A Couple of Questions....

[Jay Bailey]

In the opinion of the members of this forum, what rating scale (e.g., 2200+, 2500+, 2000+) could we roughly say translate to one's being an expert? And for those who are above this rating, how much training have you had in the game? i.e., for how long have you been training and how often do you practice playing checkers?

[Michael Holmes]

Before Alan became the ACF president the ratings were extremely out of wack. Today is better with more results being posted to them but there are still too many facters that dilute the ratings and there still seems to be a difference in a person's achievement that differs from what the rating suggests.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Hi, Jay ! Good questions

what rating scale (e.g., 2200+, 2500+, 2000+) could we roughly say translate to one's being an expert?

I am considering word "expert" as someone who masters the game at all impostant stages: published play knowledges, experience, cross aboard abilities, etc. Based on this assumption I would say that bareer is 2500+ for ACF rating. Today 7 players hits this bareer.

And for those who are above this rating, how much training have you had in the game? i.e., for how long have you been training and how often do you practice playing checkers?

I will talk about myself.

1) I think I hits this bareer in 1998 or 1999 - 2-3 years after I started to play Anglo-American checkers in 1996.

2) Today in average I play 8-10 checkers events during the year, approximately 6-8 state torunements + National + world and International events. The total number of games I am playing annually is vary between 150 and 180.

For instance, this year I played in:

- States: IL, PA, OH, AL
- Nationals: 3 moves and 11 man ballot
- Matches: 11 man ballot world match & OH match with Richard Beckwith
- International: Beijing

3) Today I spend approximately 2-3 hours every day working on checkers. Getting older causes more and more worse with memory, and it takes longer to refresh everything again and again. If I don't play 2-3 months my level is dropping.

4) Today I still playing occasionly in Internet, but not as much as 10-15 years ago. For the beginner player this maybe very helpful and speed progress.

5) I never played mail games or turned-based, only real time. I am very confident and trully believe that only real time online games (fast or long) help to improve things, anything else - just for fun and enjoyment.

Alex

[liam stephens]

When I first introduced the Ratings in the UK (way back in September 1979, would you believe it ?
see EDJ Vol. 19 No 2) I proposed the following titles:

2400 + International Grand Master (I.G.M.)
2300 – 2399 Grand Master (G.M.)
2200 – 2299 Master (M)
2100 - 2119 Expert (E)
1900 – 2099 Intermediate (I)

Of course the ratings have inflated somewhat since that time.


In the same article I also wrote the following:

The system in practice:- The major tourneys held at present are decided on games won and not on ties (rounds) won. This leads to certain distortions in applying the system.

e.g. English Open 1979 (Clacton):

W. Edwards scored - 6 won rounds, 4 drawn rounds. Percentage score therefore is 80%
This represents Edwards score on Ties won. The actual result:- Edwards scored 29 points out of a possible 40. Percentage score therefore is 72.5%. The result of this drop in percentage is that the ratings are compressed into a narrower band (or interval in rating between players) than would occur if the Tourney was decided on ties won.
Incidentally, in examining the ratings of players not in the first four it is readily apparent that the anomalies inherent in the Swiss System are maximised under the Games Won rule, whereas under
Ties Won, they would be minimised. Thus towards the end of a tournament those players hanging hack in the score have a distinct advantage towards scoring highly in the final rounds as compared with those who have played steadily throughout.
A further improvement would result if "tie splitling," was decided on the basis of

a) Individual Results, b) Honour points,

rather than the present system of least losses.

Further reservations might well be expressed due to the "handicapping” element inherent in the system. …. …………….It would of course be perfectly feasible to devise an alternative system.

In conclusion I wish to express my thanks to ACF Secretary W.B. Grandjean who provided details of the Chess Rating System and to D. Oldbury who made several helpful suggestions, thought perhaps I should add that Mr. Oldbury considers the Elo Rating System to be "basically unsound".

========================================================================

Alex, I think I read somewhere that you hoped to reach a rating score of 2800.
Under the points per game rules I believe that may prove to be an impossibility.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Alex, I think I read somewhere that you hoped to reach a rating score of 2800.
Under the points per game rules I believe that may prove to be an impossibility.

Liam, I agree with your unfortunate predictions. And it's not only a "per game" rule deal. It highly depends on number of outstanding players with high rating.

My hope was just unrealistic dream But at least one time I came over 2700 and proud of this. I think only Tinsley, Long, Chinook, Lafferty were there since ACF rating was introduced (this fact needs to be checked)

This hope (hits 2800) may become possible only in case if we have much more players come to arena and fill out the gap in rating zone 2500-2700. Could this happen ?

Good question ...

Regards,

Alex

[william]

Hi all

Firstly we must feel greatly endebted to all who have participated over the years in trying to establish a system representitive of what is actually going on out on the playing field WELL DONE GUYS

This system despite the following truth;

but there are still too many facters that dilute the ratings and there still seems to be a difference in a person's achievement that differs from what the rating suggests.

Is now starting to come together and show some sort of stability , ( see my Comparaison table ,under "checker sharing") and probably in 25 years time Michaels point of view will still stand as truth although the system will be even more settled that now.

Personally I UNFORTUNATELY can only play 1 ty every year or two , which is destructive to my level of play ; however in saying that I did manage 4th place in Bejeing very strong ty.!!
Last ty played 2006 Qualifier Stonehaven where I end third , but this ty. was not so strong as Bejeing.

I would love to play in as many tys as possible with disregard to my ratings , I feel that perhaps a lot of people put too much importance on this "rating factor" , like perhaps always offering draws even before games begin at the start !! of a ty. ( at the end of ty.I can understand this when result is unavoidable)
This will never be good for their game or even THE game.
Important is play play play thats all then ratings take care of themselves

I training 4 hours per day every day ; but this is not enough. practice must be structured and a layed out plan must be set before hand . This is probably more difficult than the training itself , as one must intelligently direct himself to the right points of weakness in his game .
For example openings ; midgame s and engames but not just any i will restate "" Intelligent opeings ; intelligent midgames and intelligent endgames"" are the thing , thus cutting down wasted time.This is system i use in training for bejeing ( Obviosly I must cos my oponnents are all getting more ty play than I ) and it sort of paid off , although things coumld have been better.

I consider expert level must be above 2450 because of Michaels statement . Too many tys being counted for rating s but not many strong players attending for example giving false impression of 200 grandmasters in table!! No disrespect to organisers of these tys or to participents.

Anyway take a look at my table and see the proof for yourself ; the system is working ; along way to go , but working...