WCDF RATINGS

[rich beckwith]

It's hard to look at one or two isolated tournaments and conclude where people should rate. For example, Gene L. had an outstanding 2007, so his rating should improve in the next report. However, the past few Nationals for him were not so good. Joe Schwartz had the performance of his life at the 8th IM in Las Vegas in 2005, but he struggled last week in Vegas at the WQT (in GAYP), which suggests his IM performance was perhaps more of an anomaly. Yes, Americans did well in the 8th IM, but we were non-factors (myself included) at the 2006 WQT in Stonehaven, where only Jim cracked the Top 5. Increasing such international meetings should help to sort out any potential unintended regional bias.

Ingo, I hope to have several new results for you and Igor in the next few weeks, including US Nationals and WQT. I don't think I could have kept up at all without Patrick's assistance. I will send after I get everything together and do a final look-over.

[Ryan Pronk]

Dear Ryan,

in fact the World Youth GAYP Champion is a US citizen, not a European.
So, if a federation benefited from that, it was the ACF.
Remember that you did not win the US youth nationals, but lost to the only European attending ?

So with 21 as limit, the US boys would in fact do worse!

This has nothing to do with me. Shane is also over the age of 18, which disqualifies him from ever becoming World Youth Champion. The reason for my making that point was because there are few youth in the world today under 18 that are serious about checkers. By closing that gap, you are hurting many players (mostly Americans, hence the reason the Europeans voted the age down). Regardless, the bulk of the young players are in the 19, 20, and 21 age range, and it would have made a lot more sense to have the qualifying age set at 21.

2. The result in the Internationals between the US and the Irish & British team matched almost exactly the result you could expect from their rating difference. It is a fine example of how good the system works, if you r able to do this arithmetics, but I guess you don't know how.

Ingo, you are wrong here. Since several of the members of the G.B. team are rated higher than U.S. players, I would expect them to have scored better or even win the match!

3. When did Alex Moiseyev beat Ron King ?
In 2005!
Who finished ahead of Alex Moiseyev in all events both played since then ?
Ron King!
A system that would not place the players by performance as you seem to propose would simply be unfair.

So, in the WCDF's opinion, Ron King is the best player in the world? Not a chance, my friend. Regardless of performance, you are admitting to the world that Ron King is the better player. I hope everyone can see how wrong your way of thinking is.

P.S: If your only consideration if a system is fair, is the fact how many US citizens r at the top, who is biased ?

Simple, because Americans are far superior players. You are trying to change something that cannot be changed. Americans have always been the best, and they will continue to dominate. The WCDF will crumble if they believe they can get away with this travesty.

[Ingo_Zachos]

...

Simple, because Americans are far superior players. You are trying to change something that cannot be changed. Americans have always been the best, and they will continue to dominate. The WCDF will crumble if they believe they can get away with this travesty.

No more comments needed to such kind of attitude.

[Ryan Pronk]

It is not biased by any "personal" weight of the events.
All events r treated as equal.

Not all events should be equal. American tournaments are generally the toughest tournaments in the world. How can you have (this is a hypothetical example) an unknown player from Brazil win a tournament against recreational players be on the same level as a Jim Morrison?

According to the WCDF, things like that happen way too often, and it must be stopped.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

3. When did Alex Moiseyev beat Ron King ? In 2005! Who finished ahead of Alex Moiseyev in all events both played since then ? Ron King!

Dear Ingo,

If we take the number of individual games games between me and Ron in GAYP and 3-moves, together or separately, I have a positive balance. It is very high in 3-moves, and 1 game ahead in GAYP. In addition you have to consider match 2003 as well.

So, in the WCDF's opinion, Ron King is the best player in the world? Not a chance, my friend.

Ryan, I always stated that the only way to prove pudding - eat it. All we need to do for now - just wait another week when match start. If Ron King will be a winner of match, that means that WCDF ratings are not only "provisional", but also - "well predictable" !

I agree that our close ratings may create a wrong impression about close strength.

