Updated Ratings!

[waynegober]

Actually in you consider the above scenerio, Kurnich ect would be more accurate if they considered all changes by the previous day's rating of any opponent. Same rational... Tired player is weaker on given day and first one to him benefits most but shouldn't.

best regards

[tommyc]

Im surprised to hear that the rating are adjusted in the ACF game by game? in have to say i agree with Gober, i was always of the opinion the adjustment was TY by Ty which makes more sense surley.bUT MAYBE THAT IS THE SYSEM ERIC HAS SET UP SO YOU CANT BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU,CAN YOU>>


Well at least now everyone knows the situation but does that make it better?

[waynegober]

bUT MAYBE THAT IS THE SYSEM ERIC HAS SET UP SO YOU CANT BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU,CAN YOU

Yes, I surely do appreciate the work and effort put forth by this group of young men.

Perhaps, the ratings system set up by Eric will work just fine and get us all ranked about right. That is really what these young guys are after and I applaud their efforts.

Hope my questioning the way it worked didn't come off as an attack as that wasn't my intention.

Thank you Eric, Joe and the coder who I forget his name.

Best regards and intentions,
Wayne

[Eric Strange]

Everyone understands the concerns with this system. To be honest if I did not believe this was the most accurate way to calculate ratings it would not have been done this way.

The only concern we have now is whether or not Joe wants to continue calculating the ratings. Given that of course it is appreciated that ACF have some ratings... at the same time why waste so much time on a system that is considered to be inaccurate, faulty, and basically a joke by a few members counting Alex who's opinion on the rating system is a very big deal considering he is the 3-move champ.

I can say with 100% that this system is extremely accurate and in my opinion more accurate than calculating rating based on an entire event performance. I believe Fide calculates game by game which they say they do this because it is MORE accurate. USFC calculates by entire event. There is about a 100 point swing in rating between the two styles using the same ELO ratings system as a base. Of course I keep finding different information regarding what FIDE and USFC does, but I know they do things differently regardless.

In any case I can understand where everyone coming from who disagrees with the current system but must say that I do not agree with them and have plenty of counter arguments which makes sense as well.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Eris system has "cut-off" time period 3 years. After 3 years everything will be completely cleanup. If we have enough patience and nerve to wait 3 years and let Joe do his job - hopefully we should have about right ranking list.

But as I said - ACF BY-LAWS must be updated.

During transition period we can't use old "grey ratings" and should rely on something else ... perhaps common sense ?

FIDE has much more events and games on table and calculating per game should work better. Significant drop in number for ACF ratings certainly could shock anyone, but we should remember - it's just a ranking list.
'
About Tommy Watson and Lindus Edwards I have no clue - they both never played in TN State where 15-20 players can drew round with anyone if good opening selected. Some of these players have rating 1800 or close. Althouh due to age and health problems Tommy is on decline in the past several years and is not as sharp as he used to be 10-15 years ago. Lindus, as well as Jim Morrison and some other strong players has low practice.

[Chexhero]

Part of the problem is that there are not nearly enough tournaments played, so not everyone is where they should be yet.

About Watson and Edwards- if you look at their tournament history, they both only have played in a few tournaments within the new rating system and had not been rated previously, so they both started at 1600. Despite their good performance in all the tournaments, they did not play against many higher ranked players. And unlike the Butler system, it takes more than a few tournaments for a player to boost their rating really high.

[liam stephens]

Alex Moiseyev wrote:

Lindus, as well as Jim Morrison and some other strong players has low practice.

Yes, Lindus only won the English Open in 2009 and again for the 2nd successive time in May 2011 and the Welsh Open in September 2011 !!!

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Yes, Lindus only won the English Open in 2009 and again for the 2nd successive time in May 2011 and the Welsh Open in September 2011 !!!

Thats what I call low practice. 1-2 annual events not enough. Jim Morrison usually plays in 2-3 events and I always criticized him for this. For players at high level like Jim and Lindus practice is crucial to support this level.

[tommyc]

Joe ,when updating next time please note the following players have recently deceased ;;

Brendan Ellison [dec]
Ned Morgan dec
[Pasty}Patsy Quinn [dec]


Also note that Liam Harkin[s]..............is listed twice!!

[Chexhero]

Tommy, I just checked and Liam Harkin is only listed once. I don't know what your seeing. And thanks for letting me know about the deceased players. If you find anymore please bring it to my attention.

[liam stephens]

Yes, LIAM HARKIN is shown twice, at No 307 and 401.
Name spelling is wrong at 307.

Also P J FUREY is shown twice at No 231 and 311.
Name spelling is wrong at 311.

Incidentally, why are long established Master/Grandmaster players, with well established previous ratings, started at 1600, just because it is a new rating list ?
It appears that very few lessons, if any, have been learned from the experience at Beijing in 2008.

[Danny_Alvarez]

while i agree wholeheartedly with Liam about the ratings of established masters + grandmasters .... (not starting at 1600)

with the duplicate names and/or our deceased brethren .... maybe we could email Joe with the names that need to be rectified.... he is only working with what he is given, and maybe just maybe we should finish the ratings up to date FIRST... and then do all the corrections....

just my opinion, cheers to you all and a merry 2012
Danny Alvarez

[Chexhero]

Not gonna happen Danny. If a player comes into this system with no previous rating due to a long time off or whatever the reason, they are going to start at 1600 just like everyone else. There are lots of players who come into the system who should not be at 1600 but we don't make predictions of where they should be. Sergio and Borghetti are two examples or my dad who should be ranked around 1000. To be fair and equal to all players everyone starts at a default rating of 1600.

[Rainmaker203]

Just like in the other thread. If you spend more time worrying about ratings than attracting new players, our children won't even be able to play checkers for ratings. There won't be an ACF 50 years from now if this trend continues.

All you guys need to get involved with bringing new players to this game, both locally and nationally, if you want people to continue playing checkers.

Sorry, but this is way too important to be ignored, so I feel very justified about posting this in the ratings thread. GET INVOLVED TODAY!!

[Chexhero]

Rainmaker you are the man. People should be complaining and worrying about the horrible marketing and advertising by the ACF, not the ratings. It is the most important thing that needs attention to and you rarely see it talked about on the forum.