GameKnot Forum
[ mod this thread ] << - < - > - >>
| From | Message |
| bogg 7/22/2003 00:42:22 [ report this post ] |
 Subject: GK rating system ... continuedMessage: Zoobrenok: When I used myself as an example I was referring to my earlier post and my calculation of the 'top dogs' performance ratings. By my calculations Florinserban is about 50 points under rated and my initial games have been against players that are over rated by a sum of about 600 points so my provisional rating after my first 6 games would be about 100 points to high in comparison to the performance ratings I calculated. I understand the problem with provisional players gaining points for losing games but I am curious what you see as the problem with someone that ends up with a high provisional rating by beating players on the top 30 list? Are you saying that the rating system would be improved if I for example had an initial performance rating of 1800, 700 points below players that I can score 70% against? That doesn't sound like an improvement to me. |
| pampelmus 7/22/2003 02:01:58 [ report this post ] | Message: simple solution: set up an ELO system, its not very difficult to calculate these ratings, as they are used in every country on this planet the system with 8/16 points etc is simply stupid... cyrano is MUCH too high rated for example |
| zoobrenok 7/22/2003 08:53:24 [ report this post ] | bogg Message: I used you as an example because you used yourself as an example :). It just I have this feeling that people are more concerned about who is going to be in first 100 then about rating system itself. And to proove it, just look on my profile - with my 1592 I am in 82 percentile. How many of those with rating of 1500 and below you have seen posting here? Basically, I have this feeling that if we limit how high a player can get after first 20 games, it will remove many problems we have. At least for a year or two. And if following this proposed system someone after winning all 20 games against much stronger opponents ends up in 2200 spot, it would seem like is a strong enough to take on you guys? :) |
| bogg 7/22/2003 09:43:22 [ report this post ] | zoobrenok Message: I, and others, have made our complaint against the GK 'rating' system very clear. It does not predict chess skill! That is my only concern and the only concern I have heard others mention. I couldn't care less who is in the top 100 as long as it is the top 100 players! That seems to be the sentiment of all of the complainers! This is not an ego issue and I don't understand why you and others seem to think it is. The people complaining aren't envious of cyrano's 'rating' they just think it is a joke. He is over 300 points higher 'rated' than his nearest competitor and while a strong player clearly not the best player here. No one is saying that a real rating system can't be manipulted, just that it should work for the people not manipulating their rating. As I stated in other posts, I use my rating to help evaluate my improvement, or lack thereof. A site MUST have a correctly functioning rating system to interest me. |
| hell-on-wheels 7/22/2003 11:27:59 [ report this post ] | Zoobrenok Message: I agree with pampelmus that the Elo System be used, But during the provisional ratings,since you start with no games, an arbitrary rating must be used, which leads to wildly fluxuating ratings, since the data base is too small for a stastical summation. After the first 20 games recalculate the entire 20 games at once by the Elo system to establish a permanent rating. Arpad Elo worked with the USCF to develop a system, which was copied by the FIDE, then most national federations. The ICCF adopted the Elo system, so the international organizations for both Nahschach and Fernschach use the Elo system |
| bogg 7/22/2003 13:15:24 [ report this post ] | hell-on-wheels Message: The only part of the Elo system used at GK is the provisional rating formula. Of course ratings fluctuate wildly at first. How do you propose to recalculate a persons rating using the Elo system after they have played their 20 games? Or do you mean their opponents should have their ratings recalculated? PS The Elo system is a simplified version of the provisional calculation as I explained in another post. |
| sjoroos 7/22/2003 16:11:28 [ report this post ] | Hmmm... Message: The provisional system IS a problem, and with some players reaching way above 3000 the problem will continue to grove even more :-( Could it be an idea to set a MAXIMUM for your provisional rating in some way ? Personally i'm sure that a really good and ambitious player will "earn" his right rating in time, and what says that he MUST be there after just 5 games ???? With a limit (don't ask me how) for provisional rating and a border (800 points) where you don't get any points for beating poor opponents, most of the problems would be solved.... The BIG question is HOW? It's really not an easy task to solve, so if anyone get's an idea please let all of us here at GK know. |
