Ratings Are Coming Back!

[Chexhero]

Thanks for your kind words Neil. However, I did not set up this system, I am just using it to do the ratings. Eric Strange and Vadim are the ones who set it up. The Elo rating system is also the system that is used in Chess. It keeps players close together in ratings more than other systems do. In the Butler system it was easy for Alex and Ron to set themselves apart from the other players, but it is a little harder to do that in this system. The idea is that it makes the ratings much more interesting as players are always passing each other. Most of the people above Alex had a few good tournaments and then just stopped playing, so their rating is not really all that real. If those players don't play more tournaments in the future then eventually they will be kicked off the list. Another good feature I like about the system is that a new player cannot affect a player's rating until that new player has played at least 20 games. That way a player who should be up in the 2200's, but comes in at only 1600, doesn't take so many points away from a higher rated player. After 20 games we assume the player's rating will be more real and where it should be. I was questionable about this system as well, but as Eric explained all this to me and I really thought about it, this is pretty reasonable system. Of course as Eric says, no system is perfect. But hopefully those that question this system and think it is crap can take it a little more seriously and appreciate it more.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

New ratings are much more accurate and reflect much better and proper ranking. ELO proved one more time that it is the best system among other. I am very confident that after 12-24 months we'll be back to business. I don't see any indications of unsoundness in new ratings.

Eric and Joe, you are good

Any ratng is just a number which reflects a proper ranking, thats all. I am dreaming that starting some day people participation in Divisions will be strictly based on rating and performance, not intention

[liam stephens]

Alex Moiseyev wrote:

I am dreaming that starting some day people participation in Divisions will be strictly based on rating and performance...

An excellent point, Alex.

One of the main purposes of the ratings is:
To assist in grading players in tournaments when these are classified as Master, Major, Minor etc. In short to make certain that a player cannot enter a class , below or above that, to which he/she does not belong.

Referring back to an earlier posting I made:
See ACF Forum posting on Ratings Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:33 am
I stated the following :
Extract:
"The solution is clear:
Where the average tournament rating of the entrants in a particular Tournament is below that of Master level, then master level players or above should not be allowed to enter it and they should save their energies for a higher strength event. Any proper set of Tournament regulations and rating system would enforce such a ruling.

After all, why should a master player get credit for beating the minnows ?
They should not be swimming in the same pond ! "

[waynegober]

sometimes minnow grow teeth and like to take bite out of big fish

[Chexhero]

"The solution is clear:
Where the average tournament rating of the entrants in a particular Tournament is below that of Master level, then master level players or above should not be allowed to enter it and they should save their energies for a higher strength event. Any proper set of Tournament regulations and rating system would enforce such a ruling.

After all, why should a master player get credit for beating the minnows ?
They should not be swimming in the same pond ! "

Yea, a master level player is going to rewarded like maybe a few points for beating a minor level player lol. The minor still has a chance to pull an upset, which would sky rocket their rating. In this system it is actually extremely hard for a high rated player to keep gaining a higher rating in a tournament with many lower rated players, unless he completely dominates the tournament.

But yea, it would not be a bad idea to have rating cutoffs, but the attendance at many tournaments are just so low that enforcing this rule probably wouldn't be the best.

[Danny_Alvarez]

Getting back to the subject of the Ratings.
I have long believed the ELO system to be unsound .

Liam i have said it before and i will say it again, at the risk of sounding like a nerd, i think ELO is outdated and Glicko or Glicko2 are far better models for establishing true ratings.

having said that, the work that has been undertaken is fantastic and any kind of ratings is outstanding.
No matter what system you use, the cream rises to the top.

Any ratng is just a number which reflects a proper ranking, thats all. I am dreaming that starting some day people participation in Divisions will be strictly based on rating and performance, not intention

indeed an excellent point and like Liam and John i agree totally.
otherwise why have ratings and/or divisions at all.???
cheers,
Danny

[tommyc]

I agree totally with Liam..........ive been banging on about this for ten yrs or more,players MUst play at there own level.Minnows cant swim with the Sharks thats logic!!

