Ratings- Who should be included?

[Danny_Alvarez]

Joe, don't take it personally... i am sure Sune didn't mean anything by it.

Besides, even if he did, we are all entitled to our opinions. and if in his opinion our efforts are better directed elsewhere, well he said it, it is off his chest.

Joe, you gotta get used to opinions that are divergent and criticisms that are less than ideal.
Doers get criticized a lot.
Tail up, head down and straight ahead.... most of the good deeds we do, are remembered long after the critics have quietened down.

cheers
Danny Alvarez

[Alex_Moiseyev]

WOW.

[Chexhero]

Danny- You are right, we are all entitled to our opinions. However, some of us choose to be respectful of others and thier hard work. I could put down others for thier efforts but I choose to be appreciative instead. Also, I do not need to get used to being put down for my effort. People will treat you how you allow them to treat you and I'm done allowing people to tear me down for doing something to benifit ACF.

But if you really want my opinion, it seems you are simply stirring the pot. I have deffended myself and my hard work. I am not asking for appreciation for my contribution but I will not allow people to put me down. If you have a criticism about the ratings fine. Go ahead and state your concern and maybe suggest a solution but make it constructive. What I have a problem with is the criticisms that are derogatory rather than constructive. I have said what I have to say. I will not continue to discuss this issue any further because it is not productive. Let's get back to the original issue, should non ACF members be included in the ratings posted on the ACF site?

[waynegober]

Let's get back to the original issue, should non ACF members be included in the ratings posted on the ACF site?

No

[Chexhero]

I move we limit all future ACF rating lists to ACF-sanctioned events (and perhaps WCMs hosted by the ACF and including ACF members), and limit all WCDF rating lists to international events.

John thank you for your opinion on this matter. Though I do disagree to an extent. I feel we should include all events that consist of ACF members whether ACF sanctioned or not. If we only include ACF sanctioned events then it is goodbye to Tennessee and Alabama too I believe. Two huge tournaments that are not ACF sanctioned. I could be wrong about Alabama, but I am almost sure Tennessee is not. I am pretty sure there are also other big tournaments that we would not be able to include. But to me they should be included because I am sure that most players who go to those tournaments are ACF members and I don't think their performance in those tournaments should go to waste. I do agree with your opinion concerning the WTM's though. As far as what WCDF does, that is up to Igor.

I think a bigger issue with removing non-ACF players from the ratings list is that the ratings were already calculated with them included. So take an example of King playing in the Irish Open. While he may be an ACF member, not everyone who played there was.
Would the right thing to do be to only calculate games between ACF members or to not include the tournament at all?
Either way it's in the past and his rating would've already been adjusted from the tournament. Removing non-ACF players from the list after the fact is a start, but it's not the same as removing them from the source, which would require recalculation.

Jason you have a good point. As far as your question, I don't think either is the best way to do it. Should we include the tournament I answered at the top. And as far as keeping the non ACF tournament, but only including the games between ACF players gets a bit tricky. The non- ACF members in that tournament will have an influence on which ACF members play each other, which would not be entirely fair if they are not even included in the ratings. My thing is we include all players, but we only show ACF members in the ratings and how they compare against each other. It also still gives non-members an incentive for joining the ACF or to at least pay the small fee to be included on the list.

So the first questioned has been answered. NO, lets not include non-ACF members on the ratings list. I am glad we agree. Now I think the second question is, what should these ratings represent? ACF players performance against each other only? Or player performance against everybody ACF or not? I personally want my own rating to represent my performance against everyone I compete against, as long as the competition I am playing in is official. But I understand others may feel differently. Please offer me your opinions in a constructive manner. Thanks.

[MostFamousDane]

Sune, I saw your comments to my 11 man ballot World Match with Tim Laverty and if I didn't say anything, this probably means - nothing much to add !

If you were looking for compliments - you have them

Well I was hoping to get some kind of statue in my honor but I guess this will do

[MostFamousDane]

Famous Dane - I was not implying that you haven't made any contributions to checkers. I have no clue who you are or what you have done. I'm glad to see that you do contribute. All I know is that I am just trying to help and people, just like you, seem content to tear me down. You came at me calling my contributions a waste. I was simply stating that if you dont like my contributions, oh well. If you see something you think needs improvement make an effort to improve it, but don"t tear others down for thier contributions. I see a lot of people on this forum complain that we need to increase appreciation and participation in checkers, especially to keep ACF going. However, very few act on what they say. I don't have a lot of money to donate so I donate my time and effort. I have spent a lot of time and hard work on these ratings and am insulted that people would call it a waste. Who cares how a person contributes as long as they make the effort. Criticizing me doesn't do anyone any good. Its certainly not going to encourage others to contribute if they see that when you do you get insulted.

