2021 US Championship

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob G:

Bob G: "I don't quite follow your argument, so I will refrain from commenting."

At this point, I'm not really arguing anything.

You, Pargat and I are all debating using theoretical models. But I'm unsure if we all agree as to how ELO works on ground zero.

So I proposed a situation close to reality and described how I believe it works.

All I'm trying to do, at this point, is to get agreement on something.......something in common we can work from, rather than each of us throwing up separate models.

I simply am asking you and Pargat if I accurately describe how ELO works on one model. If you both agree, then we can use that model to argue the issue of what happens when there is a women-only group, playing only among themselves, with some new women/girl members entering steadily. This is the situation that Pargat wishes to project on re increasing ratings, as I understand him.

Bob A

[John Brown]

I have three questions.
#1. If you have 20 players all rated 2700 and they play a round robin and all games are drawn who wins points?
#2 If you have an open round robin section where 10 players are 2700 and the rest are 2699 and all game among players are drawn who gets the points?
#3 If 10 players are 2700 and 2 players are 1600 and the 1600's win all their games and the 2700's can only draw against themselves then who gets the points?

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I have a real life example to illustrate from the SCC Jack Frost U1400 before the pandemic.

https://www.chess.ca/en/ratings/t/?id=202002042

Daniel won the section with a score of 5/6.
Without going through the calculations, instinctively most people would expect his rating to increase.
But his rating did not increase, but remained at 1341.
I checked the calculations with the online rating calculator, and it is correct.
Those of us who understand the formula (like us 3) are not so surprised since Daniel was rated much higher than his opponents.

Yup, points do mean anything without knowledge against whom they were won.
Look at the second place: 990->1182 with performance 1398 and 4/5 (real points)

[Bob Gillanders]

Do Pargat and Bob G agree that I have the system properly working so far in my investigation?

Hi Bob A.

I don't quite follow your argument, so I will refrain from commenting.
But you do talk about moving up and down sections, so let me illustrate a point important to that issue.

I have a real life example to illustrate from the SCC Jack Frost U1400 before the pandemic.

https://www.chess.ca/en/ratings/t/?id=202002042

Daniel won the section with a score of 5/6.
Without going through the calculations, instinctively most people would expect his rating to increase.
But his rating did not increase, but remained at 1341.
I checked the calculations with the online rating calculator, and it is correct.
Those of us who understand the formula (like us 3) are not so surprised since Daniel was rated much higher than his opponents.

This is a source of frustration for some players who find themselves trapped at the top of their section.
They often need very good scores to move up to the higher section.
Thus why so many want to play up, and most organizers understand this and agree.
But that just makes it even harder for those who don't play up.

This is not news to those of us familiar with rating formula, but I thought it was a good example for the rookies.

[Erik Malmsten]

Some data on ratings and gender (2016). I thought that the women's bell curve would be narrower, more players in the centre and less in the extremes. But the curve is similar to the men's.

The women's age under 25 is significant as there were much fewer women players before 1990. I think the Queens Gambit film would have increased the number of fenale players.

https://nycdatascience.com/blog/stud...s-rating-list/

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Pargat:

We are making progress.

Yes........what generally happens is that the open pool grows by new, low-rated players entering the pool. They are then beaten up upon by the top players in their section. These top players move up a section, becoming the lowest rated players one section up. But they are over-rated - they didn't improve; they just beat up on weaker players. So the top players in this section beat up on them, and gain rating points, enough to enter the next section up. And so on up the sections 'til the "Open" section. Then in the Open section the top players increase their rating a very small amount by winning away from the bottom, the new rating points brought into the Open Section pool by these bottom rated plalyers.

BUT.......

This increase will be very modest, because of the rating formula FIDE has at the top rating level. Furthermore, the average rating of the elite top 10, for example, will then stagnate and remain the pool's average top rating, since the top players will just trade points back and forth, randomly winning, drawing and losing. This is barring one of the 10 actually being Magnus Carlsen, who could then beat up on the other 9 elite players, and raise his rating to the top level, a ways above the average rating of the other 9 elite players.

Note also: if the new player into the pool is rated the same as the other 10 elite players, and is not Magnus Carlsen, the average ceiling rating of the pool will not change.

Do Pargat and Bob G agree that I have the system properly working so far in my investigation?

[Pargat Perrer]

Can we agree on an investigative model, somewhat reflective of reality?: that the 2021 women's pool at the moment has a lower average rating than an open pool of the same number of players. And the average rating of the elite women players is about 200 rating points below that of the elite in the open pool. And for the sake of argument, let's say that, at the moment, there are the same number of players in each pool (arbitrarily.....1000), though in fact the open pool is bigger. For our investigation, I think this fact does not affect the outcome........or do you think it does?

