorrectly attacking my understanding of scientific argument when you wrote (before I did the above!) "You pretend that you know how to use scientific arguments". As it happens I know rather well how to use scientific arguments, which is not surprising given that I am a professional scientist, who is not in any mood at all to take incorrect lessons about what scientific argument is from an economist. Furthermore I have qualifications in philosophy, which helps a lot in the argument side of things.

If you ever groundlessly and incorrectly attack my understanding of scientific argument again, I indeed won't bother using that sort of argument again on you. Instead, I'll just call you a goose! :lol:

Seriously, if you make attacks which reflect on my professional credibility, you must expect me to defend myself and counter-attack yours, and if you don't like that you should not have made those attacks in the first place. This isn't rocket science, and should be comprehensible even to an economist. ;)

(Apologies to any other economists on board for the gratuitous economist-bashing, which is not entirely sincere, but yet, too good to miss!)

Southpaw Jim
12-09-2007, 10:16 PM
Apologies to any other economists on board for the gratuitous economist-bashing, which is not entirely sincere, but yet, too good to miss!)

I should think so!!:hand: :)

Spiny Norman
13-09-2007, 11:23 AM
don't religious arguments have more to do with rantings ... ? :rolleyes:
:clap: :clap: :clap:

EGOR
14-09-2007, 11:09 AM
I do not need to because it isn't even remotely contentious that the FIDE ratings of the top players in the world at any one time have been increasing over the past few decades.
Yes, I can see that the top players ratings have been going up, but what about FIDE ratings in general?
An increase in very top elite players does not automatically mean an inflation in the ratings of the whole group. So, is there clear evidence of an overall inflation in the FIDE ratings, which would show that the ACF "uplifts" were a response to that, rather then deflation within it's own system?:D

Kevin Bonham
14-09-2007, 01:42 PM
Yes, I can see that the top players ratings have been going up, but what about FIDE ratings in general?
An increase in very top elite players does not automatically mean an inflation in the ratings of the whole group. So, is there clear evidence of an overall inflation in the FIDE ratings, which would show that the ACF "uplifts" were a response to that, rather then deflation within it's own system?:D

It's not an either-or. I was inaccurate when I referred to the ACF uplift as a response to "inflation" in the FIDE system, because the main issue causing a lack of parity was the former 2000 ratings floor. Strictly speaking it wasn't so much that ACF players' FIDE ratings were inflating (although this was probably happening as well), but that they (especially at the lower end of the scale) were starting with FIDE ratings very much higher than their ACF ratings. Because players could not get FIDE ratings until they had performed at 2000, players of around 1700-1800 strength would be FIDE-unrated until they had a strong performance or two, and then they would suddenly jump onto the list at over 2000. It was easy to see that it was the FIDE floors that were the issue because the FIDE-ACF difference was very much greater for the weaker players with ratings in both systems than for the stronger.

I just had a look to see whether there was inflation for active middle-aged players in the FIDE system over the years since 2000 and while I haven't collected anywhere near enough data for a definitive verdict it doesn't appear to be happening in this time period, at least not significantly. But this is not surprising given (a) the ratings floors were dropped during this time (b) because of the ratings floors being dropped, many more juniors are coming onto the FIDE list, and because FIDE uses ELO which is zero sum (and a relatively slow version of ELO at that) it is highly likely they are countering any inflationary effect. Indeed FIDE could soon wind up with deflation problems (ironically) as a result of lowering its ratings floors.

EGOR
14-09-2007, 01:54 PM
It's not an either-or. I was inaccurate when I referred to the ACF uplift as a response to "inflation" in the FIDE system, because the main issue causing a lack of parity was the former 2000 ratings floor. Strictly speaking it wasn't so much that ACF players' FIDE ratings were inflating (although this was probably happening as well), but that they (especially at the lower end of the scale) were starting with FIDE ratings very much higher than their ACF ratings. Because players could not get FIDE ratings until they had performed at 2000, players of around 1700-1800 strength would be FIDE-unrated until they had a strong performance or two, and then they would suddenly jump onto the list at over 2000. It was easy to see that it was the FIDE floors that were the issue because the FIDE-ACF difference was very much greater for the weaker players with ratings in both systems than for the stronger.

