chess ranking question

Main

Date: 19 Sep 2007 07:44:07
From: dgse
Subject: chess ranking question

what does the second number after each player's name mean?
how to calculate based on the player's each round results.

after round 3
1 Kramnik 2769 +113
2 Anand 2792 +79
3 Gelfand 2733 +23
4 Leko 2751 -19
5 Gischuk 2726 +18
6 Morozevich 2758 -6
7 Svidler 2735 -96
8 Aronian 2750 -111

after round 4
1 Anand 2792 +49
2 Kramnik 2769 +72
3 Gischuk 2726 +24
4 Morozevich 2758 +3
5 Gelfand 2733 +18
6 Aronian 2750 +6
7 Svidler 2735 -70
8 Leko 2751 -103

Date: 19 Sep 2007 19:08:00
From: Miguel
Subject: Re: chess ranking question

On 19 sep, 17:40, David Richerby <dav...@chiark.greenend.org.uk >
wrote:
> Miguel <mgar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 19 sep, 09:44, dgse <dgsei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> what does the second number after each player's name mean?
> >> how to calculate based on the player's each round results.
>
> >> after round 3
> >> 1 Kramnik 2769 +113
> >> 2 Anand 2792 +79
>
> > The ELO variation. You have to multiply it by the constant of each
> > player, which for them is 0.10, I think.
>
> No. It's the difference between the player's actual rating and their
> performance rating. The performance rating is, in effect, what the
> player's rating would be if the only games they'd played in their life
> were the games in this tournament. Thus, Kramnik is currently rated
> 2769 but has played, in this tournament, as if his rating is 2882
> (i.e., 2769+113).
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Zen Tool (TM): it's like a handywww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ household tool that puts you in touch
> with the universe!

Good to know!

Miguel

Date: 19 Sep 2007 09:34:46
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: chess ranking question

On Sep 19, 11:36 am, David Richerby <dav...@chiark.greenend.org.uk >
wrote:
> Taylor Kingston <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote:
>
> > A minor point of correction, if I may. Only the first letter of
> > "Elo" should be capitalized. It is a man's name, not an acronym. The
> > fact that it has become a noun standing for something else doesn't
> > change that, any more than it does for, say, Ford, Chrysler, Newton,
> > Ampere, Gauss, Roentgen, Mach, etc.
>
> Newton, Ampere, Gauss and Roentgen are actually bad examples. The
> names of the units are, respectively, newton, ampere, gauss and
> roentgen, with lower-case letters.

For my purpose, they're actually even better examples than Elo,
being the opposite of the all-capital acronym.

> > To call an Elo rating "ELO" invites confusion with the rock band
> > Electric Light Orchestra, aka ELO. Lord knows there's enough
> > confusion on this newsgroup already.
>
> It's a little-known fact that the Electric Light Orchestra also run a
> rating system for chess players.

Ah, that must be what they were singing about in "10538 Overture":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUk-xB86o2c

"Did you catch his rating? / Was it 10538?"

Date: 19 Sep 2007 07:33:33
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: chess ranking question

On Sep 19, 10:16 am, Miguel <mgar...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 19 sep, 15:54, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The ELO variation. You have to multiply it by the constant of each
> > > player, which for them is 0.10, I think.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > What is ELO variation?
>
> > Bye
> > Sanny
>
> > Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> Well the variation in the ELO, which is the rating that appears next
> to each player :) (e.g. Kramnik 2769).

A minor point of correction, if I may. Only the first letter of
"Elo" should be capitalized. It is a man's name, not an acronym. The
fact that it has become a noun standing for something else doesn't
change that, any more than it does for, say, Ford, Chrysler, Newton,
Ampere, Gauss, Roentgen, Mach, etc.
To call an Elo rating "ELO" invites confusion with the rock band
Electric Light Orchestra, aka ELO. Lord knows there's enough confusion
on this newsgroup already.

Date: 19 Sep 2007 21:53:47
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: chess ranking question

Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Sep 19, 10:16 am, Miguel <mgar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 19 sep, 15:54, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The ELO variation. You have to multiply it by the constant of each
>>>> player, which for them is 0.10, I think.- Hide quoted text -
>>> What is ELO variation?
>>> Bye
>>> Sanny
>>> Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>> Well the variation in the ELO, which is the rating that appears next
>> to each player :) (e.g. Kramnik 2769).
>
> A minor point of correction, if I may. Only the first letter of
> "Elo" should be capitalized. It is a man's name, not an acronym. The
> fact that it has become a noun standing for something else doesn't
> change that, any more than it does for, say, Ford, Chrysler, Newton,
> Ampere, Gauss, Roentgen, Mach, etc.
> To call an Elo rating "ELO" invites confusion with the rock band
> Electric Light Orchestra, aka ELO. Lord knows there's enough confusion
> on this newsgroup already.
>

Don't you mean "Röntgen"?

