Re: Hastings

On Jan 4, 8:44 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Kenneth Sloan" <KennethRSl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:flk3l6$ok$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Chess One wrote:
"Andy Walker" <a...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:flhf1p$haq$1$8300dec7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <jOudndzzY_dNtOHanZ2dnUVZ_jedn...@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Chess One <OneCh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
ECF have agreed to be interviewed by Chessville - would you like to
compose
a question based on what follows, that I can present to them in your
name?
Not really. ECF are "onside" on this, more-or-less; see
"http://www.bcf.org.uk/grading/2006/stat-gs_oct06.htm";. There is
some later info floating around, but I haven't seen it on the Web.

Thank you for this resource; I see that the 2 initial statements were

"David Welch came up with the hypothesis that the oddities in the
conversion from FIDE to ECF were due to anomalies in the ECF grading
system. Subsequently analysis by Dave Thomas showed that:
1) The actual performance of players did not appear to correspond to the
theoretical performance. This means that whereas for a grading difference
of 25 points the stronger player should score 75%, his actual score is
more like 68%.

This is a well known effect. It is inherent in any system where the
expected score is a non-linear function of rating difference. An
alternate explanation can be made using the fact that published ratings
are not precise - they are a mixture of knowledge (previous games) and
ignorance (everything else).

It's not a problem. This has been explained to you several times, Mr
Innes - are you having a senior moment?

Dr. Sloan, while I admit your undoubted prowess at mathematics,
understanding any written context, or writing other than cryptical responses
in English ain't your strong suit

The irony meter topped the scale, folks!

I'll let Dr. Sloan patiently explain to the Nearly an IM 2450 the
difference between rating floors and rating fraud.

- so that, for example, I cite the
problems said Welch addresses above in the perceived inequities of the
English system. If you yourself say 'it' is not a problem, then some half
dozen Brits contributing to the referenced website are confused by the ECF
itself, who do think 'it' is a problem; to wit, that's why they sponsor the
conversation and the half dozen writers.

There is another 'not a problem' below which you also say has been
'explained' to me which emerged from your own shop - though I think you mean
'explained away' rather thanthing any more candid.



FIDE has the same "problem". So does USCF. If you have a problem
matching ECF with FIDE, I think you need to look further for the cause -
this is not it.

I suspect that "anomalies" are due to edge effects and game conditions. A
2400 player has different goals and behavior when he is at the top of the
local pool than he does when he is at the bottom of the international
pool. Second: Elo systems largely ignore the draw percentage. Some game
conditions *encourage* draws (e.g., round robins) while others encourage
decisive results (e.g., big money Swiss events). A 2400 playing in the
World Open is playing a different game that the sams 2400 who has somehow
been invited to a 10-player round robin.
At the lowest end of the FIDE scale, their used to be (I think it's fading
now) an effect related to the FIDE rule that below-standard results are
not rated by FIDE (for new players). Most players who have just gotten
their first FIDE rating can be expected to LOWER that rating over the next
several events.

...
In the US the cause of rating inflation is clear in 2 respects;- here
there are 'awards' which fix ratings so that on attaining 2200, eg, that
becomes a permanent 'rating-floor' for that player, despite the fact that
3 years later actual performance has slipped to 1950 on the same scale,
the result of games is still scored against the 2200 number.

But when there is a very real problem in USCF's own system of rating
management, to which you are a contributor - you skip the issue.

Not only did a board member have to resign for gaining a /false/ rating
floor, but somehow the title and the floor were awarded by USCF with no
quality control by the ratings department or by management - so that someone
playing /only/ lower rated people, most circa 1800 can become a master
player, even though he never even defeated a master!

Though the board member had to resign, no heads rolled in the rating
department, since no error was admitted - and to my questions (a) how many
of these falsely awarded titles exist? and (b) can it happen again tomorrow?
There were no answers - since presumably 'it is not a problem'.

You made your dismissive comments in support of a USCF delegate who was busy
abstractly criticising other people's rating systems, specifically their
'QA' - while claiming USCF's were the best. Both the criticism of others and
assertion of USCF superiority were equally vaguely expressed - and the
example I use here went unanswered.

This seems to make a monkey out of Elo's idea by deliberately removing
ratings from any mathematical basis whatever!

Secondly, popularity of tournament chess can place players within the
same approximate rating range, consistently either at the top or the
bottom of it: A friend has played in half a dozen money tournaments now
where he is in the top 10% of players in a [eg] 1500-1900 class, and he
often wins money thereby, but on the broader scene he must play higher
rated players than his nominal 1850 rating, and so loses the points he
gained against the lower rated ones - and he is quite happy about this
because then he can keep winning money for his wins!

This analysis is specious. As noted above, your performance when playing
against lower rated players tends to be LESS than predicted, and hence you
tend to lose points (not gain them, as you say).

I didn't predicate my 'specious' example by saying 'playing against lower
rated players' -you did!
It should be self evident that it is inflationary for all opponents to score
against a player's rating which is hiked 250 points. In some half dozen
responses to that issue, I see you cannot admit the truth of it, and claim
it is actually deflationary.

pfft!

By the same token, when you play higher rated players, it is likely that
you will GAIN rating points.

In any event, none of this is inflationary.

?

Floors are, indeed, evil. However, with careful measurement and tweaking
of parameters it is possible to make a rating system inflate, deflate, or
remain stable, depending on what your want to do. In USCF ratings, we use
the "bonus point threshold" as a design handle to control
inflation/deflation. It's been working remarkable well for the past 5
years or so.

A board member having to resign by systems incompetence is 'working
remarkable well'? Not only does the math seem to be unwell, but the
political award of a title based on obvious cheating of the system wouldn't
fool a 9th grader for 5 minutes.

Phil Innes


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hastings
    ... "David Welch came up with the hypothesis that the oddities in the conversion from FIDE to ECF were due to anomalies in the ECF grading system. ... At the lowest end of the FIDE scale, their used to be an effect related to the FIDE rule that below-standard results are not rated by FIDE (for new players). ... Most players who have just gotten their first FIDE rating can be expected to LOWER that rating over the next several events. ... As noted above, your performance when playing against lower rated players tends to be LESS than predicted, and hence you tend to lose points. ...
    (rec.games.chess.misc)
  • Re: Rating: USCF and/or FIDE?
    ... decide to play in FIDE tournaments, does this mean you somehow "start at ... USCF rating? ... and considers all player ...
    (rec.games.chess.misc)
  • Re: !Re: Anand-Kramnik, #5 versus #6
    ... quote from Dr. Arpad Elo's "The Rating of Chessplayers Past and ... Since 1960 the [Elo] system has been used by the USCF ... his Idea deployed by USCF and FIDE. ...
    (rec.games.chess.misc)
  • Re: New Rating System Proposal
    ... >>consistently compete against 7 other players should deserve a rating ... which awards any form of ranking to people who don't play. ... Games have winners and losers. ...
    (rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad)
  • Re: Anand-Kramnik, #5 versus #6
    ... ELO having not interested USCF and Fide in his material [see chessbase ... quote from Dr. Arpad Elo's "The Rating of Chessplayers Past and ...
    (rec.games.chess.misc)