I just had a look to see whether there was inflation for active middle-aged players in the FIDE system over the years since 2000 and while I haven't collected anywhere near enough data for a definitive verdict it doesn't appear to be happening in this time period, at least not significantly. But this is not surprising given (a) the ratings floors were dropped during this time (b) because of the ratings floors being dropped, many more juniors are coming onto the FIDE list, and because FIDE uses ELO which is zero sum (and a relatively slow version of ELO at that) it is highly likely they are countering any inflationary effect. Indeed FIDE could soon wind up with deflation problems (ironically) as a result of lowering its ratings floors.
Thank you, that explained things nicely.:)

Bill Gletsos
14-09-2007, 03:03 PM
The following is from my comments when I released the March 2004 ACF ratings which incorporated the 70 point uplift.

Last year the ACF Council passed the following motion :"That the ACF Rating Officers are authorised to adjust the ACF ratings as they see fit to try and bring the ACF ratings more in line with the FIDE ratings. This correction to take place where determined necessary prior to or at the same time as the publication of the first ACF rating list for each calendar year."

In line with this all players December ratings were increased by 70 points prior to the calculation of the ratings for the March 2004 period.

Now someone is surely going to suggest that players lost most of the the 150 points that were added to virtually all players Dec 1999 ratings just prior to the April 2000 list. That however is not the case.

There are currently 212 FIDE rated players who have played games in the ACF System since the Dec 1999 rating period. The average ACF rating of these 212 players back in Dec 1999 after the 150 points was added was 1976.038. The average rating for this same group of 212 players in December 2003 is 1975.775. A difference of only 0.283. Therefore this indicates that there is no loss of 150 points but simply a redistribution of the points amongst the players, a situation that is to be expected.

Given the influx of many more Australians to the FIDE list over this 4 year period this has lead to an effective inflation trend in the FIDE ratings of Australian players especially those players below FM strength. It is from here that the 70 points is coming.

firegoat7
14-09-2007, 10:18 PM
N.S.W players still have inflated ratings!!

cheers fg7

Rhubarb
15-09-2007, 01:16 AM
N.S.W players still have inflated ratings!!

cheers fg7The last few times I've been to Melbourne I've gained rating points. On the basis of my personal experience, I therefore pronounce all Victorians overrated, especially that incredible dumbarse Beaumont.

Rincewind
15-09-2007, 01:44 AM
The last few times I've been to Melbourne I've gained rating points. On the basis of my personal experience, I therefore pronounce all Victorians overrated, especially that incredible dumbarse Beaumont.

Do you hold out much hope of playing in another Victorian Masters event?

Vlad
15-09-2007, 09:26 AM
Bill has actually done some fairly comprehensive studies to assess whether inflation or deflation is actually taking place. If you ask nicely, I'm sure he will tell you where you can find those results described (somewhere buried in this forum).

As somebody else has already pointed out, the primary importance of the rating system is to assess the relative strength of players. Inflation/deflation over time is only significant if you wish to compare ACF ratings with some other rating system, or if you wish to compare ACF ratings from two different time periods.

I have talked to Bill about that. He did some estimations but for a relatively small group (only people who have both ACF and FIDE ratings). One probably wants to make a little bit more comprehensive analysis than that. Deflation is obviously coming from the bottom and looking only at the top does not say much. One of the things Kevin is correctly saying, it could also be a good idea to look at the 35-45 year old group or some other stable group (of course if there is enough data).

