Scoring for the Nationals

[Chexhero]

Hello everyone. This is an important matter that I would like to discuss and would like to get some different opinions on. As many of you know, scoring for the 3 move nationals is done by who wins the round (4 game round), and not done on a game to game basis like almost every other tournament. Basically the winner of the round gets 4 points and the loser gets 0, and it does not matter what the score of the round is, even if it is close. A drawn round is 2 points for each player. This is different from the 2 game round scoring in which points are rewarded for each game. The problem with the 4 game round winner take all scoring is there is no way to calculate this into the ratings system. And I will say it now, the system will not be changed so it can, sorry. So obviously the simple solution would be to get a record of every game and construct a separate crosstable. However, if every game counts, it could alter the way the tournament is played, which many players, especially some experienced masters may not be happy about. I understand the goal is to win the round, not necessarily every game. While I like the idea of just having the tournament consist of game to game scoring, I also don't want to break a tradition that many players may like. I think this is something ACF management and players themselves should think about and possibly have a vote on. Is it really worth keeping that method of scoring which will not fit well in the rating system? I also question just how fair it is to have a scoring system in which you are only getting rewarded points by round rather than individual game. Please feel welcome to share your opinions on this topic, but if you have something bad to say about the ratings or the system, please keep it to yourself, thank you

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Joe, it is easy and simple: think we have just one game only with 4 points on table. Thats it. When I play World title match with 40 games it really doesn't matter if I win all 21 games or 1 game with 39 draws - I still get 2 poiints Voting on this matter was already done several years ago and Masters decided continue to use this system which is most proper and accurate in my eyes to rank players. This system exists for more then 60 years with very minor adjustments.

In fatc earlier micro-match in National consisted of 8 games or sometimes even more !

Under this system if you want to be successful - you should do exceptionally well overall and against strong players. Again, we don't play 4 games as 4 different events - we play only one event - micromatch.

Other divisions also voted on this matter and under unprecednt pressure of ACF administration choose different way ... so be it !

If rating scoring system doesn't fit very well into tournament system - shame for ratings and forget about them ! Just don't count ACF Nationals (WOW) or change / adjust rating system.

Another way to handle it - just wait when all old strong players pass away and change system. There will not be much objections in this case haha

Respectfully,

Alex Moiseyev

[Chexhero]

Alex, your replies and advice is always good, and at the same time very funny

I see your point about it being a micro match type of thing. But here is my question with that. Is it entirely fair that if player A beats player B, 2-1-1 that player A gets rewarded with all 4 points while player B gets none? To me every checker game in itself is a match and should be worth something, especially when it comes to masters where single games can go well over an hour long. Idk, I am used to the game by game scoring so I don't think I quite see it your way, but in any case I get where you are coming from. So are you saying you would not like the idea of me counting every game toward the ratings?

[George Hay]

Chexhero, there is a difference in perspective on this. From my GAYP perspective, I would like to see every game count.
Since all ballots have been carefully screened so that a draw is possible with careful play, there is no good reason (IMHO)
not to count every game. From a competition standpoint, it would lead to more spirited play and better playing to count every game. --George Hay

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Is it entirely fair that if player A beats player B, 2-1-1 that player A gets rewarded with all 4 points while player B gets none?

This is exactly the score I had against Gene Lindsay in 2000 3-moves National in Toledo. I lost 1 game, won 2 games and got 4 points. Yes, it is absolutely fair, because I won match ....

Match, match, match ... !!! How many times I have to repeat this to assure you that we don't play single games but match and we score entire match only.

I still don't understand - how calculating rating can be a problem for you in this case ? And if yes - you can follow John advice but it will not be 100% correct, because if I win 1 game and 3 draws, it's not the same in numbers if I won 1 ballot and drew another ballot.

[Chexhero]

I still don't understand - how calculating rating can be a problem for you in this case ? And if yes - you can follow John advice but it will not be 100% correct, because if I win 1 game and 3 draws, it's not the same in numbers if I won 1 ballot and drew another ballot.

Alex I get it, since it has already been voted on, I am sure the the same system will stay in place for the Nationals. What I am asking is, would you be ok if I collected the results of each game and counted each game toward the ratings? That is the only way there will be any consistency and accuracy within the ratings. And like I said, making any changes to the system is not an option.

[George Hay]

Chexhero, I guess that leads to a broader question: how are ratings calculated for checkers matches in general?
--George Hay

[liam stephens]

The scoring by points per ballot (or round) in 3 Move Tournaments would result in a vastly improved rating list, and allow the Elo system to operate in the manner for which it was designed. (as in Chess)

Adherence to scoring by points per game, in 3 Move Tournaments, the will only prolong the current mish mash of joke ratings.

