WCDF RATINGS

[tommyc]

THE LONG REST IS OVER I BELIEVE.................RATINGS COMING UP??

[Alex_Moiseyev]

... REST IS OVER

rest from what ?

[Palomino]

Jan. 1, 2008 WCDF Ratings: http://wcdf.wz.cz/ratings.htm

BTW:
The link we have here on the ACF website doesn't seem to be working.

Regards..."Pal"

[Alex_Moiseyev]

If we can trust this list - here are my hot congratulations to new WCDF GM's Bagtiyar Durdyev, two times runner up of Qualify Tournaments in 2005 & 2006, and Lubabalo Kondlo, winner of USA Open and Qualify Torunament in 2007 !

This is probably the only good thing which we have on this list After finding only 6 American players among top 25, I perfectly understood that we can't use these ratings for any serious business or references, but only as curiosity !

Yours sincerely,

Alex Moiseyev

[tommyc]

The long wait seems to have been in vain going by Alexs comment...and only 11 USAians1 in the top 40. Surely they new order must predict a runaway victory for the "Rest of the World V U.S.A. whenevr that match comes to pass!!

Unless Alex s comments are found to be true::::::" not for any serious business or references, but only as curiosity !"

[MostFamousDane]

As a Danish politician once said "If these are the facts then I deny the facts"

Sune

This is probably the only good thing which we have on this list After finding only 6 American players among top 25, I perfectly understood that we can't use these ratings for any serious business or references, but only as curiosity !

Yours sincerely,

Alex Moiseyev

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Danish politician

I think WCDF is dealing like American politicians: they remember only things they predicted and promised in the past, which became true American politicians never apologize and agree that they ever made any mistakes. They always look optimistically forward, and never - backward !

Sincerely,

Alex Moiseyev

[Alan Millhone]

Hi Everyone

Note my two younger Grandsons made the list. Solomon at # 383 and Forest at # 524 .

I find myself at # 157 , about right for an average player.

Since Mr. Dave Butler gave up the ACF ratings we may have to 'shelf' those and rely totally on WCDF ratings for all events.

Sincerely
Alan Millhone, President
American Checker Federation

" CHECKERS --- The full contact mind sport "

[Alex_Moiseyev]

I hope ACF Executive Committee will be very cautious by making any movements and changes. I don't see any problems to wait several months until we find replacement.

Sincerely,

Alex Moiseyev

[liam stephens]

ACF and WCDF RATINGS

There has been a lot of hasty and emotional comment, on the subject of the Ratings.
That is not surprising, of course, as who does not like to see their name shooting up the list.
However, if we stand back a little and examine the ratings in the cold light of reason and look at
the actual statistics, what I find most striking is the degree of similarity and convergence
of the USA and WCDF series of results.
As Alex says the WCDF has been up and running for only 4 years.
The WCDF Rating list has been running for just 2 years, the most recent issue
being No 3. So we must not expect to see miracles too soon.

In the table below, I have taken the USA Ratings statistics and listed the top 24 active USA players
(those who have played since 2006) and compared the ratings with the WCDF results for the same players.
In the majority of cases (79 %) the points difference between the ACF and WCDF rating is less than 100 rating points and less than 50 points in many cases.

The 2 major exceptions are A Moiseyev and R Hallet where the differences are 149 and 147 points respectively.
There are 3 other players where there is a large difference,(over 150) but here the players concerned do not appear frequently in tournament lists used by the WCDF and are, I believe, a statistical oddity that may be disregarded.

In the case of the remaining well established and frequently performing players the closeness in ratings is quite remarkable, given the different rating formulae used and the difference in playing conditions that exist between USA and other countries.

The rating differences in the cases of A Moiseyev and R Hallett cannot be so easily dismissed however, and I offer the following reason as, at least, a partial explanation.