--
Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Date: 20 Sep 2007 11:39:59
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: chess ranking question

Kenneth Sloan <KennethRSloan@gmail.com > wrote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
>> [...] Roentgen [...]
>
> Don't you mean "Röntgen"?

We went through this only the other week. `ae', `oe' and `ue' are
prefectly acceptable replacements for a-umlaut, o-umlaut and u-umlaut
in situations where accented characters are not (easily) available.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Incredible Lead T-Shirt (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a fashion statement that weighs
a ton but it'll blow your mind!

Date: 20 Sep 2007 20:58:42
From: Nick Cramer
Subject: Re: chess ranking question

David Richerby <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk > wrote:
> Kenneth Sloan <KennethRSloan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Taylor Kingston wrote:
> >> [...] Roentgen [...]
> >
> > Don't you mean "Röntgen"?
>
> We went through this only the other week. `ae', `oe' and `ue' are
> prefectly acceptable replacements for a-umlaut, o-umlaut and u-umlaut
> in situations where accented characters are not (easily) available.

Roentgen is also the accepted spelling here in America. I could find no
record of Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen ever having played serious chess.

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
~Semper Fi~

Date: 20 Sep 2007 15:14:35
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: chess ranking question

David Richerby wrote:
> Kenneth Sloan <KennethRSloan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Taylor Kingston wrote:
>>> [...] Roentgen [...]
>> Don't you mean "Röntgen"?
>
> We went through this only the other week. `ae', `oe' and `ue' are
> prefectly acceptable replacements for a-umlaut, o-umlaut and u-umlaut
> in situations where accented characters are not (easily) available.
>
>
> Dave.
>

Not "Rontgen"? I'll bet that's how SPIE spells it.

--
Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Date: 21 Sep 2007 13:26:09
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: chess ranking question

Kenneth Sloan <KennethRSloan@gmail.com > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> Kenneth Sloan <KennethRSloan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Taylor Kingston wrote:
>>>> [...] Roentgen [...]
>>> Don't you mean "Röntgen"?
>>
>> We went through this only the other week. `ae', `oe' and `ue' are
>> prefectly acceptable replacements for a-umlaut, o-umlaut and
>> u-umlaut in situations where accented characters are not (easily)
>> available.
>
> Not "Rontgen"? I'll bet that's how SPIE spells it.

No, not `Rontgen'.

Actually, these days, the preferred spelling is `0.000258 coulombs per
kilogram' or, under usual conditions, `9.33 milligrays'.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Expensive Hi-Fi (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ music system but it'll break the bank!

Date: 19 Sep 2007 16:36:52
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: chess ranking question

Taylor Kingston <tkingston@chittenden.com > wrote:
> A minor point of correction, if I may. Only the first letter of
> "Elo" should be capitalized. It is a man's name, not an acronym. The
> fact that it has become a noun standing for something else doesn't
> change that, any more than it does for, say, Ford, Chrysler, Newton,
> Ampere, Gauss, Roentgen, Mach, etc.

Newton, Ampere, Gauss and Roentgen are actually bad examples. The
names of the units are, respectively, newton, ampere, gauss and
roentgen, with lower-case letters.

> To call an Elo rating "ELO" invites confusion with the rock band
> Electric Light Orchestra, aka ELO. Lord knows there's enough
> confusion on this newsgroup already.

It's a little-known fact that the Electric Light Orchestra also run a
rating system for chess players.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Transparent Dish (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fine ceramic dish but you can see
right through it!

Date: 19 Sep 2007 14:16:32
From: Miguel
Subject: Re: chess ranking question

On 19 sep, 15:54, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> > The ELO variation. You have to multiply it by the constant of each
> > player, which for them is 0.10, I think.- Hide quoted text -
>
> What is ELO variation?
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Well the variation in the ELO, which is the rating that appears next
to each player :) (e.g. Kramnik 2769).

Date: 19 Sep 2007 06:54:58
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: chess ranking question

> The ELO variation. You have to multiply it by the constant of each
> player, which for them is 0.10, I think.- Hide quoted text -
>

What is ELO variation?