| bogg 7/22/2003 17:15:34 [ report this post ] | sjoroos Message: The provisional calculation is the only thing that is done correctly at GK! Sure it can be manipulated, but so what. It requires help from someone else for a person to achieve a significantly distorted established rating. One 800 point gift would equate to one opponent timingout in a winning position. I seriously doubt that many will throw games to inflate someone else's rating or that someone will be able to get many high rated players to beat them while they are provisionally rated. If I hadn't had a friend already established at the site to vouch to others that I was an OTB master and to arrange games for me I don't think I could have played my initial games against some of GK's top players. This is different than the main system at GK where A low 'rated' player can play a high 'rated' player and both get odds. If the low 'rated' player loses they lose one point and the high 'rated' player wins one point, if they draw the low 'rated' player wins eight points ant the high 'rated' player loses nothing. No real collusion is necessary under the current system as both the low 'rated' player and the high 'rated' player gain points unreasonably, assuming that the high rated player offers a draw when they are the least bit inferior. Maybe this is why there are people arguing to keep the current system, they think of it as a lottery. It IS important for a player's rating to reach a reasonable degree of correctness as soon as possible. If it is to low everyone that they play is penalized, deflating the system, if it is to high they all receive free points, inflating the system. Installing a real rating system and then breaking the provisional system would not be an improvement. |
| hell-on-wheels 7/22/2003 17:44:51 [ report this post ] | Bogg Message: To start, any provisional system is grossly unfair to the established player. When a provisional player is rerated to establish a permanant rating, the established player's game is also rerated. But with a large data base, the established players rating will vary a point or two. The provo's rating may change more. Remember, the Elo system is basically a stastical system. I took the ICCF around 2 years to establish their rating system, just to enter the games in the data base. Once the data base is there, the computer makes calculations easier and fairer. |
| zoobrenok 7/22/2003 19:11:02 [ report this post ] | 2 people, 2 opinions :) Message: I like it :). -------------- At least we in agreement that as long as a player will get points for win, there is no limit to how high his rating can grow :). And while I don't see any problems with it, it looks like the only issues with current system are: 1. provisional rating - if someone wins 20 games against cyrano (just because his rating is the highest at the moment), he will be rated around 4000 and it does not mean anything 2. points are always gained for victories Would we agree that if these two problems are resolved without major rating system change it would help to make ratings mroe realistic? -------- I only played chess at Yahoo and here. And I do not like the way Yahoo does ratings - I play for fun, not for money, so to me simple (even if it is stupid) system is a good one :). With this - let the professionals do the talking, I'll be a viewer only :) Enjoy it, folks! |
| bogg 7/22/2003 19:20:19 [ report this post ] | hell-on-wheels Message: I still do not understand this rerating of provisional players to establish their permanent rating you are talking about. That IS what the provisional calculation does. Could you please explain the math in detail, equations would be great or just give a textual description of the steps involved. For instance the steps the USCF takes to rate a tournament were: 1) calculate provisional ratings for the unrated players 2) calculate the ratings of the existing provisional players 3) recalculate the provisional ratings of the unrated players 4) calculate the ratings of the established players That is from memory and the distant past, I haven't kept up with the rating system since I quit playing. If you are talking about going back and retroactively changing the ratings of the established players and recalculating everything from some point in the past that is not practical. If you are talking about