Concerning top world 50, I think an accurate number of Americans here exceed 40. In order to reduce this number - we have to wait few more years, when some players will be gone away

Alex

[rich beckwith]

[quote]Congratulations to all the Europeans who voted down the age restriction for the youth world championship. The age should have been 21 and under to contend for the World Championship, but since most of the top American youth are between the ages of 19 and 21, you wouldn

[Patrick Parker]

in 2005 gayp nationals i believe it was the first time we changed
from 4 game heats? to round scoring ....changed alot

2006 ron alex and richard were tied i believe in 3move nationals
honor points seperated them

this years nationals king missed 4 rds otherwise i say he wins

also 4 game heats changes things and i doubt i attend anymore nationals
that doesnt use this system
if that means i have to play in masters in order for that to happen and
get slaughtered so be it ....it changes alot
do 2005 nationals based on 4 game heats instead see the difference outcome people change places rounds would have been different

that however is another topic


i dont care who is the the top 5 10 30 70 whatever
all i am saying is ............the current standings absolutely dont make sense i dont care what country you are from


also there are just people in places that cant make sense
but as u say the ratings are provisional
however i want to point out two americans who shouldnt be close to each other
ed king ranked 195
me myself and i 203
ed king wins the texas tournament ever year i believe
i havent really won anything
i shouldnt be ranked close to him
there are flaws .......all i am saying

also attending texas often is albert tucker who is rated high in the acf
and ed still wins the tournament
acf ed king over 2200 tucker almost 2200
yet on wcdf me and ed and close in rating .........how can this be?

but i guess in time things will even out




ps

to those who like college football
this might be like the SEC all the good teams have to play each other
and few can survive this

[Patrick Parker]

I will send after I get everything together and do a final look-over


thanks for telling me that richard ....some of the players in kurnik have been asking me when it would be done ....i told them we were waiting probably on wq which seems mostly right ....so i was kinda accurate in telling them that

also richard i dont think joes 8th im was out of character but it was 3 move
and things change in that and gayp
i dont even compare gayp or 3 move events ......or 11 man ballot

[Alex_Moiseyev]

[quote:debdb21a28="liam stephens"]Thank you Ingo. As Chairman of the Ratings Committee, I am sure you would also attest to the tremendous amount of effort and work put in by Igor in the preparation and analysis of the Ratings material. The calculations are based on well proven mathematical formulae and to suggest that somehow the resulting ratings are biased against American players is ludicrous, and absolutely without foundation.

Years ago there was a Yorkshire mafia (see Oldbury’s Encyclopaedia page 126 - “the Mafia has lost its grip”) but today I believe they are mainly resident in America.
I’m sure “Our little Igor” could do without the Brickbats emanating from the armchair mafiosi.[/quote:debdb21a28]
I can see everything in this message - excuses, humor, cleverness, intelligence ... the only things i don't see - appologizes and deadlines. If rating preparation is so complicated, the dates must be realistic, and maybe it make sense to deliver rating list every 12 months, not 6 months.

But once date was declared, July 01, 2007 - it has to be meet or people must be informed timely about delays and reasons.

Sincerely,

Alex

[BillyBoy]

Ryan, You made some interesting and good points. On a similar note, I always thought it was kinda strange to sponsor players from around the world to come and beat their own members (ACF)

[liam stephens]

The following article by Derek Oldbury which appeared in his Square World magazine May-June 1966 seems strangely relevant.

A.C.F. HISTORY LESSON
With the release of the March issue of the A.C.F. Bulletin, we find the Americans vying with their British cousins in the latest fashionable political game, that of "putting straight the record." In this the American effort must be conceded as the most thorough to be seen in recent years-well up to Moscow Kremlin standards.

We refer, of course, to the A.C.F. Bulletin "Roster of Champions," a praiseworthy feature which aims to further the recognition of talent, international or statewide, by listing all titles and titleholders officially recognised by the A.C.F. Other official organisations might do the same - were it not so embarrassing.

However, in the March issue the Roster takes on a "new look" and, to quote Secretary Grandjean : " All past World Champions and all past American Tourney Champions are permanently listed-beginning with 1900. Only those listings for 1948 to date have any official A.C.F. endorsement. For one thing, the AC.F. did not come into existence until 1948 -secondly (especially for World Champions), the titles of the early years are often based on claims of the players rather than the endorsement of any official body."

This is a remarkable statement, fascinating to contemplate.
It seems that in modern times a Champion (definition: one who excels all others) can be made by official decree, or sanction, not by public acclaim based upon actual performance. (Likewise, to unmake a Champion it is not necessary to excel him; just pass an official resolution that he does not exist.)

But, was it always thus? Can it not be affirmed that Champions are, and always have been, awarded their crown by public acclaim-and nothing else? Anderson, Wyllie, Yates, and others, were each acclaimed in their day as Champion of the World. To imply that they were in the slightest degree less than Champion, simply because no official organisation existed to "endorse" their status, puts "official" endorsement above public acclaim.

