If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Yes, there will be some players earning bonus points who lose them again later. There will be many more who live up to their new ratings. The health of the overall system isn't judged by the results of just a few players.
Bindi is correct that CFC and FIDE ratings differ greatly for some of our strong players. That has nothing to do with the new bonus point system. If he believes we should chop those ratings down to line up with FIDE, I'd suggest he work the issue through the masters representative and if the masters agree with Bindi, we can put this on the agenda for the next governors meeting.
For example, take a look at this chart - http://chess.ca/players?check_rating...320&key=121013
He's been a consistent 1900 player for most of his young life but suddenly he has a break-out tournament where he scored 5.5/6 and a 2300 performance. Now, instead of just jumping 100 or 150 points, he gains a whopping 300 points. It's as if his rating is still provisional and his performance rating is counted more than his lifetime of results. That math is just ridiculous.
I think that example you gave was a very bad one. If you see who he beat (2260, 2170, 2170, 2100), tied (2200), then you would see he definitely deserves to be around the ~2170 rating that he got from this tournament.
I don't know about you, but I don't know any 1900, or even 2000/2100's who could perform this well against very good people.
In this example the rating system did its job, he is not underrated nor overrated anymore.
I think that example you gave was a very bad one. If you see who he beat (2260, 2170, 2170, 2100), tied (2200), then you would see he definitely deserves to be around the ~2170 rating that he got from this tournament.
I don't know about you, but I don't know any 1900, or even 2000/2100's who could perform this well against very good people.
In this example the rating system did its job, he is not underrated nor overrated anymore.
he may arguably be playing at the 2170 rating level but to have that decided in only 5 games is questionable
what do you do next time he has this performance again? put him up say 200 points? that would make him 2370 and so on
I think that is called ratings inflation, short term performance rating tells you how you have performed over 5 games but your rating is supposed to take time to catch up to your performance ratings so that you have to prove that in the medium term you really are that rating, to get a GM rating is supposed to require a high level performance over at least the required number of games for example, so to become a GM you really do need to play a lot and prove yourself
the FIDE system would never cause this kind of rating jump for a non-provisional player over such a small sample of games, unless of course he beat 4 GMs and drew 1
of course European tournaments are normally 7 to 10 rounds so even in a single tournament your performance rating is vigorously tested
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Sunday, 14th October, 2012, 12:06 PM.
I was going to explain why, but I have decided it would be a waste of my time. A lesson learned arguing with Vlad over climate change. He is wrong too, but lets not go there.
.
the mighty Bob has spoken, Bob says you are wrong
don't ask why, just know that you are wrong because Bob says so :D:D
kind of what I would expect from someone who falls hook, line and sinker for activist group thought although it seems rather 1% elite thinking to tell everyone they are wrong
he may arguably be playing at the 2170 rating level but to have that decided in only 5 games is questionable
what do you do next time he has this performance again? put him up say 200 points? that would make him 2370 and so on
I think that is called ratings inflation, short term performance rating tells you how you have performed over 5 games but your rating is supposed to take time to catch up to your performance ratings so that you have to prove that in the medium term you really are that rating, to get a GM rating is supposed to require a high level performance over at least the required number of games for example, so to become a GM you really do need to play a lot and prove yourself
the FIDE system would never cause this kind of rating jump for a non-provisional player over such a small sample of games, unless of course he beat 4 GMs and drew 1
of course European tournaments are normally 7 to 10 rounds so even in a single tournament your performance rating is vigorously tested
If he performs like this again he definitely deserves to be around 2250, he will not gain 200 rating points (his performance was 2320), but maybe hover around the 2250-2300 which sounds about right considering the results he is getting. The point being is he will not perform like this again, and if he does he will deserve the rating gain he is getting. Until he hits around 2300, he will then barely start gaining any rating because he is playing people 200 or more points lower than him.
I get what you mean, but the argument can go either way.
I think that example you gave was a very bad one. If you see who he beat (2260, 2170, 2170, 2100), tied (2200), then you would see he definitely deserves to be around the ~2170 rating that he got from this tournament.
In this example the rating system did its job, he is not underrated nor overrated anymore.
but in his next tournament he lost to a 1766 and an 1866
obviously he was overrated at 2174. everyone knew it. he knew it
this rating system is so clearly idiotic that i can demonstrate it with a picture
everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)
I think juniors were doing just fine before in the old system without all these ridiculous bonus points added on top of that. . . From my experience, juniors who are willing to work hard and are gaining 100 points/month are either insane or can only keep that up for about 2 or 3 months tops unless they started at 200 and jumped to 1200 in a year. I don't think its reasonable to assume that juniors can jump even 500 points per year on a consistent basis if only because at that rate, they will most likely break Kasparov's record in a few years.
On a further note, I'd just like to point out that even though I have no idea how good Harmony Zhu is, jumping 400 points in one 6 round tournament is ridiculous even if she went 5/6. That means she is gaining 80 points per win. I thought the maximum was 32 points per win? When did people start gaining an extra 150% of their rating from bonus points? If she's really that good, she will eventually get to become 1400 (and judging from her last tournament, she might actually be good) but the rating system shouldn't unnecessarily reward players for having one or two fantastic tournaments and just ignoring all other performances. I thought the whole point of ratings is to show how consistent a player has performed at that level.
For example, take a look at this chart - http://chess.ca/players?check_rating...320&key=121013
He's been a consistent 1900 player for most of his young life but suddenly he has a break-out tournament where he scored 5.5/6 and a 2300 performance. Now, instead of just jumping 100 or 150 points, he gains a whopping 300 points. It's as if his rating is still provisional and his performance rating is counted more than his lifetime of results. That math is just ridiculous. . . I know nothing's probably going to happen out of this but I just want to let people know that something is definitely wrong with the rating system and that yes Paul, tournaments like the World Open do use a player's highest rating when categorizing which section he should play in. Life is good for the veterans of chess indeed.