adjusting the established players ratings when one of their past opponents ceases to be provisional that won't work unless you do it retroactively, which as stated before is impractical. What of the established player's opponents and their opponents ... ? A game played more than 1600/K games ago has little affect on a players current rating anyway assuming a correctly functioning rating system and the player's rating was reasonably accurate to start with defined as within about 400 points of where it belongs. As an example using a K of 32 the number of games is 50. Our player will start being under rated by 400 points at 2000 and performing at 2400. Their post game ratings are as follows: 1) 2016 2) 2032 3) 2047 4) 2062 5) 2076 6) 2080 7) 2093 8) 2106 9) 2118 10) 2130 11) 2141 12) 2152 13) 2162 14) 2172 15) 2182 16) 2191 17) 2200 18) 2208 19) 2216 20) 2224 21) 2232 22) 2239 23) 2246 24) 2253 25) 2259 26) 2266 27) 2272 28) 2278 29) 2283 30) 2288 31) 2293 32) 2298 33) 2303 34) 2307 35) 2311 36) 2315 37) 2319 38) 2323 39) 2327 40) 2330 41) 2333 42) 2336 43) 2339 44) 2342 45) 2345 46) 2348 47) 2351 48) 2353 49) 2355 50) 2357 Within the 50 point tolerance stated by Elo after 47 games. I did the math in my head for speed so please excuse any errors. I always rounded up as I think this is what the USCF does. In a tournament environment rather than a game at a time this actually converges a little faster. PS The provisional calculation would now have the player at 2400, exactly correct for our scenario and would have reached it sooner. Because people are more likely to be underrated than overrated some rating bodies include bonus points to make an improving player's rating and performance converge faster. I am not certain how a turn based site would implement bonus points but they do seem to be necessary. |
| comcicomca 7/23/2003 08:21:30 [ report this post ] | Rating Fix Message: As a good, permanent way of fixing the ratings, I would suggest the following. (i) Scrap the 1-pt rating gain/loss in the rating formula for rating differences of +- 400 pts. (ii) For all players, halve the portion of their rating that is over 2000 points. (iii) Ammend the rating formula so that rating gains for players already 2000 and over, are half what they are now. |
| chess_champion 7/23/2003 09:30:19 [ report this post ] | provisional rating problem... Message: to fix it new people at this site could simply choose what class player they are (master, expert, class A...) or what they think they are (beginners/club players/experts/masters). based on their selection they would be given a rating (lets say if they pick expert 1800+ or 2000+ would be given to them). if they lied they would simply drop in rating after a few games. and if not they would be able to play people within their rating range without problems. |
| bogg 7/23/2003 11:44:17 [ report this post ] | chess_champion Message: That method has worked for other sites. I am not so certain about GK though. Other sites seem to try to have their ratings inline with the Elo ratings in the outside world, a person with a 2000 rating on the site probably has about a 2000 Elo rating. While this isn't necessary it does seem to be necessary for your idea to work. I guess we could ask those players at GK that have an Elo rating to submit it and calculate a conversion factor. |
| christosbakalis 7/24/2003 03:29:35 [ report this post ] | Bogg Message: Ok bogg you open forums you keep talking in forums against the rating system. If you feel that our system is soooooo bad, then talk to Mike!Tell him what you think about the rating system! Tell him to see this forum and see our suggestions and what we think about GK's rating system! Ok bogg stop talking and start doing because we will end up having chit chat in a forum and in the end...the system will remain the same. |
| hell-on-wheels 7/24/2003 09:52:03 [ report this post ] | BOGG Message: I just downloaded the ICCF rating system, but due to the length of the file, I will send it to you as an attachment. The provisional and full ratings are calculated by the same formula, but with different data bases. But when a provo hits that magic 21st game, he is added to the list of fully rated players, then calculated with the rest. (thus he is recalculated). Elo is a stastical system using an infinite series to calculate and reiterate the calculations. For practical use this series is calculated with several estimates to give a much simpler polynomial. These are the ones used in practice. |
