Ratings Are Coming Back!

[Eric Strange]

Well that's the thing, the ratings are not stable enough to have a master, major, or minor level right now so people needs to drop and gain substantially before that can happen. So it didn't throw him into any specific category yet.

[Danny_Alvarez]

The ratings are at a period where they are adjusting from the old ratings system to this new system. Higher rated players are dropping and lower rated are gaining. This will eventually work its way out.

Before people jump in and start complaining about gains or losses..... give it some time (ie 2 years)
I agree with Eric that the more you play the more accurate your rating will be.

cheers and merry xmas to all
Danny

[Alex_Moiseyev]

I hope My "new" rating already very much stabilize or will stabilize soon - due to very big number of games. I predict transition period - up to 24 months. This is enough time for any active player to attend at least 4-6 events and adjust rating.

And all after all - after 3 years all inactive players will be remove from list "A". New system is more fear and "bareer / grey zone" which are defined in ACF BY-LAWS must be adjusted eventually.

And certainly I really hope that with new ratings we can put a strong block to weak or over ambitious players to attend higher division.

People who is doing sandbagging are not in my league and I don't know any really strong outstanding players who is doing this. I know several very old players who used to play in Master Division years ago but today they moved to Major. This is very understandale and respectable decision.

There are also several players in "mid-zone" who is doing so-so. Sometimes they can play 1-few games at real Master level and can provide competition to grandmasters. But they can't play all games at this level.

For instance - Albert Tucker. His level slowly goes down and I am witnessing this, but sometimes he still randomly and sporadically plays very, very good games. Should he play in Masters or Majors today ? Not sure - very much up to him.

Another excellent example - Mr. P. Schwartzberg. Many people accused him in the past of doing sandbagging because he always was on top in Majors. In 2010, as winner of previous year Major he was forced to play in Master Division and ... didn't do well ... at least to say. His level was below average Master in this event. This proved once again that his decision DO NOT play in Masters was not sandagging and was absolutely correct and respectable.

Respetfully,

your champ

[Eric Strange]

I would say that your rating is the most real of anyone right now. But keep in mind that a lot of players that you play ratings are not "real" yet. So in order for yours to be 100% real theirs needs to be real also. But I would definitely say that yours is very "real". The beautiful part is that nobody above you except Suki rating is "real" which should make you feel good. you and Suki are neck and neck right now also. I would say that once everyones rating is "real" that you may even gain 50 points or so depending on your performance of course.

Me and Joe are trying to work out a solution to You vs Miki for WCM. right now Miki went from 1600-1850 and has about 4 games left before his rating starts affecting his opponents rating. We were considering extending this for the first half of your match. By that time he should be 2200 or so. is my guess which would be more accurate for you to play against. What is your take on this? Of course this is not normal but in extreme circumstances like this where the challenger to the title only has 1 rated tournament before a WCM seems reasonable.

I also wanted to respond to people saying glicko is a better system than elo and that elo is outdated (which I agree it ONCE was). I will explain my reasoning for hating glicko once again.

glicko gives preference to players who play less tournaments.
Example:

Player A and Player B are both rated 2000, Player A plays 10 tournaments a year, Player B plays 1 tournament a year. If player B wins he would get more points than if player A won because he plays less tournaments. So because player B plays less tournaments his skill level must be much higher than player A, so he gets a boost. This is basing skill level on how many rated tournament games you have played which in the past may have been a more accurate way to calculate. In the computer age we live in now I get to play master level players everyday, so tournaments played is not an accurate assessment of your skill level.

This may also be correct if it is within the first few tournaments that the player has played because he hasn't hit his real rating yet. If I have been playing 1 tournament a year for 20 years and I am playing someone who has played 10 a year for 20 years and we are both 2000 then I would say that jump is not necessary because our rating is already accurate and real as it is going to get.

In this sense Glicko is outdated. Not too mention Elo is one of the most respected and highly used ratings system in the world for a reason. People will always have their opinions and people will always hate.