Interesting example. I think bonus points are necessary for the many coached kids under 1200 whose strength is rocketing, but that would be evident from increasingly better results which is not the situation in this case. This player would have gained (5.5-.5) x 16= 80 plus say 6 x 8= 48 for higher rated opponents for a total of 128 without bonus which would take him to a lifetime high of around 2010. Does he deserve to be called an Expert? If his next result was the same, I would say yes. I don't think his rating should be held back at 1999 as he passed 2000 without the bonus.
Perhaps the bonus system needs to be calculated over the previous 30 games or all scores within 6 months. And to be graduated so that higher rated players have much less of a bonus.
I think that example you gave was a very bad one. If you see who he beat (2260, 2170, 2170, 2100), tied (2200), then you would see he definitely deserves to be around the ~2170 rating that he got from this tournament.
I don't know about you, but I don't know any 1900, or even 2000/2100's who could perform this well against very good people.
In this example the rating system did its job, he is not underrated nor overrated anymore.
That's not how things work. Sometimes you just have a good tournament. That doesn't mean that suddenly you go from being a 1900 player for years to being a 2200 player. That's why you shouldn't gain 300 points from an anomaly.
As has been stated, the rating system is a measure of comparable strength, not absolute. If you want to prove the new system works/doesn't work, stop citing one person examples.
Pull the ratings of each individual game for the last 6 months, bracketed into 50 rating point differences (eg, games between players within 0-50 pts, players with a 51-100 pt difference, players with 101-150 pt difference, etc). In each bracket, you should have a total number of games, and predicted mathematical score. Then compare that to the actual scores. Determine standard deviation, and then you'll have it - either the scores will fall within predicted levels, or they won't.
That's not how things work. Sometimes you just have a good tournament. That doesn't mean that suddenly you go from being a 1900 player for years to being a 2200 player. That's why you shouldn't gain 300 points from an anomaly.
You and Ben provide good examples, but all I am saying is I never met a 2000 or under who beat 3 2100+ and 1 2260 in one tournament.. It seemed like he definitely deserved over 2100 rating, but as shown later on, he did not.
I have always thought of ratings to be a performance of your last couple of tournament's, nothing more. I am for bonus gains only for juniors.. because I hate playing underrated juniors, and in the last several weekend tournaments I played in, I played a fair bit of them. It is better if they are overrated when I am playing them in tournaments in the future ;).
As has been stated, the rating system is a measure of comparable strength, not absolute. If you want to prove the new system works/doesn't work, stop citing one person examples.
Pull the ratings of each individual game for the last 6 months, bracketed into 50 rating point differences (eg, games between players within 0-50 pts, players with a 51-100 pt difference, players with 101-150 pt difference, etc). In each bracket, you should have a total number of games, and predicted mathematical score. Then compare that to the actual scores. Determine standard deviation, and then you'll have it - either the scores will fall within predicted levels, or they won't.
the rating system is supposed to be relatively stable though. if my rating goes from X to X+100 over some period, it should be because i improved, not because every active player's rating was inflated by 100 over that period. if the system is inflating rapidly (it is) it becomes impossible to track one's own progress using the rating system
everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)
You and Ben provide good examples, but all I am saying is I never met a 2000 or under who beat 3 2100+ and 1 2260 in one tournament.. It seemed like he definitely deserved over 2100 rating, but as shown later on, he did not.
As Clint Eastwood said in "Unforgiven", "Deserving's got nothing to do with it."
Don't be so quick to throw our young friend under the bus for his poor result in the tournament following his triumph. Maybe he was sick or distracted or playing too much bughouse between rounds. We'll see where he ends up over the years.
I just had a look at the rating data as of 30 September. The average rating of all players rated over 1200 and active in the past 12 months has not budged in the past 3 years - currently 1739.
The average rating of all players rated over 1200 and active in the past 36 months was rising slowly until the new bonus point sytem replaced the old bonus point system but in the past year it has been rock steady at 1700.
The average rating of all players active in the past 12 months, irregardless of rating, has increased from around 1180 to around 1280 since the introduction of the new rating system. The main reason for this however, has been the enforcement of the 60 minute time limit for rated games and the subsequent drop in juniors entering the system with 3-digit ratings. Anecdotaly, the average today is still lower than it was 10 years ago but that was before my time as rating auditor.
The average rating of all players active in the past 36 months, irregardless of rating, has increased from around 1090 to 1120. Same reason as para above.
The average rating of the top 100 players had been increasing steadily at a pace of about 15 points per year (2006 to 2011). Since the introduction of the new bonus point system in mid-2011, there has been no increase and the last several data points actually show a small decrease.
the rating system is supposed to be relatively stable though. if my rating goes from X to X+100 over some period, it should be because i improved, not because every active player's rating was inflated by 100 over that period. if the system is inflating rapidly (it is) it becomes impossible to track one's own progress using the rating system
Who said it is supposed by to relatively stable? The only thing that should be stable is the predictive value - a player rated 100 points higher than another should score X% in over the long run. A system where points are coming in (new players) and going out (leaving players) cannot by definition be stable.
Who said it is supposed by to relatively stable? The only thing that should be stable is the predictive value - a player rated 100 points higher than another should score X% in over the long run. A system where points are coming in (new players) and going out (leaving players) cannot by definition be stable.
There are other things bases on the rating - titles. In general everyone wishes that 2400 means the same now and 10 years ago.
Tweet
Comment