Search found 15 matches
- Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:20 am
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: Are people satisfied with the current rating system?
- Replies: 27
- Views: 9978
Re: Are people satisfied with the current rating system?
I’m glad to hear that there are additional details about title norms that are in writing somewhere. The information currently on the website is too vague. I think this discussion about ratings has gotten a bit off track. I think I may have inadvertently given the impression that titles should be awa...
- Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:02 pm
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: Are people satisfied with the current rating system?
- Replies: 27
- Views: 9978
Re: Are people satisfied with the current rating system?
But what is a grandmaster "norm"? As far as I can tell, the by-laws don't specify. However, doesn't it involve performing sufficiently well against a field that is sufficiently strong? I'm not sure how "sufficiently well" is defined, but isn't the rating of one's opponents used t...
- Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:42 pm
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: Are people satisfied with the current rating system?
- Replies: 27
- Views: 9978
Re: Are people satisfied with the current rating system?
Comparing chess ratings with checker ratings, I do wonder if expected score is influenced by the high percentage of draws (at least at upper levels). I know how the math works, and the numbers given above are what the formulas tell us. Would a GM really beat a master 9 out of 10? Would it be more l...
- Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:55 pm
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: Are people satisfied with the current rating system?
- Replies: 27
- Views: 9978
Re: Are people satisfied with the current rating system?
Based on the current formula for expected outcome: The expected score for two players with the same rating is 2-2, as expected. The expected score for players that are separated by 200 rating points is about 3.04-0.96, or roughly better than a win and a draw for the higher rated player. The expected...
- Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:01 pm
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: Are people satisfied with the current rating system?
- Replies: 27
- Views: 9978
Re: Are people satisfied with the current rating system?
I know one of the main things we agreed with in the e-mails is a more proper "range" Such as Expert being more like 2000-2200, Master 2200-2400 and Grandmaster being 2400+ instead of the very tight and narrow range we have now. Thanks for sharing this, Clayton. The next thing to decide is...
- Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:41 pm
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: Are people satisfied with the current rating system?
- Replies: 27
- Views: 9978
Re: Are people satisfied with the current rating system?
Clint, good work with the new ratings page! I agree with some of the concerns you’ve raised too; thanks for getting the discussion started. As far as different styles of play having different distributions of outcomes, I think the simplest solution is to use different functions for expected outcome,...
- Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:06 am
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: WCDF Ratings Update?
- Replies: 122
- Views: 34450
Re: WCDF Ratings Update?
People constantly make the same mistake - there is no game in 3-moves or 11-man ballot events. There is ballot - minimatch. If I play World title match, 40 games, it doesn't matter I won 21 games, or 1 game and 39 draws. In both cases I won match. First of all, games are sometimes the correct units...
- Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:19 pm
- Forum: Tournament Discussion
- Topic: Ideas for Improving Tournaments
- Replies: 32
- Views: 9559
Re: Ideas for Improving Tournaments
Maybe I was unclear in making my point. I'm not advocating for one scoring system (by game or by round) over the other. Each system has its merits, and I hope both remain in use. I think it's nice for different events to have their own rules; it adds some variety and gives events a unique character....
- Tue Aug 09, 2016 1:36 am
- Forum: Tournament Discussion
- Topic: Ideas for Improving Tournaments
- Replies: 32
- Views: 9559
Re: Ideas for Improving Tournaments
This time, I'll throw in my two cents on computer pairings (and tournament structures). There isn't a clear-cut solution for handling pairings, because there are surely many different viewpoints on what should be emphasized. The one thing I can say confidently is that it would be relatively easy to ...
- Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:43 pm
- Forum: Tournament Discussion
- Topic: Ideas for Improving Tournaments
- Replies: 32
- Views: 9559
Re: Ideas for Improving Tournaments
I like the discussion; thanks for getting the ball rolling here, John. There are a lot of good ideas here. I'd like to comment on a few of them, but I'll split this up into several posts to avoid a ridiculously long post. I'll start with the issue where the solution seems most clear-cut to me: the r...
- Wed May 29, 2013 9:46 pm
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: Why Checkers is NOT easier than Chess
- Replies: 95
- Views: 77035
Re: Why Checkers is NOT easier than Chess
Hello Kef, I'm glad to see that you're perusing our message board. You raise some interesting points in your posts, particularly the one about measuring difficulty using the probability of making a good move. Unfortunately, I know far too little about chess to make any comparison between chess and c...
- Sun Feb 24, 2013 12:09 am
- Forum: Tournament Discussion
- Topic: TN Tourney
- Replies: 38
- Views: 7233
Re: TN Tourney
I'll be there too.
- Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:15 pm
- Forum: Tournament Discussion
- Topic: Alex Holmes plays in Masters- Should he?
- Replies: 13
- Views: 3902
Re: Alex Holmes plays in Masters- Should he?
Ted, you have to keep in mind that the master's division at nationals is much stronger than the master's division at most tournaments. This has a sort of trickle down effect: the major's division is stronger than most major's divisions (though the difference is not as pronounced as for the master's ...
- Wed May 23, 2012 8:55 pm
- Forum: Tournament Discussion
- Topic: Standardizing ACF Tournament Rules
- Replies: 38
- Views: 9680
Re: Standardizing ACF Tournament Rules
Wayne, I do think there's something really fun about what you suggest; it sets up a sort of "regular season" building up to nationals. However, it doesn't accommodate international players who sometimes play in nationals and certainly need to play in the masters division, though they proba...
- Wed May 23, 2012 4:08 pm
- Forum: Tournament Discussion
- Topic: Standardizing ACF Tournament Rules
- Replies: 38
- Views: 9680
Re: Standardizing ACF Tournament Rules
Hey everyone. First, I'd like to say that I like the idea of promoting division winners the next time they play in the same event. I think this helps deal with the fact that different events attract fields of different strength, and therefore the same rating cutoff might not be appropriate for every...