There is one option to this in my view,there should be a handicap allowed [a dirty word to alot of people?] but only on the occasion of evening the numbers up so as to avoid a bye in Tys.That player whose rating is lower than Master should be given a Plus score.Ive been on abt this too with little support and i reckon its the reason why we lose alot of middle ground players when they are forced to play at a level above their standard and eventually get disheartened and quit altogether.I can see the intention tho ,oh if i get two draws with a better player ill be happy ..there is no logic in that its a short term fix and a long term disaster.

Its been very evident to me in the little time ive been playing and that s only in Ireland,more players have left than are still playing . Tradition and the old heads are holding the game back because of so called TRADITION, the are so embedded in the past and refuse to move on.Theyr argument being "i had to do and so will you" .Head in the sand stuff .

[waynegober]

After having looked over the ratings and players around me, I am probably rated too high. I do not want to be pulled into any arguments but present the information below. It didn't format well upon transfer, but you may note, I won this tournament with 20 points, did not lose a round. Second place had 17 points. This is not a case of a shark swimming with minnows and the Dist. 8 is a tournament I will continue to play and support. However, I lost 14 rating points in this tournament. The rating risk is very high evidently for me at this tournament, so if I only played for points it would make much more sense to only play at Tenn. and Nationals in the Master Class and avoid Dist. 8. I am current Dist.8 champ for the 2nd time in a row and third overall and Okla. champ many times.

My question, how if this is accurate, does this encourage me to play in State and Dist. tournies if I want to increase my ratings to be allowed in the Master Class at a National? It matters not to me personally, for I have no doubt I will be required to play Masters from now on, and I will continue to support the local District tournament at the expense of points.

Note: I am not Alex with a huge rating to begin with...... Not a case of Shark and minnows at this Dist 8.

respectfully
Wayne Gober


Tournament Name : 2010 DISTRICT 8 AND TEXAS STATE

Tournament Location : MCKINNEY, TEXAS

Tournament Date : 2010-06-11

Scoresheet:

Name:
GOBER, WAYNE
TUCKER, ALBERT
KING, ED
LITTLE, ROY
JONES, ELBERT
SWEATMON, EARLE
GRAHAM, STEPHEN
BINNICK, LESTER
WILLIAMSON, TED
HARVELL, EARL
SHULTZ, KEN
HAWKINS, HUGH
BOWEN, JOHN
FRENCH, BILL
RND1 RND2 RND3 RND4 RND5 RND6 RND7
3T2 7T3 9T3 12T4 2T2 8T4 2T2
13T3 9T3 4T2 11T3 1T2 3T2 1T2
1T2 10T3 12T2 7T3 4T3 2T2 5T2
6T4 11T2 2T2 8T2 3T1 10T3 6T2
11T0 6T2 7T1 14T4 13T3 12T4 3T2
4T0 5T2 14T3 13T3 7T3 9T2 4T2
8T2 1T1 5T3 3T1 6T1 14T4 8T2
7T2 14T4 11T2 4T2 12T2 1T0 7T2
12T3 2T1 1T1 10T2 14T2 6T2 10T2
14T2 3T1 13T3 9T2 11T2 4T1 9T2
5T4 4T2 8T2 2T1 10T2 DRP DRP
9T1 13T3 3T2 1T0 8T2 5T0 13T2
2T1 12T1 10T1 6T1 5T1 BYE 12T2
10T2 8T0 6T1 5T0 9T2 7T0 BYE



Round Standings:

Names:
GOBER, WAYNE
TUCKER, ALBERT
KING, ED
LITTLE, ROY
JONES, ELBERT
SWEATMON, EARLE
GRAHAM, STEPHEN
BINNICK, LESTER
WILLIAMSON, TED
HARVELL, EARL
SHULTZ, KEN
HAWKINS, HUGH
BOWEN, JOHN
FRENCH, BILL
Round 1
2
3
2
4
0
0
2
2
3
2
4
1
1
2

Round 2
5
6
5
6
2
2
3
6
4
3
6
4
2
2

Round 3
8
8
7
8
3
5
6
8
5
6
8
6
3
3

Round 4
12
11
10
10
7
8
7
10
7
8
9
6
4
3

Round 5
14
13
13
11
10
11
8
12
9
10
11
8
5
5

Round 6
18
15
15
14
14
13
12
12
11
11
11
8
8
5

Round 7
20
17
17
16
16
15
14
14
13
13
11
10
10
8




Final Changes:

