TN Tourney

[Alex_Moiseyev]

But hope I do better next time.

Same with me. Lost 35 points ! Perhaps this magic formula expected from me 8-9 wins as zero ground. Fun is growing Maybe ACF should fortfeit me from this list in order do not dis-creditate this formula ? haha

[Chexhero]

You were just slacking Alex. LOL. What killed your rating the most was the rounds you drew. The rounds where you won 4-0 or 3-1 normally increased your rating a bit, but when you have a bunch of drawn rounds with much lower rated people, it is going to kick your rating down a little. I look at the flaw being in the tournament format. 2 games doesn't really tell the story between two players like 4 does. The more games there are in a round, the less likely the weaker player will escape the round with a draw against the stronger player. Of course, nobody wants 4 game rounds over a span of 3 days, but ballot scoring format like in nationals would make results more accurate. But anyway, your right, it expected about 8 wins from you to at least break even.

[liam stephens]

I see at last the penny is beginning to drop.

I posted the following some time ago:


Posted by liam stephens on Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:25 pm

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)

[Chexhero]

Liam, you also made some comments that mocked the ratings some time ago. This comment you made would be accurate as it points out that the way tournaments are scored may not be the best method. It isn't that the rating system itself is bad, or flawed. If more tournaments other than 3 move nationals used scoring per ballot, it would be impletemented.

[Michael Holmes]

Until reading the last two postings here I always believed that every game should have an independant value. Chess tourneys are 1 game rounds and therefore do have round sc scoring. I now think round scoring is best ( and it is not because I am placesing in the top a lot either!)

[Alex_Moiseyev]

I am here to make everyone happy. Whatever toy makes baby smiling - works for me.

[Chexhero]

Michael,

I think game by game scoring in chess is not to bad because there are a lot less draws than in checkers. While I am not an expert in chess, I would figure more often than not it would take a lot less games to get to a truth of superior and inferior among 2 players. With checkers however being less complex, it can take some more games due to a high volume of draws. More often than not I can normally always tie the computer the side of the stronger ballot, but will almost always lose the weaker side, unless I know the perfect PP. Of course, the computer is way better than me despite a high volume of draws I can get.

[Michael Holmes]

Joe, I think you misunderstood my post. Chess effectively has a round scoring ( I guess you can call it game scoring since each round has only 1 game!) concept. But I must also add that it takes more games to find a chess opponent's weakness. But chess is more complicated. I think therefore it would take morel tournaments.

[Chexhero]

I see where your coming from Michael. I would still think with many less draws in chess you could get to a truth faster than with checkers. In chess there are so many opportunties for the stronger player to find a way to beat down the weaker player, whereas in checkers, the options are much more limited. Hence, I think one of the reasons we have a 40 game WTM. I don't believe chess WTM are as many games.

[Eric Strange]

The system currently in use scores game by game as much as possible with the cross table format supplied by the ACF.

So say you win 1 and draw 1, so you have 3 points and opponent has one.

The current system will calculate a win for you and adjust your rating, and then calculate the draw and adjust your rating, which gives both players their adjusted rating after the round. So it is pretty close to game by game scoring.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

All we need - to wait 2-3 more years until the system stabilize. Assumption thats it's already recovered and is accurate seems to be an inllusion. Before this we can't use these ratings.

[Chexhero]

Are the ratings fully stabilized yet? No. Are they to a point we can use them to determine player placement in tournaments? Absolutely.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

or are you just speaking of your own rating going down?

Yes, I am speaking about my rating. Other players can speak about their rating. Because I don't see any indication of my level is droping (so far), I am assuming rating is not stabilize yet and more changes due to transition period are still ahead.

I don't really think my level should allow me to earn more than 4-6 wins in TN ty and if it's not enough, this means that under existing formula my rating still shall go even low than it is now.

We can see this on my rating because I play much more games than anyone else. Thats why all these paradoxes can be easy visualize. We already proved in the past than this system, in general, punish active players on long run.

Are the ratings fully stabilized yet? No. Are they to a point we can use them to determine player placement in tournaments? Absolutely.

I agree with first part and disagree with second.

I promise you - as soon as my rating will drop below 2000 (and this gonna happen soon), I wil requiry to allow me to play in Majors.

Or ... you have to continously adjust bareers.

[liam stephens]

Alex Moiseyev wrote on Tue Mar 05, 2013 11:47 am

I am here to make everyone happy. Whatever toy makes baby smiling - works for me.

But, today he writes:

Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:39 am

All we need - to wait 2-3 more years until the system stabilize. Assumption thats it's already recovered and is accurate seems to be an inllusion. Before this we can't use these ratings.

Hmmm...........................

If the above statement is correct, then the current list is "Unfit for Purpose".

[Chexhero]

Alex,

What happened after Nationals last year? I believe your rating went up nearly 100 points. Do you know why that was? Because # 1, masters included only high rated players, meaning division placement was used effectively. #2, ballot scoring was used. This allowed you to win almost all your rounds. Now, you put those things into place more consistently, your rating would not be dropping So based on those facts, it is unfair to just blaim the formula and system for your rating changes. It does not punish active players, rather it can be tough on those who are only playing much lower rated players, of course that is not your fault. Your rating is not the only that has decreased over the years either. Higher rated players went down, lower rated players went up, making for a more competitive system, that is the way it works. Among active players who do play consistently, you are way ahead of everyone. That is proof the system is doing something right.