Well believe or not it was not my intention to tear you down I didn't even critise any of the work you have done. I did try to be constructive and give you suggestions of projects that you could use your time with that I think are of more value. I think you are being a bit thin-skinned.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Joe, more food for thoughts ... maybe we need another topic on this matter.

I always and strongly beleive that ratings for GAYP events shall not be processed together with 3-moves and 11 man ballot. This is apple and oranges. It is well known that the percentage of draws in GAYP games is much bigger and any wins are more exceptional and honorable. Calculating rating for GAYP events seriously screwed numbers.

All after all - we have different title, different champions, different events because this is different game require different skills. We should have a different ratings or separate them ... at least to say.

[tommyc]

Sune Thrane has done plenty for draughts [mabye the world isnt as small as ppel say] plenty more than most ppel who are trying for ride rough-shod over him have,in asking "what have you done"?? I think thats rather insulting ,the difference is Sune works quietly in the back-ground and woe to anyone who hasnt bothered to find out his credentials before saying harsh words about him.LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP COMES TO MIND HERE!!...YES?


I agree with Sune and [any serious Master draughts player will tell the same] the ratings arnt a big deal as Sune says its a rough guide to where you are and thats all.Making a big deal out of it is not important but its proper to appreciate work done on it as it is time consuming to whoever takes up the challenge.

[tommyc]

But to answer the question posed;

It may be a dangerous precedent to OMIT Tennessee or any other group of players from the RATINGS in any American Tys as this will divide the country and now thats not going to do draughts Any GOOD WHATEVER. Im sure no-one wants to go back to the days of the A.C.A. AND ALL THAT ENTAILED with all the in-fighting that almost destroyed draughts for the sake of a few ratings.


Then you might consider the fact that if non ACF ers are NOT rated that may be "the strap across your own back" in losing futuer members,overall its a dangerous strategy for the sake of purified ACF ratings list?

[Ingo_Zachos]

Hi Joe,

you are doing great work, keep it up!

The WCDF also gets a lot of critic for their ratings since they established it.
Some critics are right, some proposals are just either not working or they are different alternatives that you can`t pick all at once, but it is not possible to please everybody.

But I realized that those who critize it very hard, are often those who are complaining if there is a delay in publishing the lists

I have a few suggestions, but I will sent them to you by personal message, as they are only suggestions, and as you have to work out if they can be applied in your case, and I dont want to cause a discussion if u dismiss or pick up my proposals.

I appreciate your work and commitment, and I know how much unpaid time and effort it takes.

Greetinx from cold, but mild Dortmund, Germany

ingo Zachos


PS:
I agree that ratings are not perfect and have inherent problems, that reduce their validity, especiially as maot rating systems are not designed specifically for checkers/draughts.
But ratings are just a number, based on past results, if they had been recorded and sent in.
So why take it that serious that you offend someone?
Ratings never win or lose games. Good moves and plans do.

[Chexhero]

I always and strongly beleive that ratings for GAYP events shall not be processed together with 3-moves and 11 man ballot. This is apple and oranges. It is well known that the percentage of draws in GAYP games is much bigger and any wins are more exceptional and honorable. Calculating rating for GAYP events seriously screwed numbers.

Alex,

You are right, but I still don't think we should separate them, especially due to the fact that there are barely any GAYP tournaments anymore. District 1, ACF GAYP Nationals, and the World Qualifier are the only GAYP tourneys I think I rated. Not to mention two of those tournaments are once every two years. My thing I guess is that it would be kind of pointless to have separate ratings for GAYP. Really every checker game is a draw to begin with. I think just because one version tends to produce more draws doesn't mean we should just separate it from the rest. Just my opinion though.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

there are barely any GAYP tournaments anymore.

OK, no problems, impact is minimum and fun is growing We should help our small and weak brother ha-ha

On serious note, all after all - any rating / ranking system has a great influence, encourage and motivate people. Thats why I am OK in general with any system which works without much glitches and holes

Joe, don't forget to publish rating list in February ACFB issue.

[Danny_Alvarez]

But if you really want my opinion, it seems you are simply stirring the pot. I have deffended myself and my hard work. I am not asking for appreciation for my contribution but I will not allow people to put me down.

mate if you really think i am stirring the pot , maybe you should re-read my statements....(someone who is stirring would have tried to make you more angry, not tell you to let it go) all i tried to do was to calm you down and keep you focused on the task ahead. And if you won't allow others to put you down, why are you having a go at me, when all i was doing was helping?

[Chexhero]

So far no reply from ACF management in regards to the members list. Jason and I are both trying hard to get the list in order to cut out the non members from the ratings. If we are not able to get the list by the end of the week then I will probably give Jason the go ahead to just post the ratings the way they are. I would like to have the ratings posted sometime by early next week. If anybody knows Kim or Alan well and could try getting into contact with them about this matter it would be greatly appreciated, thank you.