Up until recent times, I believe, the majority of USA tournaments were scored using a rounds system where winner takes all. Certainly that is still the case in the USA Masters section with 4 game rounds. You win ,draw, or lose the round, and even if you get 3 draws and a loss against a master, you get no points or credit for the 3 draws.
(I do not propose here to dwell on the fairness or superiority of one system over another,that can be left to others. Here I am concerned only with the effect on the ratings,)
In the rest of the world a points per game system is generally used and when a weaker player, for example, draws the strong side of a critical 3 move opening against a master player he gets awarded a point for the draw. That point will gain him significant rating points especially if the rating difference from his opponent was large. The cumulative effect of all this in a Tournament scored by ‘points per game’ is to compress the Range of the rating field. In contrast a Tournament scored by rounds will have a much wider rating range between the top and bottom player.


Finally, I believe it was a politician (Disraeli) who originally uttered the popular phrase:
“Lies, damned lies and statistics”.

EXTRACTED FROM USA RATINGS TABLE:

===============USA WCDF DIFF Last Ty
1 MOISEYEV ALEX 2693 2544 149 2007
2 HALLETT RICHARD 2577 2430 147 2006
3 BRUCH ED 2526 2451 75 2007
4 MORRISON JIM 2470 2463 7 2006
5 MARGOLIN JOSEPH 2438 1920 518 2006
6 COWIE LOUIS 2422 2422 0 2007
7 BURTON HUGH 2406 2367 39 2006
8 BECKWITH RICHARD 2400 2353 47 2007
9 KOZENSKI ANTHONY 2396 2397 -1 2006
10 LAVERTY TIM 2387 2357 30 2007
11 CHILDERS JERRY 2365 2336 29 2006
12 WEBSTER JOHN R. 2365 2331 34 2007
13 KEEN LARRY 2333 2315 18 2007
14 NASH CLAYTON 2329 2377 -48 2007
15 HOLMES MICHAEL 2320 2318 2 2007
16 FINSTER ROY 2311 N/A 2007
17 SCHWARTZ JOE 2309 2332 -23 2006
18 BURKS KEVIN 2308 2079 229 2006
19 ALBRECHT KARL 2306 2241 65 2006
20 RUMPF DALE 2299 2316 -17 2006
21 LOPEZ GERARD 2281 2227 54 2006
22 CHAPPELL JONATHON 2238 2391 -153 2007
23 KING ED 2236 2166 70 2007
24 BISHOP ANTHONY 2235 2256 -21 2007

[Alan Millhone]

Hello Everyone

To me ratings are a 'guideline' for placement. I note that #18 on the list " Kevin Burks " at 2308 might enjoy the Masters group the next ACF Tournament he enters -)

Also let me qualify something ---- The ACF ratings are not history, but on the back burner at present. I will say openly that Dr. Beckwith has far too much on his plate to even consider handling the ratings in any fashion. The ACF needs more volunteers to help carry the load. Too few do too much in the ACF. Simply put, but the way it is and it needs to change. If you have expertise in ratings and a desire to help, then let us know !

An ELO system has been mentioned as well.

Sincerely
Alan Millhone, President
American Checker Federation
" PROUD TO BE AN A.C.F. MEMBER '

[David Harwood]

I am surprised at the placings of several American players at least. I rate Clayton Nash, Richard Beckwith,Tim Laverty, John Webster and Michael Holmes much stronger players than their rating suggests. I know for a fact that those 4 players rated below me are stronger than I and some others above me.The problems with ratings is summed up by Alex in his posting as follows
"Lets go to street, pick 10 people from there and me and you play with each of them. Lets say you won all games and I drew one (or opposite way). Would this information help us to figure who plays better - me or you ? NOPE !!! It won't help us at all. Thats the whole difference between match and tournament systems."
Unless all the players in the list have played each other at least 6 games or so any ratings list, be it EDA, ACF or WCDF, will never be a 100% accurate reflect ion of the true strength of all the players listed therein.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