[Danny_Alvarez]

In this sense Glicko is outdated. Not too mention Elo is one of the most respected and highly used ratings system in the world for a reason. People will always have their opinions and people will always hate.

Mate, you really need to let your defenses down every now and then, just because people disagree with you, it doesn't mean they hate you, or your opinion or the rating system used.

To continue the discussion (which has no point since after all the effort that has been put it changing ratings system now would be silly) i personally fail to see how a system that was developed in 1995 is outdated in comparison to one that was developed in the early 1960's or 1950's (not 100% sure there) .... ELO is widely used not because of its accuracy in calculating ratings , but because of its inherent simplicity (which is not a bad thing) .... as far as ACCURACY goes GLICKO and/or GLICKO2 are far better estimators of a person's true rating.

I was not hating when i made my comment and i feel you should read EVERYTHING instead of tainting everything with negativity just because we disagreed once or twice in the past.

PS As i said in my previous post and as Alex mentioned as well, if we persevere with ELO for 2 more years then we will have true ratings for everybody.... till then these are "Growing Pains" and have to be put up with.

CHEERS
Danny

[Chexhero]

Well in all fairness Danny, I think it is pretty obvious some people don't like, and perhaps even hate the rating system. One guy just came in here and said it is garbage, but I expected that. Though I actually don't mind the criticism, it shows me that people actually care.

[Danny_Alvarez]

Well in all fairness Danny, I think it is pretty obvious some people don't like, and perhaps even hate the rating system. One guy just came in here and said it is garbage, but I expected that. Though I actually don't mind the criticism, it shows me that people actually care.

Nothing is perfect .... so we got what we got. I didn't make comments to throw fuel to the fire, but just as a discussion, it is OBVIOUS to me, that despite what I consider a system that could be better i am ECSTATIC with the work that has been done , by You, Eric & Others...

We need to move on, keep the current ratings system and within the next 2 years the fluctuations we were discussing will be a thing of the past. I am too far away to be a regular player in your events but despite that i am thankful for the work that has been done and after i recruit more players here in Oz i might even ask for some advice as to how to set up ratings here from you guys.

I do not think ELO is garbage at all.

cheers and once again thanks for the hard work.
Danny Alvarez

[waynegober]

Yes I too want to thank you guys... Joe and Eric and Vadlim?s(sP)

My comments are not meant to discourage as I really would like to see the ratings updated and reflecting (as far as possible) an accurate rating.

I guess, the problems I see are as much related to low numbers and few tournaments as much as anything.

The shape things are in now, with such low numbers, the guys or gals running the tournament are gonna group everybody the best they can. ect

However,
Keep up the good work

[Eric Strange]

Well given my example of Glicko now being outdated because of the rise of technology. You said that Glicko was established in 1995. The same year that the Internet was first publicly available.

Thanks for all your support and although I am not killing myself typing in numbers all day anymore, Joe sure keeps me busy working with these ratings! (Shoulda never given that guy my AOL) HAHAHA J/k and merry Christmas eve to you all

[Chexhero]

Well if your system would stop messing up it wouldn't be an issue lol. Oh yea, I always mess it up, good thing I have you for my technical support haha.

[Michael Holmes]

What about titles? WCDF has titles so I was hoping the ACF could have titles too. I am bias so I personally would not want to be one of the voters but I would support the listing of titles. Alex Moiseyev gave a lot of input as to how titles should be bestowed upon someone for performance so his input should have a lot of weight (unless his states that I should never get the GM title.....lol).

What do you think?

[william]

Michael

I cannot believe that you still have not been given international grand master title. One only has to look at the "official" list ; observe and see that there are a LOT of weak experts (USA, UK and other countries) who have "somehow" obtained the title through some sort of miracle. It's not their fault though... however someone is faulting in not giving you that deserved title.

I give first vote for Michael, and expect many followers...

William