I have politely asked Bill if I could get the data to do an independent analysis but he has not come back yet. Out of the top 20 chess players at least half are quite unhappy about the current rating system. Some of them so badly that can not even talk normally about the issue. (I do not count myself, I am obviously a supporter.) I am probably the only one out of the top Australian players who have all the knowledge and skills. Bill and Kevin, could you please give me all available data? I will return you all my results before posting them here.

Vlad
15-09-2007, 09:28 AM
The last few times I've been to Melbourne I've gained rating points. On the basis of my personal experience, I therefore pronounce all Victorians overrated, especially that incredible dumbarse Beaumont.

Last year me and George came back from Melbourne at least 20 ratings points higher rated each.

CameronD
15-09-2007, 09:58 AM
Last year me and George came back from Melbourne at least 20 ratings points higher rated each.

Due to the affects of pooling, you cant really compare ACF ratings of different regions within Australia. In many situations you cant evan make a comparison with local clubs where the members only play at club level and not weekend tournaments.

At the club I attend, I'm generaly the only one who plays in the occasional (3 a year) weekend tournament and so the ratings of the members at the club are pointless for comparison to any other local clubs and is really just a club rating system.

There's no answer for the ACF to solve this problem, its just the chess environment of today.

Kevin Bonham
15-09-2007, 10:08 PM
Out of the top 20 chess players at least half are quite unhappy about the current rating system. Some of them so badly that can not even talk normally about the issue.

I recall complaints by Rogers and others at a certain time when ratings at the top of the ratings pool were definitely on the slide quite soon after Glicko was started, but a correction was applied to make ratings at the top of the pool less dynamic. Don't recall the ACF receiving any complaints from top players since then.


Bill and Kevin, could you please give me all available data? I will return you all my results before posting them here.

I don't personally have any data beyond what is publicly available.

Bill Gletsos
17-09-2007, 08:29 PM
Updated rating reports have been sent to the ACF Webmaster and all State Rating Officers.

They include two extra tournaments, the Mackay Open and the St. George Allegro.

The initial posts at the start of this thread have been updated to reflect the changes.

Rhubarb
26-09-2007, 11:53 AM
Last year me and George came back from Melbourne at least 20 ratings points higher rated each.Yeah, whatever. I don't really believe Victorians are underrated or overrated, but my post at least had the effect of shutting up the offensive stupidgoat.

Out of the top 20 chess players at least half are quite unhappy about the current rating system. Some of them so badly that can not even talk normally about the issue.I don't recall you asking me, so I'll just assume this is hyperbolic bullshit.

EDIT: My experience of the top players, generally speaking, is that they know a lot more than the average player when it comes to arbiting and rating issues, but know a lot less than the better arbiters and ratings officers.

Kevin Bonham
23-02-2008, 10:47 PM
From an old debate with drug on this thread:


I do not need to because it isn't even remotely contentious that the FIDE ratings of the top players in the world at any one time have been increasing over the past few decades. Whether this inflation is justified by an increasing standard of play or not can be argued (rather dubiously) but the fact that it has been happening cannot.

This page (http://members.shaw.ca/redwards1/) shows a very interesting graph concerning FIDE inflation:

http://members.shaw.ca/redwards1/Elo.Rectification.gif

What the above shows is the ELO rating average of the players rated 11-50 in the world (the black dots.) It is flat between 1970 and 1985 and then shoots up rapidly. As the author notes:


The sharp onset of the rating increase would also seem to be strong evidence against the idea that play is simply improving gradually over the years and that the increases are real.

The author speculates that the change from 1985 is a result of some change to rating calculation methods at that time, but does not know of any specific change occurring then. Does anyone know?

Duff McKagan
12-04-2008, 04:45 PM
Great page this. FIDE should adjust for inflation.

Vlad
13-04-2008, 12:54 AM
Great page this. FIDE should adjust for inflation.