| duchess 7/24/2003 12:40:32 [ report this post ] | I sent Mike the following message Message: Dear Mike: As you can see at the following threads gameknot.com/fmsg/chess3/1972.shtml gameknot.com/fmsg/chess3/1985.shtml something must be done for the GK rating system. Please read these threads (I think we got here very important contributions) and tell us what you are gonna do. Now we need your opinion about this. We'll wait for your words. Greetings. Pedro |
| sjoroos 7/24/2003 14:08:28 [ report this post ] | Good initiative.. Message: ..duchess !! Way to go, hope for an answer soon. And of course you're right Bogg, it's just me who sometimes can't express my thoughts in a correct way to get to my point (as English isn't my native). As you said, there's nothing wrong with the provisional system. It's just not working well in THIS particular environment. With players spreading from 200 to 3100 points (and soon more) it becomes inaccurate and greatly favours the one who joins later. In that aspect maybe chess_champion 's idea isn't too bad!? At least it would maximate the point from where you start "earning" your rating points in a fair way. Then of course we MUST get rid of the stupid fact that you get points for beating opponents rated 800 points below you ! Such games should only be played for a mentoring purpose! 1. A choseable entry level. 2. No points for beating low rated opponents 3. The option to play unrated games (for mentors) That would make GK a MUCH better sight in my eyes... |
| chess_champion 7/24/2003 17:13:11 [ report this post ] | sjoroos Message: i couldnt have said it better myself:) i agree with u 100%! |
| zoobrenok 7/24/2003 20:22:30 [ report this post ] | duchess Message: I also send Mike a message, but I asked him for a poll with few simple and UNBIASED questions: something like: do you like current rating system? Yes No and then another follow up poll (multi-choice): Future of rating system is in: - Opt1 - Opt2 - Opt3 - Opt4 |
| bogg 7/24/2003 22:38:26 [ report this post ] | zoobrenok Message: The problem with democracy is that ignorant people still get to vote. I am smiling. For those which do not have English as their primary language ignorant refers to lack of knowledge not lack of intelligence. But seriously, I am not certain what value a poll would have. It is apparent from threads that I have read praising cyrano as the best player at GK that many think that a rating system sets the ground rules for ranking. They equate it to some form of ladder system. Many have stated that cyrano is obviously the best under GK rules. These ideas are absurd. If the people do not know what a rating system is for or how it is supposed to work who cares what their opinion is on the subject! |
| zoobrenok 7/24/2003 23:41:36 [ report this post ] | bogg Message: cyrano holds a very high chess title in Italy. I do not think anyone else here at GK holds any chess title. But I've heard that there are few of those who are extremely strong - like nottop for example, or cairo, or... - just look into competition table for top 50 folks :). And after seeing my share of praise/dirt put on top players (brunetti and dj222) at GK in past, I no longer follow threads were people say good/bad things about someone on top - tommorow a player stronger then cyrano joins GK and everyone will be talking about him.... People... ehhh..... Very funny -- 'who cares?'... As I mentioned before, here is example of 'who cares'. Let's look on patryk, currently 2001-reated player (could not find anyone at exactly 2000). 97% of folks on GK are lower in rating then him. Do you mean that if all we know is how to move peaces around and do not know what ELO stands for and do not wish to know what it stands for but only want to move peaces around for fun, then our opinion is not important? Concern I have is that it seems that only top players here are pushing for rating system change (with exception of those who actually know what ELO means and who also think change is needed). In addition, I see that if few touches could be applied to the current system, then it would fit majority of people, even those who are hoping for change. Those 'touches' are above in sjoroos post and I support everyone of them as I also think that having 85000 rating after 10000 games is a little bit strange, but yet you have to admit that Kasparov did not play 10000 games... Anyway, I think poll is a good think, at least it can prepare people for some changes (if those changes actually take place) and would show that Mike actually is doing something to improve overall experience without adding new features :) |