Yes, I've been saying (and Bob G. agreed apparently) that the key variable is the relative size of the two pools. If you take the size of the open pool now, let's say worldwide it's 100,000 people for just a round number, then we see that with that many people and with some number N rated games between the members of the pool, the highest rating achieved so far is just over 2850.

If the pool grows by X number of members, the rating of Carlsen might reach 2900. Exactly what X needs to be could probably be worked out mathematically.

Now let's say this open pool is actually all men, it's not critical because we have already hypothesized that men and women are equal at chess ability by nature. You can still call it "open pool" if you like.

Now we create a new pool and it is women only. At first it only had let's say 1,000 members. Over time it grows to 10,000, then to 50,000, and finally to 100,000 members. And they are only playing against each other, no games against the men. Now all we need is for the right number of rated games played by all the members to achieve a Bell curve that is accurate enough. Maybe that number is actually less than N, the number of rated games that has been played up to today by the open pool. Or maybe it does need to be N.

Once we reach that number, the Bell curve for the women will be almost totally identical to the open pool curve. That means the outliers will be almost identical in number and in rating, there will be maybe 2 women near to the 2850 rating. This will happen without any woman playing any man in a rated game.

If we can agree on that, then we don't need any investigation, which of course a real investigation cannot happen because we can't actually separate out the men and women in real life.

Here is a question and answer on Quora.com which reinforces my point:

Question: What is the highest Elo chess rating possible?


Shaun Press
, FM, FT, IA, Member FIDE Rules Commision
Answered Jan 17, 2018
A2A

As the question is currently stated - there is no upper limit to Elo ratings. As the pool of players increases, the rating of the highest players get larger (not constantly, but eventually)

If you are looking for a specific number then the question could be restated as - “In a closed pool of N chess players, what is the highest theoretical Elo rating possible?” Then you can calculate the answer.

I underlined the critical statement. This is what you need to understand about Elo ratings.

[Pargat Perrer]

Thank you Peter. You are correct. My comment was in reference to the Kung Fu series. Grasshopper was a friendly positive name for the impatient apprentice. I was horrified to read above that Pargat took it as a racial slur. It was certainly never meant as such. It was careless of me to assume Pargat was familiar with the reference.

Pargat, please accept my sincere apology.

Yes, I accept and sorry for the misinterpretation. Also sorry for seeming smug in my reply.

Just understand that I do get what you and Bob A. are arguing, but the crux of the argument is false. You haven't really provided anything solid on Bob A.'s argument, this idea that women must play higher-rated men to raise up their ratings. I mean, yes, they can do that, but to tell them that they MUST do that only insults them, even if that was not intended. I know some women in chess in the USA, so I know something of what I speak.

The better message to be getting across to women is to grow their membership in competitive chess, especially at the children's level but keeping them interested into adulthood.

[Pargat Perrer]

Plus, have you stopped to consider that if something as innocuous as a chess rating gets you this pissed off, then maybe you're pursuing the wrong hobby? Don't people usually choose their hobbies based on entertainment/therapeutic values? If you want to engage in something that makes you angry, why not take up politics?

Pissed off? Angry? Maybe my use of all caps has given this wrong impression. There is nothing on this forum that could possibly get me pissed off or angry, I assure you.

Thanks for what you wrote about the grasshoper thing. I had not heard that reference. I took it not only as a possible slur, but also to be demeaning in the sense that i was a young know-nothing who had to be educated, and he added that it would take several lessons before I was educated. I can only think he assumed I literally know nothing about Elo, but if that were the case, I wouldn't be arguing my point, because my point does need some good understanding of Elo.

Thanks, Peter.

[Erik Malmsten]

Brad, if a woman plays in an open section, and finishes 2nd, does she win BOTH the 2nd-place money AND the top woman money (assuming a man finished overall first)?

Only one prize per player, whichever is a larger amount of cash. This is a constant problem for organizers and the TD leaning over the crosstables at the end of the event. Usually there's a lower entry fee for juniors/bantams, seniors and women to encourage those (possibly lower-income groups) to play (although these players often face larger travel and hotel expenses). And then they qualify for their own prizes as well as open and class prizes. Studious Juniors could be stronger than their rating and usually win a majority of the open and class prizes. The women and senior prize often goes to the second or third player as a consolation prize for having a good tournament. It's nice to see a variety of people on stage. Most of the prize money goes to the open prizes. An alternative is junior/women/senior non-cash prizes given from sponsors. Sometimes there is a team prize or best game prize but I haven't seen other forms of recognition such as longest game, first win in a rated game, or first overall plus score, or first time moving into a higher rating class, or travelling from the furthest distance.