I did not really want to comment, but given that people notice this picture, well I probably should. Even though the picture looks great, it proves very little. The reasons are as follows.
a) In the article sited there is no mentioning about the dynamics of the total number of chess players who have ratings over the period from 1970 to 2006. I would expect the number of players with ratings to go up. Now let us say that each chess player’s rating is a realization from some fixed distribution. What happens to the average used by the author when the number of realizations goes up? Well, as far as I can see there are two effects working in the same direction. Firstly, average of 11-th to 50-th is not the same percentile, but rather higher. Secondly, even the same percentile average is expected to go up.
b) Due to computers and internet there is an obvious change to the distribution from which each chess player’s rating is drawn.

So, now to complete the story, let me answer a possible question why did it start in 1986 and not earlier. Well, in 1985 Gorbachev came to power in the former USSR. That meant the borders of the USSR gradually opened. Russian chess players got an opportunity to play overseas and get ratings. So this is how it started. Then it continued with the introduction of computers and internet.

Desmond
13-04-2008, 07:35 AM
Good post drug. :clap:

Samson
13-09-2008, 11:03 AM
Adjustment somehow would be better. There is no way I consider a player rated 2700 nowadays to be equal in skill or ranked higher in percentile than a 2700 player in the 1980s.
But what is funny is the emphasis a lot of people put on ratings. You cannot put your rating in the bank! Why do we have them, really? For tournaments just randomise names and a draw is made.. play from there.

MichaelBaron
14-09-2008, 02:27 AM
So, now to complete the story, let me answer a possible question why did it start in 1986 and not earlier. Well, in 1985 Gorbachev came to power in the former USSR. That meant the borders of the USSR gradually opened. Russian chess players got an opportunity to play overseas and get ratings. So this is how it started. Then it continued with the introduction of computers and internet.

This is true. It is also true that many of those Soviet players who had a fide rating already were clearly underrated. I can recall looking at cross-tables of Moscow championships in the mid/late 1980's. Majority of the participants were "humble masters" rated between 2300-2400 (Kiselev, Yanovsky, Zlochevsky, Arbakov, Nikolenko, Kishnev). However, by 1992 - all of them became grandmasters.

Even as late as in 1989 -some very strong players did not have a Fide rating (nor a national master title). I was playing in an open tournamet for "non-masters" and participants included Korneev, Notkin, Mitenkov, Vlassov....shortly after all of these guys became either GMs or IMs.

All of the Russian candidate masters who were still active - became at least Fide Masters while National Masters became either GMs or IMs.

In my opinion, another factor that triggered inflation of Fide ratings was a ridiculously high rating floor! Till Fairly recently - Fide ratings were starting from 2200 only. Some of the 2205-2215 rated players were quite weak and did not play anywhere near 2200 level as we see it.

Bill Gletsos
14-09-2008, 03:16 AM
In my opinion, another factor that triggered inflation of Fide ratings was a ridiculously high rating floor! Till Fairly recently - Fide ratings were starting from 2200 only. Some of the 2205-2215 rated players were quite weak and did not play anywhere near 2200 level as we see it.What do you call fairly recently.
The FIDE rating floor was no higher than 2000 back as far as January 1993.

MichaelBaron
14-09-2008, 11:10 AM
What do you call fairly recently.
The FIDE rating floor was no higher than 2000 back as far as January 1993.

Yep that is what i call fairly recently...the greatest iflation occured in the late 1980's-early 90's

Dougy
14-09-2008, 12:29 PM
So, now to complete the story, let me answer a possible question why did it start in 1986 and not earlier. Well, in 1985 Gorbachev came to power in the former USSR. That meant the borders of the USSR gradually opened. Russian chess players got an opportunity to play overseas and get ratings. So this is how it started. Then it continued with the introduction of computers and internet.

Similar changes to chess in China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_in_China) occurred during this period.

Nonetheless, I agree that computers and the internet has had vastly changed chess - it's popularity and availability and in areas like training. I don't understand why he disregards this so simply.