Why award rating points to someone just because they can draw the strong side of the Skullcracker ?

If it has already been decided that "making any changes to the system is not an option" and that no change will be allowed in the method of calculating the ratings by points per game, then this discussion would seem to be a waste of time.

[Chexhero]

The scoring by points per ballot (or round) in 3 Move Tournaments would result in a vastly improved rating list, and allow the Elo system to operate in the manner for which it was designed. (as in Chess)

Adherence to scoring by points per game, in 3 Move Tournaments, the will only prolong the current mish mash of joke ratings.

Why award rating points to someone just because they can draw the strong side of the Skullcracker ?

If it has already been decided that "making any changes to the system is not an option" and that no change will be allowed in the method of calculating the ratings by points per game, then this discussion would seem to be a waste of time.

I am done discussing this topic. I made it clear in my first post that I wished that the ratings and system not be insulted and you did just both. The reason it is not an option is because the person who made the system believed in calculating game by game. We can only work with what we have and this is it. I offered an option. Either I can record every game and put them toward the ratings or find another way. I did not ask you what your thoughts were on the current rating system. So far every reply I have got has been extremely helpful and has shed some light in different directions and were not a waste of time. Thanks for those of you who contributed to this discussion.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

1. I totally agree with John and Liam that scoring per ballot would work much better and reflects nature of 3 moves.

2. If Joe will calculate rating (not related to real score) based on "ballot system" this would work better than counting rating per each game and I can live with this even though it doesn't reflect 100% situation.

As compromise - why not ... I am OK with this.

But this is my personal opinion only. Don't know about other Masters.

=========================================================

The best tournament system in my eyes - Round Robin with 2 games and scoring "per ballot". I proposed this system to ACF back to 2004 - 2005. Only talks, no progree and never voted on this.

Number of players in such Round Robin event must be permanent and not vary - 16. 15 rounds, 30 games. If we play 5 days, then we can make it 3+3+3+3+3 - 3 rounds, 6 games every day. If we capture Saturday, it will be even easy and sofer ... 2+3+3+2+3+2 or something similar.

[Eric Strange]

I agree with this scoring per 3 move ballot as long as it consists of 2 ballots per round.

in first ballot if I went 1-1-0 vs someone then next ballot went 0-1-1 then my opponent would receive 3 points correct?

This way of scoring would work just fine with the current rating system in place.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

There are two different things - scoring in tournamentn and calculating rating.

If we want to change something for real scoring - we have to vote in Masters again. If we want to change / adjust rating calculations - we don't need voting and Joe can make decision on his own.

[Eric Strange]

There are two different things - scoring in tournamentn and calculating rating.

If we want to change something for real scoring - we have to vote in Masters again. If we want to change / adjust rating calculations - we don't need voting and Joe can make decision on his own.

If you guys stayed with winner takes all 2 ballots 4 games per round Joe could calculate ratings as 4 points per round to winner but I honestly think this is dumb and unfair to many. If I drawed a full ballot with Alex I would want that counted as a draw for me then if he won the next ballot I would take my loss for that.

Taking a vote by the masters would be easier than adjusting calculations. Changing the ratings system is 100% not an option. It is time checkers started scoring rounds like real games do anyways

[Alex_Moiseyev]

If I drawed a full ballot with Alex I would want that counted as a draw for me then if he won the next ballot I would take my loss for that.

Hey, gentlemen, you are totally wrong !!! Think about this situation - I won 1st ballot and now need 2 draws to get 4 points. Will I be the same level aggressive and try something ? Probably not. In 2nd ballot I'll try to take two esy draws if possible. And even more worse - what happened if I won first two games ?

Regarding voting and changing the system ... As I said - I am in favor to play the following system:

Round Robin among 16 players, play 1 ballot every round and score per ballot.

If we don't count ALL 4 games, then we don't need 4 games.

Regards,

Alex

[Eric Strange]

The ratings system is based off of a 4 point per round system. 1 = draw, 2 = win, if you play 1 ballot per round and the ballot was winner takes all, then the loser although losing 1 side and drawing the other would be counted as 2 losses against him.

I am all for counting 1 ballot as 1 game and having 4 games per round. This way if someone draws the strong side of skullcracker and loses the weak side he has 1 solid loss on his record and onto the next ballot to get the full 4 points scoring.

Your way would require each game be counted like it would in gayp which would only require 2 games and possible 2 points per game.

I am up for either each game of a 3move ballot counted and only 2 games. Or each ballot counted as 1 game and 4 games get played.
These are your options for rating to be proper.