... Up until recent times, I believe, the majority of USA tournaments were scored using a rounds system where winner takes all. Certainly that is still the case in the USA Masters section with 4 game rounds. You win ,draw, or lose the round, and even if you get 3 draws and a loss against a master, you get no points or credit for the 3 draws.
(I do not propose here to dwell on the fairness or superiority of one system over another,that can be left to others. Here I am concerned only with the effect on the ratings,)
In the rest of the world a points per game system is generally used and when a weaker player, for example, draws the strong side of a critical 3 move opening against a master player he gets awarded a point for the draw. That point will gain him significant rating points especially if the rating difference from his opponent was large. The cumulative effect of all this in a Tournament scored by ‘points per game’ is to compress the Range of the rating field. In contrast a Tournament scored by rounds will have a much wider rating range between the top and bottom player.

Finally, I believe it was a politician (Disraeli) who originally uttered the popular phrase:
“Lies, damned lies and statistics” ...

Liam, many thanks for posting these statistics and analyses. Very interesting and informative ! I have to study this more deeper, and here are my impressions at first glance ...

You absolutely right about great influence of scoring system on ratings. I said in the past that 3-move style is already a big lottery depends on ballot, but scoring each game raise this "lottery factor" significantly ! I would like to remind everyone, that there is no such object as "game" in 3-move style, but BALLOT. Unfortunately only very small number of people understand this.

There is no "game" in tournaments, there is - "round", or "micro-match" When I play a World Title, there is no difference - I won 21 games, or 1 and 39 draws. result the same - 2 points.

In addition, I don't think "compressing range" (your terminology, I like it !) is a right thing to do. Having +10 points rating or +100 is a big difference and it reflects a real strength. All these "close ratings" may create an illusion that between me/suki and few other players below not much distance. Wrong ! Unfortunately we do have this distance and tournament results well reflect this fact.

Another factor which has influence on rating - mixing GAYP and 3-moves. This also is far from any common sense

And finally ... I would like just explain people (many ask me) - why suki is #1 on WCDF rating list. The reason is simple - I am much more active player. In 2007 even without playing World Title Mathc, I played around 120 games in many state events + Irish Open. I won about 70-75 of them with no losses. Having 600-800 points difference in rating against some of my opponents, requires for me to win all almost all games, which is absolutely impossible. Suki only plays in few high quality events. He just played in Irish Open where he won almost all his games and ... his rating still dropped ! If he would play in 6-8 such events - the picture would be different.

This unfortunate fact will not have any influence on my activity, and I promise all my fans - I will continue to attend and play in all events I can afford financially and physically ! So ... it is very possible that some day my rank on WCDF rating list may even drop to #3, #4 or below. It doesn't bother me.

Normal rating system should motivate people to play in more events. If effect is opposite - something wrong with system.

Regards,

Alex

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Liam, lets disregard all these damn numbers and look just at rank. Can you answer me on one simple question:

how it is possible under the sun, that Richard Hallet became #16 on WCDF ranking list ??? In my eyes his rank should be somewhere #2 or #3. This is probably much more serious question, that #1 and #2.

Something was obviously wrong in "initial WCDF rating settings". I still have very strong and bad feelings, that overall all (most) American players received in average -100 points adjustment in default. I know - no one did this in purpose, but somehow this happened. I can see this through numbers. This also may answer on Dave Harwood questions.

Sincerely,

Alex

[Alan Millhone]

I can see this topic readily heading to be a heated one.................... " Proof in pudding in tasting " ........................ A couple of games played between 2 players never actually shows the better player. A Match is the only way and there is no way all of us can ever do that among all players. The ratings will never be perfect, but we have to have something in place for guidance. Today I got an email from Lubabalo Kondlo and he was pleased that he was # 7. Let us take a look at my South African friend. He enters and wins two events , has never been (till those two events) outside of his native SA and is now # 7 in the World . Ratings will always be a bit subjective and as I said a guide .

Sincerely
Alan Millhone, President
American Checker Federation
" CHECKERS --- The full contact mental sport "