| bogg 7/25/2003 02:11:58 [ report this post ] | zoobrenok Message: I did not say that cyrano was not a good player. I said that he was clearly not the best at GK. This fact was demonstrated in another post and is obvious from just looking at the competition table. Maybe he does have a high chess title in Italy, maybe not, I don't much care. We are talking only about GK and there are several titled players here. As to you're question about the opinions of people that are ignorant of the facts, your right they don't matter. A person that is ignorant of that facts relating to an issue that voices an opinion moves from the class of ignorant, in which there is no shame, to the class of stupid, shame on them. |
| duchess 7/25/2003 03:37:06 [ report this post ] | A poll? Message: I also don't believe that a poll will be the better way. We have been here hardly discussing this matter and most of people who would vote in a poll probably will have no patiente for reading and thinking about all our arguments. So we are now, let's say, a specialized comission with a good report. Mike has here material to decide. If he decides to change the GK rating system then he could open a poll about �what kind of new system� proposing 3 or 4 systems. But to decide if the system changes I think Mike has more autority than a poll. Wait and see. |
| sjoroos 7/27/2003 03:05:43 [ report this post ] | Right.. Message: a poll won't do any good!! People voting would be 90% that havn't read any of this threads and don't have the knowledge to actually decide in this matter. Many of the players that's playing here ONLY for fun would vote against as the really doesn't matter att all, and changes could even confuse them. As the rating system "somewhat" are a kind of competition i think it mostly concerns players who are really "competing" here at GK. I am one of them, and for me this matter is of such importance that i'm actually thinking of not renewing my membership next time!! Therefor i really, really, really hopes that Mike will listen to the arguments that seriously no one can overlook. |
| larsenb 7/27/2003 04:09:32 [ report this post ] | Some wierd logic here Message: I'm having some troubles understanding the last posts: Since the 90% of people is not interested in the rating topic, the 10% forms a "specialized commission" (elected by whom? and speaking for whom? the commission itself...) to propose a modification, and only *after* is made, you would inform that 90% that the system is gonna change, which is something they don't ask for... Sorry but a poll is the only correct way to do this, where one should be able to clearly states if: a) he want a different formula b) he doesn't want a different formula c) he doesn't care (myself here) Regards |
| kai_sim 7/27/2003 09:54:32 [ report this post ] | is getting confused now Message: first of all: larsenb, from where do you get your 90% count? only because a few posted here? i completely agree that the rating system needs a makeover, also the league play (which many other peeps posted in serveral other posts), i just didn't post in here, because others give enough constructive comments. ...what now is confusing me... YOU! if YOU don't care, why don't you then just shut your mouth, stop reading the post and let adults talk? |
| larsenb 7/27/2003 11:24:54 [ report this post ] | just read the messages above Message: if, instead of speaking of adults talk, you just have read the 2 messages before, you would have understand what i was talking about... duchess and sjoroos were arguing that, since the majority of people haven't partecipated to all the rating threads (90% comes from their words, not mine), than a poll would not be good and they elect themselves "specialists" and decide (or better: ask Mike for a decision) for us all. Now, this seems a bit strange, since they actually wanna force a change for the entire site and let the majority known only after the decision is made... As i said, i don't care; an "ELO-like" system would be nice, since i'm used to it for OTB and other online chess, but i can also live with the current one... however since me and a lot of people paid for the site just like you and the others, maybe we should be asked if we wanna change a main feature like this, and a poll is the correct way to do. Is that clearer now? |
| hell-on-wheels 7/27/2003 12:15:15 [ report this post ] | logic Message: One thing I see in the threads is a lack of logic And logic isn't even an English word (it's Greek) There was an old radio program called "it pays to be ignorant". Dumb means you cannot speak, and stupid is a lack of capacity in your brain. They are not synonomous, yet many use them synonomously. End of lesson. So forget the less than accurate English and read for content. If you do so, you will not join the ignorant, and can make a logical conclusion. Otherwise others will give you the raspberry (the sound eminating from the south end of a gassy northbound bull. |