[Bob Gillanders]

Pargat, I highly doubt that Bob G. meant "grasshopper" as a slur. About 45 years ago there was a tv series called Kung Fu about a Shaolin (sp?) monk travelling through 1870s America while trying to reconnect with his American roots. When the protagonist, Kane, was a boy in the monastery, one of his teachers gave him a friendly little nickname, grasshopper. Perhaps Bob made a mistake in assuming you would be familiar with this tv show, but that's it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fu_(1972_TV_series)

Thank you Peter. You are correct. My comment was in reference to the Kung Fu series. Grasshopper was a friendly positive name for the impatient apprentice. I was horrified to read above that Pargat took it as a racial slur. It was certainly never meant as such. It was careless of me to assume Pargat was familiar with the reference.

Pargat, please accept my sincere apology.

[Peter McKillop]

Yeah, when you call the person you are debating with "young grasshopper" which is almost an ethnic slur, but even without the ethnic element, it is demeaning and making yourself to be the Oracle of Wisdom.

YOU began the "hostilities", dear sir.

Maybe, given your obvious problems with English grammar and getting the correct statements across, you should just stop writing completely.

Plus, have you stopped to consider that if something as innocuous as a chess rating gets you this pissed off, then maybe you're pursuing the wrong hobby? Don't people usually choose their hobbies based on entertainment/therapeutic values? If you want to engage in something that makes you angry, why not take up politics?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Pargat:

I'll propose something to try to simplify this investigation.

Can we agree on an investigative model, somewhat reflective of reality?: that the 2021 women's pool at the moment has a lower average rating than an open pool of the same number of players. And the average rating of the elite women players is about 200 rating points below that of the elite in the open pool. And for the sake of argument, let's say that, at the moment, there are the same number of players in each pool (arbitrarily.....1000), though in fact the open pool is bigger. For our investigation, I think this fact does not affect the outcome........or do you think it does?

We will then try to see how, in both our explanations, the elite women's pool average rating can rise. And whether it can rise 200 points, so as to equal the elite open pool rating.

Does this allow us to try to get at where our foundational assumptions are different?

Bob A

[Peter McKillop]

Yeah, when you call the person you are debating with "young grasshopper" which is almost an ethnic slur, but even without the ethnic element, it is demeaning and making yourself to be the Oracle of Wisdom.

YOU began the "hostilities", dear sir.

Maybe, given your obvious problems with English grammar and getting the correct statements across, you should just stop writing completely.

Pargat, I highly doubt that Bob G. meant "grasshopper" as a slur. About 45 years ago there was a tv series called Kung Fu about a Shaolin (sp?) monk travelling through 1870s America while trying to reconnect with his American roots. When the protagonist, Kane, was a boy in the monastery, one of his teachers gave him a friendly little nickname, grasshopper. Perhaps Bob made a mistake in assuming you would be familiar with this tv show, but that's it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fu_(1972_TV_series)

[Pargat Perrer]

Hi Pargat:

Pargat:

"if the women's pool grows to be the size of the men's pool, AND the women are every bit as good as the men collectively, then the men's pool will continue to have its collection of 2700+ and 2800+ players and the women's pool with have it's own collection of 2700+ and 2800+ players."

Of course you are right.

IF the elite in the women's pool are of the same RATING (As well as strength) as the elite in the men's pool.

The pragmatic issue we face is that in the women's pool, at the moment, the average rating of the elite women is below the average rating of the elite men. You agree to this from all I've read.

Now you magically propose a model where the men's pool (I'd prefer calling it now the open pool, to get rid of your inaccurate sexist charge) average elite rating is the same as the elite rating in the women's pool!

How did you get there? How did the elite of the women's pool get so high, so as to equal the average elite rating of the Open Pool?

Bob A

I'll repeat my question to you:

HOW DID THE MEN'S POOL GET THERE? HOW DID MEN'S RATINGS GET UP TO 2850?

The answer: by playing each other.

That's how the women's pool gets there, once it is the same size as the men's pool.

If they are every bit as strong in chess abilities as men, which we have agreed on.

And yes, i know there isn't a "men's pool' per se, I'm only saying men's pool for arguments sake.

You see, Bob, you can't have an Open pool of women and men and then have a Women's pool of only women, and expect those 2 pools to ever be the same size. I hope you at least understand that. So for the sake of our debate, we have to have a men's pool and a women's pool. Capice?