Supposedly, the purpose of official endorsement (in any country) is to prevent unauthorised title-grabbing (if it's authorised, it's O.K.), but, can you name anyone who ever became World Champion-just by "claiming" to be, with-out actually playing for the title, or who retained such title without defending it, once won? Remember, we are talking about the bad old pre-official dark ages, when the titles were "often based on claims of the players," and nobody would have been discourteous enough to say to a phony claimant: "Play up or shut up."

Now, a really interesting point.

What happens when two organisations, equally "official," each endorses its own version of history and each claims its own World Champion? But, surely this is an academic question which arose only in the anarchic days of old; long before anyone suggested an International Board of Control to settle such disputes. Incidentally, the Board of Control fell flat on its face in trying to solve its very first dispute: namely, as to which of the official national organisations was to bite off the biggest piece of power cake I So, let's ask that question again, and begin by looking at the list of World Champions from the A.C.F. Bulletin.

This roster of World Champions will make strange reading in Scottish and English official circles, no doubt, as these would be quite unaware that Alfred Jordan or Newell Banks held the World title between them from 1912 to 1922. Also, who in Britain could guess that when Stewart played Banks in 1922 it was Stewart who was the challenger, not Banks-as everybody thought? Evidently the record reads this way so as to make "legitimate" the official (A.C.A.) authorisation of Banks' second reign (1933-34) as World Champion. It is significant, perhaps, that the A.C.F. is not prepared to uphold the status of its official predecessor (the A.C.A.). In that case, why not at least uphold the status of its British counterpart? If we switch over to the British records, we can see "why not," for these read even worse!

After wrapping up Robert Stewart in cotton-wool (against possible American challengers) for 15 years, the Scottish Draughts Association finally "exposed" him to a challenge from another Britisher, Sam Levy, who was "officially" awarded the World title by default. All previous American claims, on precisely the same grounds, were ignored. Later (when Levy died) a claim for the title of World Champion was put in by Sam Cohen-on the rather nebulous grounds that he had been the last player to meet Levy. This at least framed a new concept. Not only can a player win a World title, or be decreed a World title-he can also inherit a World title! In 1946, Cohen successfully defended his title in a match against James Marshall. For a few years this match was not officially" recognised " by the E.D.A., then it was, later again it wasn't. Finally, Cohen was officially "dropped" in exactly the same way as Banks had been, by the now defunct but then official A.C.A.) .

In the years 1922-58, the American and British "official" bodies were unable to agree on a single concept regarding the World Championship, in sharp contrast to the years preceding the forming of official organisations to "control" the game. It would have needed a genius to determine just where the members of the fraternity were expected to stand in their individual points of view. Yet, during these same years, anybody who got out of line with the official way of thinking and who dared to criticise the sterile set-up, anybody like Banks or Ryan (or this writer) was howled down as an anarchist and trouble-maker.

Just to really straighten out the record (in an unofficial way), it was one of these anarchists who finally untangled the World situation: in the only manner that counts; across the board. He beat first Cohen, then Marshall, to dispose of the E.D.A. and the S.D.A. contenders; then (in 1958) he met the A.C.F. contender, to clear up the mess left by 36 years of muddled thinking.

THE EDITOR.

[Palomino]

Liam,

Very interesting, I love it, history is one of my favorite subjects but tell us more please.

Just to really straighten out the record (in an unofficial way), it was one of these anarchists who finally untangled the World situation: in the only manner that counts; across the board.

Who was this anarchist of whom you speak, Derek Oldbury?

Regards, "Pal"

[liam stephens]

Hi Pal,

Yes it was Derek Oldbury, and it is him "who speaks" not me.
That entire article was by him in the Square World.

As you say, it is all very interesting.

Regards - Liam.

[Palomino]

Thanks you so much for sharing Liam, I have a very small library and not possessing the historic literature of our game, I (and I'm sure many others) very much appreciate the history lesson.

Best regards, "Pal"

[Lindus Edwards]

Ryan Pronk wrote : "Simple, because Americans are far superior players." In the 1989 Great Britain and Ireland v USA match my late father, Bill Edwards, scored 7 wins, 3 losses and 10 draws.
Having said that, however, only 10 wins were scored against the USA team in that match
A testimony indeed to the playing strength of my father when in his prime.