| thumper 7/27/2003 15:34:50 [ report this post ] | Back to the topic at hand....... Message: I just re-calculated my game results against the GK opponents that I've played so far. Using my opponents GK rating and the ELO rating system, my ELO rating is 1781. The GK rating system puts me at 1744. After 146 games this is not a huge disparity and I suspect the same is true for the VAST majority of players here. Obviously my OTB play would be inferior due to time controls. Can someone direct me to an ICCF program or site so I can re-calculate my rating using their system? Thanks :) |
| kai_sim 7/27/2003 20:50:07 [ report this post ] | ICCF Message: www.iccf.com/ |
| zoobrenok 7/27/2003 23:40:58 [ report this post ] | hell-on-wheels Message: I think it is really hard to defend against ELO system (or system similar to it) :-) Would we at least agree that modifying provisional rating formula would help to stabilize ratings a little bit? (folks, if you are good negotiators - agree with me, because here I give you one thing and tommorow another one and in a week I will be on your side completely hehehe) |
| chess_champion 7/28/2003 07:41:23 [ report this post ] | zoobrenok Message: as i said in my earlier post IMO it is better to get a preset rating according with the players chess skill... |
| sjoroos 7/28/2003 12:56:23 [ report this post ] | We're NOT.. Message: .. trying to ignore the rest of GK !!! All we are doing is giving good advices how to make GK a better place to put your money into. Don't forget that i to has payed for this, but even if i hadn't i would have the right to state my point anyway :) But enough of arguing, back to basic... 1. The provitional system doesn't work well 2. The "inflation" can't be stopped if you get points for beating MUCH lower rated player. So, how can this be fixed ? I made some suggestions earlier on, and would like to continue discussing them to find out if it could make things better, or maybe someone can come up with something even better ? 1. Let NEW members estimate their level of play. The question should be in form of "what class" and not "how many points", maybe something like: A. Beginner B. Intermediate C. Club player D. Elite Where the different classes could give something from 1200 up to 2000 initial points. 2. No points won if opponent is more than 800 points lower rated than you are. [some other small changes are needed here as well] 3. Option to play rated games, so people playing low rated opponents can continue doing so, and actually get an even better opportunity to. |
| larsenb 7/28/2003 14:07:39 [ report this post ] | Don't get me wrong Message: ... sjoroos, i wasn't questioning your ideas about ratings, which i find good even if i don't feel the same urge to change; i was only concerned about the "poll won't do any good, let the few decide" part, that's all. On a side note, check the news on the login page: the long awaited unrated games option is now in place (still with some limitations, only direct challenges can be unrated, not the "open for all" challenges, but i guess this will be introduced soon) Regards |
| zoobrenok 7/28/2003 20:08:32 [ report this post ] | sjoroos Message: Whatever you say, goes with me :) I completely agree with your 2 issues stated. For provisional system I would rather put 800-point limit when calculating new rating and leave system untouched then introduce four new levels - simply because after completing 20 games with 800-point limit player would be placed among elite players here if he is really one of them :). I am trying to come up with formula that can explain it, but I have BA in Applied Math, so it will take me two months :) |
| sjoroos 7/29/2003 10:03:40 [ report this post ] | Unrated games !! Message: YEEEEEES ! We've got them ! 1 out of 3, now we just need to convince some how good our arguments for a new rating system is :) |
| chess_champion 7/29/2003 10:22:54 [ report this post ] | zoobrenok Message: but if that player who is really 1200 states he/she is advanced (and has a preset rating of at least 1800 lets say) then they would quickly drop to their true rating... |
| baby_pom 7/30/2003 07:39:44 [ report this post ] | Message: if people do not care about the rating system then I cannot see why they would oppose a change. I also do not see why a change to a more pleasing system would entail a lot of work. I don't think a system has to be such that a rating change is based on previous games, nor that players should lose points with a win against much weaker opposition. Rather that the gain in points by the victor (and corresponding loss by the loser) is a function of the rating difference, where the gain becomes insignificant beyond say a 500 point difference. Regarding the provisional rating, i think it reasonable players should start lower than their true rating and work their way up, and it is rare for a new player here to play against better players, so I doubt that many provisional ratings are a long way above the eventual plateau. Such a system should be simple to adjust if the top players ratings were too high by reducing all scores by a percentage and reducing the win points gain by a corresponding amount. |
| sjoroos 7/30/2003 09:26:55 [ report this post ] | You're wrong on most points.... Message: baby_pom Quote#1 : "nor that players should lose points with a win against much weaker opposition" That has NEVER been suggested by anyone ! Of course you can't LOSE points if you win a game !! Quote#2 : "a change to a more pleasing system would entail a lot of work" Wrong ! It's NOT a LOT of work! It's only a change in the equation how the rating is calculated. It's certainly SOME work, but no big deal. I'm a developer myself so i know pretty well what's needed. Quote#3: "it is rare for a new player here to play against better players" No, it's NOT !! Right now there's PLENTY of new members taking advantage of the fact that many players are over-rated and that the provisional system can't deal with that. There are many players with less than 20 games comleted that have rating at 2300-2500. But on one point i agree with you: I think players should start pretty low in rating! If you ARE good and really interrested in chess, then you WILL get the rating you deserve in time :) |
| baby_pom 7/30/2003 09:49:28 [ report this post ] | i disagree sjooros Message: i think you completely misunderstood my post. i do not see where you got "misquote 2" from. Not me. Scoring systems based on an average opponents rating can lead to a fall in rating even with a win - i didn't state that anyone had advocated such a system. quote 3 i refer to new 1200 rated players. By better players i was vague. I meant top players here. Most of the games in "join games" preclude a new player joining, and so new players are forced to play many of their games against lower rated players unless they cancel a lot of games they start themselves. Keeping these players at 1200 for longer would reduce the problems you mention. I'm not convinced newcomers ratings are more inflated than those of anyone else here. so i don't think i was wrong on most points. However i think you were. |
| irish-pete 8/01/2003 13:10:55 [ report this post ] | Let's Cut to the Chase Message: There has been a lot of talk about a new rating system, and I certainly favor a significant revision of the GK system. I believe it should be changed along the lines of the FIDE setup, allowing for variable points won/lost based on the relative ratings of the two players, and that would include a player gaining or losing points if there was a draw. There is a rediculous rating points creep under the present system which allows the ratings to continue to escalate. The problem is that all this talk is achieving nothing. If the webmaster is not committed to a change to a more realistic system, it will not get done. *Does anyone know the webmaster's position?* Can we find out? As a relatively new subscriber, I have had no real discussions with Mike on anything. Perhaps someone with a knowledge of both sides of the issues can contact him and see if he intends to do anything. Even better, he could state his position here for all to see. (I even have a table established to show the points won/lost in games to give people an idea how it works. Unfortunately, my computer has problems accessing the Forums section -- I am now at the public library writing this. If someone wants to post the table, he can send me a message here, and I will give it to him. ) |
| schachfruend 8/01/2003 21:38:19 [ report this post ] | The more things change Message: the more they remain the same. Now we have two camps of whiners; the Forum Whiners and The Ratings Whiners. I absolutely will not allow the Ratings whiners to impinge on the Forums because ratings are ethereal. It is not Newtonian Physics, it is a relative number. A-B-C-1-2-3, catch the parallel? What is the point, oh excuse me, king of the hill, testosterone, male fragile ego? We are not at ICCF of IECC, if we were, duh, this would not be important. Who cares what subjective system is used? ELO, FIDE, GK, if it is five thousand or 50? Are you 4,999 or 49, someone will always be number one so grieve that it is not you and continue to try. Get a grip, are you a chess player or a ratings poser? |
Post a reply to this message: |