ID 10014 10127 10118 10048 10038 10073 10075 12515 10024 10094 10086 10077 10026 10028
Name GOBER, WAYNE TUCKER, ALBERT KING, ED LITTLE, ROY JONES, ELBERT SWEATMON, EARLE GRAHAM, STEPHEN BINNICK, LESTER WILLIAMSON, TED HARVELL, EARL SHULTZ, KEN HAWKINS, HUGH BOWEN, JOHN FRENCH, BILL
Games Played Before 170 332 182 154 68 220 142 12 428 304 338 126 36 38
Games Played After 184 346 196 168 82 234 156 26 442 318 348 140 48 50
Rating Before: 2062 2037 2137 1911 1440 1947 1592 1542 1632 1669 1736 1648 1288 1388
Rating After: 2048 2016 2054 1920 1558 1846 1634 1607 1662 1668 1755 1576 1348 1400

[waynegober]

Please also note that Albert Tucker lost 21 points for 2nd place
and Ed King lost a whopping 83 rating points for finishing 3rd

[waynegober]

some one might say, wayne gober shouldn't be in master anyway. This may be a fair assessment. If it is a fair assessment but I do well in Majors, such as when Albert won Majors the last time, could I be spared all the comments about sandbagging? These are the kind of things that cause players to quit playing...... that thought has crossed my mind numberous times

Wayne Gober

[Chexhero]

Well Wayne, a small drop like that is not really meant to discourage you or someone to quit playing in a certain tournament, but rather encourage them to play in a tournament of stronger players. Unfortunetly, the number of tournaments with strong players is limited. I don't really think that is the ratings system fault. The positive thing is, if you compete in masters this year you will probably receive a rating increase well more than 14, as long as you finish middle of the pack or close to it, and judging from some games I viewed from you against Clayton Nash, you are well capable of doing that.

[tommyc]

Im no expert but i suspect Chex has it right,i am not a fan of ratings really as i understood it if yu play against player of a similar rating or BELOW then you will surely drop your owning rating down ,depending on the score against such opponents [correct me if im wrong].AS Chex says yu gota play and do well against higher rating opponents to GROW your ratings total.But yu are more likely to drop in the present scenario , the thing i dont like about it is,players who lie dormant for years still keep their rating exactly the same which i think something needs tweeking or alternatively after a certain time they should be taken off the list until they play again.

[tommyc]

Ive had a look at the Official ratings board....................i mean who are these guys..... Schwartzberg,Margolin and Quartucci to name just a few and they are in the top 25 players.....in all my years in draughts ive never heard let alone seen them or watch their results in a Ty? Maybe somebody out there can fill us all in??

[Eric Strange]

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. Currently very few people are at their REAL Elo rating and the more tournaments you and your opponents play in the more correct it will be. Drastic changes would have happened regardless of the rating system we changed to. Once again, we are just in a reform period and it will take some time for everything to work itself out.

As far as players jumping in with their old (elevated rating) into a tournament because they still have their David Butler system rating. I hope I am the one in that tournament so I can take them down 50 points!

[waynegober]

Eric,

I understand the change is changing levels and in the end may be ok. But when someone like Ed King plays a Dist tournament without losing a round and finishes 3rd and loses 80+ points and throws him into a Major level rating (old rating numbers perhaps) I am only saying it wont change where he plays in a National tourn. He has played Masters for 25 years or more finishing mid pack many times and few times higher. Nobody is gonna tell him or a Laverty that they can't play Masters.

The real problem is so few tourn. and numbers at them. It will help that you have a 2nd list for inactive players to some degree. Until it all works out, and I hope it does, with ratings, it will realistically be run like it has the last few years.

My preference for National qualification would be regional qualifiers if we had the numbers. We don't so next fair thing in my mind is make bottom 3 finishers in Master or Major go down next time and have top 3 Majors and Minors move up.

Wayne


PS also make all young guns pay double entry fee LOL