PDA

View Full Version : K proportional to Time



PHAT
26-06-2004, 11:47 PM
This year I have come across many people who think we should scrap the rapid ratings altogether - that there should be just one rating number. To do this we would need to afford more importance to longer games and less to shorter ones.

Check this out - for this thread, the info is near the end of the artical.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=562

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2004, 01:37 AM
I have a couple of reservations about applying this to Aus.

#1. The top players surveyed by Sonas all play a lot of normal length games. This isn't true of the Australian ratings pool; at any time there are juniors who have played enough to get a rapid rating but haven't played enough to get a normal rating (this is part of the point of having a rapid list at all). If you're going to have a single list then you will have to either keep these players unrated (reverting to before we had rapid lists for those players) or else rate them with a performance derived only from rapids (is this a good idea?)

#2. Sonas' (preliminary as it has not been tested against a second data set) finding that a rapid result has predictive value for top players' normal game performances may not hold true consistently and in the same direction for young juniors. The gap between rapid skill and normal skill could be much larger and more variable for these players.

I'd be interested to know though - how useful/interesting/prestigious are rapid ratings in other states? The system doesn't seem to have been a roaring success in encouraging people to organise rapids here in Tas, but that's probably because we don't have a lot of weak juniors.

Garvinator
27-06-2004, 06:35 AM
The system doesn't seem to have been a roaring success in encouraging people to organise rapids here in Tas, but that's probably because we don't have a lot of weak juniors.
could it also be that having a rapid rating doesnt really lead anywhere? What i mean is that a persons rapid rating doesnt qualify them for any special rapid championship, like say doeberl or australian championships in the normal time limit

ursogr8
27-06-2004, 08:53 AM
This year I have come across many people who think we should scrap the rapid ratings altogether - that there should be just one rating number. To do this we would need to afford more importance to longer games and less to shorter ones.

Check this out - for this thread, the info is near the end of the artical.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=562

Matt

There a few of us in Mexico that believe the rapid ratings should be scrapped; but we are not in the majority.
Our initial foray into rapid ratings was to create a progression path, for Whitehorse Juniors from Sunday Allegros and Tuesday coaching classes, to eventually have a normal rating. In practice we have only 20% adults in the Sunday Allegro rapid play, and naturally their rapid ratings tend to get pulverised by the stronger, rapidly improving juniors. As this is just about a closed pool all that is happening is a transfer of rapid-rating points from adult to junior.
Second problem is that the juniors that have graduated to senior ranks, when they are judged fit, tend to move to senior ranks when they are in a rapid-improvement spurt. So, the rapid rating turns out to be not a reliable guide for a normal rating.

The test to see if an adult values his rapid rating is to walk up to him/her on a Club night and ask him what is his rapid rating. Half the adults don't know if they have a rapid-rating, and the other half don't know their personal rapid-rating.

We are in no-mans-land at the moment; caught between
> it would be good if everyone was rapid-rated rated and took pride in their rating, and
>> it would be good if we saved money by relying on normal ratings to do the pairings for a rapid tournament.

starter

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2004, 03:42 PM
could it also be that having a rapid rating doesnt really lead anywhere? What i mean is that a persons rapid rating doesnt qualify them for any special rapid championship, like say doeberl or australian championships in the normal time limit

Well, no-one in a small state qualifies for Aus champs by rating anyway. Basically, people here feel that their normal rating is their rating and that rapid ratings are Mickey Mouse stuff. starter's example suggests it is similar in his circles too. That's not saying rapid ratings are useless, they seem to have their purpose in getting some kind of very rough idea of the strength of new juniors.

How do the young juniors feel about their rapid ratings?

A junior here was a bit disappointed when he found out his win over a 1500s player in a blitz event wouldn't count for ratings. I guess this is not surprising as a sign of the times, when you can have meaningless bullet games rated online and when many online players regard anything slower than 5' as abnormal.

Bill Gletsos
27-06-2004, 07:06 PM
This year I have come across many people who think we should scrap the rapid ratings altogether - that there should be just one rating number. To do this we would need to afford more importance to longer games and less to shorter ones.

Check this out - for this thread, the info is near the end of the artical.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=562

Given that Kevin and I have both commented on the Sonas article in the past on the BB and all your comments re ratings then given that this artcile is over 18 mths old I think it just goes to show how little you really know about the subject and how little you have researched any information on ratings.

Of course that doesnt really surprise me. :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
27-06-2004, 07:08 PM
Well, no-one in a small state qualifies for Aus champs by rating anyway. Basically, people here feel that their normal rating is their rating and that rapid ratings are Mickey Mouse stuff. starter's example suggests it is similar in his circles too. That's not saying rapid ratings are useless, they seem to have their purpose in getting some kind of very rough idea of the strength of new juniors.

How do the young juniors feel about their rapid ratings?

A junior here was a bit disappointed when he found out his win over a 1500s player in a blitz event wouldn't count for ratings. I guess this is not surprising as a sign of the times, when you can have meaningless bullet games rated online and when many online players regard anything slower than 5' as abnormal.
I think most adults dont take their rapid ratings seriously.
In fact most states rate very few rapid tournaments that are not junior only events.

rob
28-06-2004, 02:40 PM
I'd be interested to know though - how useful/interesting/prestigious are rapid ratings in other states? The system doesn't seem to have been a roaring success in encouraging people to organise rapids here in Tas, but that's probably because we don't have a lot of weak juniors.

I am almost certain that no events in WA have been rapid rated. Little value would be placed on these so they are not considered to be worth the trouble and expense.

I do the WA Junior Chess Council (JCC) ratings and these include events less than one hour (these are weighted less than the 1 hour each weekenders, which in turn are weighted less than slower time controls) - I think MS would approve of this method :)

Alan Shore
28-06-2004, 09:13 PM
Typical these anti-rapid comments come from players who primarily play the slow time control and don't play rapid themselves... :rolleyes:

I was one of the strongest advocates for the implementation of rapid ratings - I first suggested it years ago back when the auschess site had the old 'opinion' section. There is a lot of interest in rapid tournaments, particularly in QLD - so obviously those who don't run many wouldn't have a clue of how integral they are to QLD chess, you only need to look at the data for how many rapid tourns have been rated in this state in the past year or so.

There is also a large difference in performances - some are better at rapid, some at long, therefore using only normal ratings to represent playing strength in rapid tourns for the purposes of seedings could be ridiculously misrepresented.

Using a weighted K has been implemented in the QLD Junior ratings but again, it vastly misrepresents these 'different strengths' and some would also resent having their normal ratings fiddled with in any way due to poor rapid performance.

I don't want rapid ratings going anywhere and I am not in the minority in this state.

Rincewind
28-06-2004, 09:24 PM
I don't want rapid ratings going anywhere and I am not in the minority in this state.

That's true but this is the state where the majority of people don't want daylight savings because they believe it will fade the curtains. :lol:

Alan Shore
29-06-2004, 12:00 AM
That's true but this is the state where the majority of people don't want daylight savings because they believe it will fade the curtains. :lol:

Sigh.. so lame.. actually the real reason is because the cows don't like being milked an hour earlier!

If only people hadn't of been so lazy and actually voted in the non-compulsory poll...

Garvinator
29-06-2004, 12:11 AM
Sigh.. so lame.. actually the real reason is because the cows don't like being milked an hour earlier!

If only people hadn't of been so lazy and actually voted in the non-compulsory poll...
i voted for daylight saving, i think, i know i was in favour of it, just cant remember if i was 18 when the vote was taken :eek: