| |
Main
Date: 01 Aug 2007 10:14:06
From: Rob
Subject: Chess Rating Services
|
In another forum a question was asked about what are other rating
sources other than the USCF. These are just a few, not all. There may
be many more that are even better than what is here.
Here are just a few of the chess rating services:
http://www.cxrchess.com/
Free Service here :
http://chess.about.com/library/weekly/aa04l11j.htm
Now to offer ratings directly without USCF
www.fide.com
American Scholastic Chess Federation
www.ascf.org
Chess Logic
(free ratings to members)
www.chesslogic.com
Yes.. you can get a Canadian rating too!
www.chess.ca
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 13:45:13
From: sullivan.t
Subject: Re: Chess Rating Services
|
On Aug 2, 2:50 pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:41:19 -0000, "sullivan.t"
>
> <sulliva...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Wait, someone mentioned something about the USCF, or FIDE, and an evil
> >dictator... what's this gossip about? I'm new here. heh.
>
> Back issue of New Yorker mag would be a good start.http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/24/060424fa_fact4?currentPage=1
Thanks!
|
| |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 13:40:22
From: Larry Tapper
Subject: Re: Chess Rating Services
|
On Aug 2, 3:58 pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:00:27 -0700, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If someone constantly plays people much
> >stronger than themselves, their rating will be artifically depressed.
>
> That why God invented Swiss System tournaments.
Good point.
But also, it's not the case that your rating will be artificially
depressed by playing much stronger opponents. What artificially
depresses your rating is playing opponents who are significantly
underrated, be they stronger or weaker.
LT
|
| | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 12:01:11
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Chess Rating Services
|
"Larry Tapper" <larry_tapper@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1186087222.630348.289390@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 2, 3:58 pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:00:27 -0700, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > If someone constantly plays people much
>> >stronger than themselves, their rating will be artifically depressed.
>>
>> That why God invented Swiss System tournaments.
>
> Good point.
>
> But also, it's not the case that your rating will be artificially
> depressed by playing much stronger opponents. What artificially
> depresses your rating is playing opponents who are significantly
> underrated, be they stronger or weaker.
>
> LT
Larry Tapper finds the center of the target. I would add one other factor to
the mix, [while admitting that local pool of players can be skewed too high
or low], and that is rating floors, where the 2200 person you play is
really, by performance, just 1896 these days. So this inflates all scores
against that player as if measured against 2200, rather than actual
performance of 1896.
Somehow the 'title' has been allowed to corrupt the ELO's math.
My contentious correspondance with Delegate Johnson follows L. Tapper's
point: I just want to know how it happened and if it has been fixed, since,
sure, the guy should have been fired from the board, but surely, something
should have happened in the USCF ratings department too?
ie, and how many instances of this are there?
I would be quite happy to accept USCF ratings if USCF attended to its
[inevitable] faults, which seem to be a lack of QC and slow operations. Both
Johnson and K. Sloan have difficulty in even admitting the problem! So slow
and in denial, that I thought the CC players this year would migrate en
groupe to another ratings outfit!
Phil Innes
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 14:25:05
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Chess Rating Services
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:40:22 -0700, Larry Tapper
<larry_tapper@yahoo.com > wrote:
>On Aug 2, 3:58 pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:00:27 -0700, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > If someone constantly plays people much
>> >stronger than themselves, their rating will be artifically depressed.
>> That why God invented Swiss System tournaments.
>Good point.
>But also, it's not the case that your rating will be artificially
>depressed by playing much stronger opponents. What artificially
>depresses your rating is playing opponents who are significantly
>underrated, be they stronger or weaker.
>LT
No argument from me, although one might contend that morale issues
from repeated losses to stronger players could cause one to play under
his/her rated strength (although this would depend on one's individual
psychological resiliency).
|
| |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 12:00:27
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Chess Rating Services
|
On Aug 2, 1:46 pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:25:21 -0700, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> BUT THEN.... over time, the ratings for this little independent pool
> >> would get out of sync both with USCF and the ratings in the large
> >> Canadian pool. The best players in the pool would bubble up to the
> >> top and you'd get local yokels with 2300 ratings than might map to
> >> something like 1850 USCF.
> >That exists right now. The habits of most players are to not venture
> >far beyond their own "pool".
>
> I won't deny regional "pockets" that might be over or under-rated
> compared with other regions. But, I don't think it's a major problem,
> such that an 1800 player in one state would be a 2000 player in
> another. And see below.
>
> >> For club ranking, pretty much any rating system will work. But most
> >> serious players want real ratings, ratings that compare to players in
> >> other regions and countries.
> >But unless there is sufficient dilution by crossplaying that will
> >never happen... regardless of the ratings service unless you also
> >begin to rate and handicap a player like in golf or bowling.
>
> I think you are overestimating how much "crossplaying" would be
> necessary to get reasonable comparability. First, this society is
> very mobile--few people live exclusively in one region all their
> playing career. Second, even if people stick close to home, you get
> "crossplaying": Seattle players compete in Spokane and Portland;
> Spokane players compete in Idaho, Montana and Seattle; Idaho players
> compete in Montana and Oregon. Oregon players venture into
> California, etc. Third, the very active players tend to play all over
> the country.
> An example of this: Years ago, the Northwest had its own rating
> system, mostly because the USCF was very slow in rating things. Most
> events in Washington, Oregon and BC were NW-rated. A few events in
> Montana were NW rated. Some events were rated both USCF and NW. The
> NW used the same formula as the USCF, and for active players, the
> ratings were usually pretty close.
Sure, there are "a few" that may get around. But as a percentage of
the entire "pool" for a regional area they would be rather small I
would think.
See, I think that trying to govern by exceptions is a bad practice.
The only reason for ratings at all to to attempt to equitibly pair
players in tournaments. If someone constantly plays people much
stronger than themselves, their rating will be artifically depressed.
I think that outside of the pool of regular play ratings become less
effective and serve mostly as ego badges. What really counts is the
game and the effort over the board.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 22:53:42
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Chess Rating Services
|
Rob <robmtchl@gmail.com > wrote:
> The only reason for ratings at all to to attempt to equitibly pair
> players in tournaments.
Er, no. Indeed, in a Swiss tournament, the only use of ratings is to
INequitably pair players in the first round.
> If someone constantly plays people much stronger than themselves,
> their rating will be artifically depressed.
No because ratings measure performance, not strength.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Broken Smokes (TM): it's like a pack
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of cigarettes but it doesn't work!
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 15:03:13
From: Paul Rubin
Subject: Re: Chess Rating Services
|
David Richerby <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk > writes:
> Er, no. Indeed, in a Swiss tournament, the only use of ratings is to
> INequitably pair players in the first round.
Eh. The main use of ratings in in swisses is to make sure all the
players in a section are reasonably close to each other in strength.
They won't let 2100-rated players into the 1600-1800 section. Within
a section they do various stuff with ratings to compute pairings, but
everyone in the section is fairly close in rating to begin with.
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 21:41:15
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Chess Rating Services
|
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid > wrote in message
news:7xy7gtwq5a.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> David Richerby <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>> Er, no. Indeed, in a Swiss tournament, the only use of ratings is to
>> INequitably pair players in the first round.
>
> Eh. The main use of ratings in in swisses is to make sure all the
> players in a section are reasonably close to each other in strength.
> They won't let 2100-rated players into the 1600-1800 section. Within
> a section they do various stuff with ratings to compute pairings, but
> everyone in the section is fairly close in rating to begin with.
Moreover, the way that ratings are used for pairings within a section
can in no way be fairly characterized as "inequitable". They are
designed to produce the best match ups in later rounds.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 12:58:38
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Chess Rating Services
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:00:27 -0700, Rob <robmtchl@gmail.com > wrote:
>Sure, there are "a few" that may get around. But as a percentage of
>the entire "pool" for a regional area they would be rather small I
>would think.
>See, I think that trying to govern by exceptions is a bad practice.
I'm not sure what you mean by "govern" here. But, as I explained in
an earlier post, the ripple effect of people playing in nearby events
tends to prevent regional ratings sinks in most areas. This isn't an
exceptional condition for most players.
>The only reason for ratings at all to to attempt to equitibly pair
>players in tournaments.
(1) qualification tools for closed events, ranging from national to
state and regional championships, and for class sections in larger
tournaments
(2) a relatively close objective measure of personal performance
improvement (or degradation).
(3) class prizes in open tournaments
(4) pairings (as you mention)
> If someone constantly plays people much
>stronger than themselves, their rating will be artifically depressed.
That why God invented Swiss System tournaments.
>I think that outside of the pool of regular play ratings become less
>effective and serve mostly as ego badges.
So? What's your golf handicap? What's your bowling average? Did you
make Eagle Scout? How big was that fish? How many points on that
buck? What do you bench? How do you do vis-a-vis the Joneses?
Status, plumage, whatever.
>What really counts is the
>game and the effort over the board.
Ratings help with matchups that enable good games.
|
| |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 18:41:19
From: sullivan.t
Subject: Re: Chess Rating Services
|
Wait, someone mentioned something about the USCF, or FIDE, and an evil
dictator... what's this gossip about? I'm new here. heh.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 11:50:22
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Chess Rating Services
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:41:19 -0000, "sullivan.t"
<sullivan.t@gmail.com > wrote:
>Wait, someone mentioned something about the USCF, or FIDE, and an evil
>dictator... what's this gossip about? I'm new here. heh.
Back issue of New Yorker mag would be a good start.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/24/060424fa_fact4?currentPage=1
|
| |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 11:25:21
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Chess Rating Services
|
On Aug 2, 1:15 pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 08:52:09 -0700, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Free Service here :
> >> >http://chess.about.com/library/weekly/aa04l11j.htm
>
> >> All this does is, given your rating, your opponent's rating and the
> >> result, it will give you your new rating. It doesn't store it,
> >> doesn't have a database, etc. It's not a rating system at all. It's
> >> just a calculator.
> >Again... it works quite well for clubs and tournament rankings.. if
> >someone wants to use it.
>
> You mean you look up player-A and player-B on a spreadsheet, use the
> tool to calculate the new ratings FOR THAT GAME, enter the new ratings
> on the spreadsheet, then proceed to the next two players, and iterate
> through this round by round? Jesus. Does the term "labor intensive"
> mean anything to you? Yeah, one could probably write code to automate
> this, but then, why not have the code do the calculating?
>
> >> >Now to offer ratings directly without USCF
> >> >www.fide.com
> >> Sure. For FIDE events.
> >And FIDE is conducting ascholastic event in Chicago. They intend to
> >provide a service directly and cut the USCF out of the loop.
> And the kiddies can deal directly with an organization run by a
> dictator/murderer. I thought you were complaining about Sloan's
> presence rendering the USCF unfit for kiddie organizations.
>
> But other than that, it makes sense. Ideally, FIDE would rate
> everything world-wide, obviating the need or national federation
> systems and ratings. The bigger the pool, the better.
I wasn't judging the merits of any of them. I just said they did it.
> >> >American Scholastic Chess Federation
> >> >www.ascf.org
>
> >> Yeah, right, Rob. Click the link and see what you get.
>
> >It worked the day I posted it. :
> >http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:JN5uPPnieF4J:www.aschess.org/+Am...
>
> Yup. That's the problem with the smaller outfits. If they quit
> working, what happens to all the ratings ?
That would depend on each organization.
> >> >Chess Logic
> >> >(free ratings to members)
> >> >www.chesslogic.com
> >> Har de har har. I checked Washington State's top 100 -- the list is,
> >> oh,maybe seven or eight years out of date.
> >Doesn't mean they don't still rate does it?
>
> No, it just means their ratings are worthless. Most players probably
> don't want to use worthless systems.
>
> >> >Yes.. you can get a Canadian rating too!
> >> >www.chess.ca
> >> I would guess many national federations have their own rating system.
> >> One catch, Rob. You gotta play in Canadian rated tournaments to get
> >> one.
> >Or you simply pay them to rate your event
> You mean the Canadians will rate a North Dakota event, with no
> Canadian players? Technically, no problem. They would probably use
> USCF ratings as a starting point. For the sake of argument, assume
> the regional pool is isolated and this region uses their outsourced
> rating supplier for a couple years.
>
> BUT THEN.... over time, the ratings for this little independent pool
> would get out of sync both with USCF and the ratings in the large
> Canadian pool. The best players in the pool would bubble up to the
> top and you'd get local yokels with 2300 ratings than might map to
> something like 1850 USCF.
That exists right now. The habits of most players are to not venture
far beyond their own "pool".
> Now, you say, the pool wouldn't be isolated. Players with USCF
> ratings would come in and keep the pool relatively honest. Well,
> maybe not. For outsiders, intent on boosting their USCF ratings,
> playing in this pool would be like playing in a non-rated event.
> Unless the pool had some events rated in BOTH systems, in which case,
> the economic advantage goes down the tube. Or, events in the pool
> offer very attractive prizes, in which case, why nickel and dime the
> rating process?
> For club ranking, pretty much any rating system will work. But most
> serious players want real ratings, ratings that compare to players in
> other regions and countries.
But unless there is sufficient dilution by crossplaying that will
never happen... regardless of the ratings service unless you also
begin to rate and handicap a player like in golf or bowling.
> Rating an event isn't rocket science. Maintaining the rating database
> over time, and keeping it from being "gamed" is what's hard.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 11:46:47
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Chess Rating Services
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:25:21 -0700, Rob <robmtchl@gmail.com > wrote:
>> BUT THEN.... over time, the ratings for this little independent pool
>> would get out of sync both with USCF and the ratings in the large
>> Canadian pool. The best players in the pool would bubble up to the
>> top and you'd get local yokels with 2300 ratings than might map to
>> something like 1850 USCF.
>That exists right now. The habits of most players are to not venture
>far beyond their own "pool".
I won't deny regional "pockets" that might be over or under-rated
compared with other regions. But, I don't think it's a major problem,
such that an 1800 player in one state would be a 2000 player in
another. And see below.
>> For club ranking, pretty much any rating system will work. But most
>> serious players want real ratings, ratings that compare to players in
>> other regions and countries.
>But unless there is sufficient dilution by crossplaying that will
>never happen... regardless of the ratings service unless you also
>begin to rate and handicap a player like in golf or bowling.
I think you are overestimating how much "crossplaying" would be
necessary to get reasonable comparability. First, this society is
very mobile--few people live exclusively in one region all their
playing career. Second, even if people stick close to home, you get
"crossplaying": Seattle players compete in Spokane and Portland;
Spokane players compete in Idaho, Montana and Seattle; Idaho players
compete in Montana and Oregon. Oregon players venture into
California, etc. Third, the very active players tend to play all over
the country.
An example of this: Years ago, the Northwest had its own rating
system, mostly because the USCF was very slow in rating things. Most
events in Washington, Oregon and BC were NW-rated. A few events in
Montana were NW rated. Some events were rated both USCF and NW. The
NW used the same formula as the USCF, and for active players, the
ratings were usually pretty close.
|
| |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 08:52:09
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Chess Rating Services
|
On Aug 1, 3:42 pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:14:06 -0700, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >In another forum a question was asked about what are other rating
> >sources other than the USCF. These are just a few, not all. There may
> >be many more that are even better than what is here.
>
> One would hope so. Other than FIDE and the Canadian Federation, this
> information is of questionable worth. Most clubs have their own
> ladders or internal rating systems. They have uses within the
> respective clubs. And all the online vendors have rating systems.
>
> >Here are just a few of the chess rating services:
> >http://www.cxrchess.com/
>
> And the big question is, who cares? Do these ratings qualify people
> for anything meaningful? Do they map to other rating systems?
It depends on who uses them.
> >Free Service here :
> >http://chess.about.com/library/weekly/aa04l11j.htm
>
> All this does is, given your rating, your opponent's rating and the
> result, it will give you your new rating. It doesn't store it,
> doesn't have a database, etc. It's not a rating system at all. It's
> just a calculator.
Again... it works quite well for clubs and tournament rankings.. if
someone wants to use it.
> >Now to offer ratings directly without USCF
> >www.fide.com
>
> Sure. For FIDE events.
And FIDE is conducting ascholastic event in Chicago. They intend to
provide a service directly and cut the USCF out of the loop.
> >American Scholastic Chess Federation
> >www.ascf.org
>
> Yeah, right, Rob. Click the link and see what you get.
It worked the day I posted it. :
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:JN5uPPnieF4J:www.aschess.org/+American+Scholastic+Chess+Federation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
> >Chess Logic
> >(free ratings to members)
> >www.chesslogic.com
>
> Har de har har. I checked Washington State's top 100 -- the list is,
> oh,maybe seven or eight years out of date.
Doesn't mean they don't still rate does it?
> >Yes.. you can get a Canadian rating too!
> >www.chess.ca
>
> I would guess many national federations have their own rating system.
> On catch, Rob. You gotta play in Canadian rated tournaments to get
> one.
Or you simply pay them to rate your event
|
| | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 11:15:09
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Chess Rating Services
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 08:52:09 -0700, Rob <robmtchl@gmail.com > wrote:
>> >Free Service here :
>> >http://chess.about.com/library/weekly/aa04l11j.htm
>>
>> All this does is, given your rating, your opponent's rating and the
>> result, it will give you your new rating. It doesn't store it,
>> doesn't have a database, etc. It's not a rating system at all. It's
>> just a calculator.
>Again... it works quite well for clubs and tournament rankings.. if
>someone wants to use it.
You mean you look up player-A and player-B on a spreadsheet, use the
tool to calculate the new ratings FOR THAT GAME, enter the new ratings
on the spreadsheet, then proceed to the next two players, and iterate
through this round by round? Jesus. Does the term "labor intensive"
mean anything to you? Yeah, one could probably write code to automate
this, but then, why not have the code do the calculating?
>> >Now to offer ratings directly without USCF
>> >www.fide.com
>> Sure. For FIDE events.
>And FIDE is conducting ascholastic event in Chicago. They intend to
>provide a service directly and cut the USCF out of the loop.
And the kiddies can deal directly with an organization run by a
dictator/murderer. I thought you were complaining about Sloan's
presence rendering the USCF unfit for kiddie organizations.
But other than that, it makes sense. Ideally, FIDE would rate
everything world-wide, obviating the need or national federation
systems and ratings. The bigger the pool, the better.
>> >American Scholastic Chess Federation
>> >www.ascf.org
>>
>> Yeah, right, Rob. Click the link and see what you get.
>
>It worked the day I posted it. :
>http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:JN5uPPnieF4J:www.aschess.org/+American+Scholastic+Chess+Federation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Yup. That's the problem with the smaller outfits. If they quit
working, what happens to all the ratings ?
>> >Chess Logic
>> >(free ratings to members)
>> >www.chesslogic.com
>> Har de har har. I checked Washington State's top 100 -- the list is,
>> oh,maybe seven or eight years out of date.
>Doesn't mean they don't still rate does it?
No, it just means their ratings are worthless. Most players probably
don't want to use worthless systems.
>> >Yes.. you can get a Canadian rating too!
>> >www.chess.ca
>> I would guess many national federations have their own rating system.
>> One catch, Rob. You gotta play in Canadian rated tournaments to get
>> one.
>Or you simply pay them to rate your event
You mean the Canadians will rate a North Dakota event, with no
Canadian players? Technically, no problem. They would probably use
USCF ratings as a starting point. For the sake of argument, assume
the regional pool is isolated and this region uses their outsourced
rating supplier for a couple years.
BUT THEN.... over time, the ratings for this little independent pool
would get out of sync both with USCF and the ratings in the large
Canadian pool. The best players in the pool would bubble up to the
top and you'd get local yokels with 2300 ratings than might map to
something like 1850 USCF.
Now, you say, the pool wouldn't be isolated. Players with USCF
ratings would come in and keep the pool relatively honest. Well,
maybe not. For outsiders, intent on boosting their USCF ratings,
playing in this pool would be like playing in a non-rated event.
Unless the pool had some events rated in BOTH systems, in which case,
the economic advantage goes down the tube. Or, events in the pool
offer very attractive prizes, in which case, why nickel and dime the
rating process?
For club ranking, pretty much any rating system will work. But most
serious players want real ratings, ratings that compare to players in
other regions and countries.
Rating an event isn't rocket science. Maintaining the rating database
over time, and keeping it from being "gamed" is what's hard.
|
| |
Date: 01 Aug 2007 13:42:39
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Chess Rating Services
|
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:14:06 -0700, Rob <robmtchl@gmail.com > wrote:
>In another forum a question was asked about what are other rating
>sources other than the USCF. These are just a few, not all. There may
>be many more that are even better than what is here.
One would hope so. Other than FIDE and the Canadian Federation, this
information is of questionable worth. Most clubs have their own
ladders or internal rating systems. They have uses within the
respective clubs. And all the online vendors have rating systems.
>Here are just a few of the chess rating services:
>http://www.cxrchess.com/
And the big question is, who cares? Do these ratings qualify people
for anything meaningful? Do they map to other rating systems?
>Free Service here :
>http://chess.about.com/library/weekly/aa04l11j.htm
All this does is, given your rating, your opponent's rating and the
result, it will give you your new rating. It doesn't store it,
doesn't have a database, etc. It's not a rating system at all. It's
just a calculator.
>Now to offer ratings directly without USCF
>www.fide.com
Sure. For FIDE events.
>American Scholastic Chess Federation
>www.ascf.org
Yeah, right, Rob. Click the link and see what you get.
>Chess Logic
>(free ratings to members)
>www.chesslogic.com
Har de har har. I checked Washington State's top 100 -- the list is,
oh,maybe seven or eight years out of date.
>Yes.. you can get a Canadian rating too!
>www.chess.ca
I would guess many national federations have their own rating system.
On catch, Rob. You gotta play in Canadian rated tournaments to get
one.
|
|