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Date: 19 Sep 2007 09:47:10
From: Miguel
Subject: Re: chess ranking question

On 19 sep, 09:44, dgse <dgsei...@gmail.com > wrote:
> what does the second number after each player's name mean?
> how to calculate based on the player's each round results.
>
> after round 3
> 1 Kramnik 2769 +113
> 2 Anand 2792 +79
> 3 Gelfand 2733 +23
> 4 Leko 2751 -19
> 5 Gischuk 2726 +18
> 6 Morozevich 2758 -6
> 7 Svidler 2735 -96
> 8 Aronian 2750 -111
>
> after round 4
> 1 Anand 2792 +49
> 2 Kramnik 2769 +72
> 3 Gischuk 2726 +24
> 4 Morozevich 2758 +3
> 5 Gelfand 2733 +18
> 6 Aronian 2750 +6
> 7 Svidler 2735 -70
> 8 Leko 2751 -103

The ELO variation. You have to multiply it by the constant of each
player, which for them is 0.10, I think.

Date: 19 Sep 2007 16:40:09
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: chess ranking question

Miguel <mgarlop@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 19 sep, 09:44, dgse <dgsei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> what does the second number after each player's name mean?
>> how to calculate based on the player's each round results.
>>
>> after round 3
>> 1 Kramnik 2769 +113
>> 2 Anand 2792 +79
>
> The ELO variation. You have to multiply it by the constant of each
> player, which for them is 0.10, I think.

No. It's the difference between the player's actual rating and their
performance rating. The performance rating is, in effect, what the
player's rating would be if the only games they'd played in their life
were the games in this tournament. Thus, Kramnik is currently rated
2769 but has played, in this tournament, as if his rating is 2882
(i.e., 2769+113).

Dave.

--
David Richerby Zen Tool (TM): it's like a handy
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ household tool that puts you in touch
with the universe!

Date: 19 Sep 2007 15:54:46
From: Tony Mountifield
Subject: Re: chess ranking question

In article <b1i*2cfVr@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk >,
David Richerby <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk > wrote:
> Miguel <mgarlop@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 19 sep, 09:44, dgse <dgsei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> what does the second number after each player's name mean?
> >> how to calculate based on the player's each round results.
> >>
> >> after round 3
> >> 1 Kramnik 2769 +113
> >> 2 Anand 2792 +79
> >
> > The ELO variation. You have to multiply it by the constant of each
> > player, which for them is 0.10, I think.
>
> No. It's the difference between the player's actual rating and their
> performance rating. The performance rating is, in effect, what the
> player's rating would be if the only games they'd played in their life
> were the games in this tournament. Thus, Kramnik is currently rated
> 2769 but has played, in this tournament, as if his rating is 2882
> (i.e., 2769+113).

Is a player's performance rating calculated from his opponents' normal
(non-performance) ratings? If so, what about if one or more of the
opponents were playing well above or below their normal rating?

Cheers
Tony
--
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

Date: 19 Sep 2007 17:34:56
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: chess ranking question

Tony Mountifield <tony@softins.clara.co.uk > wrote:
> David Richerby <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> No. It's the difference between the player's actual rating and
>> their performance rating. The performance rating is, in effect,
>> what the player's rating would be if the only games they'd played
>> in their life were the games in this tournament. Thus, Kramnik is
>> currently rated 2769 but has played, in this tournament, as if his
>> rating is 2882 (i.e., 2769+113).
>
> Is a player's performance rating calculated from his opponents'
> normal (non-performance) ratings?

Yes. There's really no other way to do it because, in the first
round, you only have `normal' ratings available.

> If so, what about if one or more of the opponents were playing well
> above or below their normal rating?

Sure, it's not a perfect system. It's just there to give an
indication of how well each player did relative to his rating.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Unholy Pants (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ well-tailored pair of trousers but
it's also a crime against nature!

Date: 19 Sep 2007 10:02:09
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: chess ranking question

"David Richerby" <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk > wrote in message
news:Oeg*SpfVr@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> Tony Mountifield <tony@softins.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>> David Richerby <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> No. It's the difference between the player's actual rating and
>>> their performance rating. The performance rating is, in effect,
>>> what the player's rating would be if the only games they'd played
>>> in their life were the games in this tournament. Thus, Kramnik is
>>> currently rated 2769 but has played, in this tournament, as if his
>>> rating is 2882 (i.e., 2769+113).
>>
>> Is a player's performance rating calculated from his opponents'
>> normal (non-performance) ratings?
>
> Yes. There's really no other way to do it because, in the first
> round, you only have `normal' ratings available.
>
>> If so, what about if one or more of the opponents were playing well
>> above or below their normal rating?
>
> Sure, it's not a perfect system. It's just there to give an
> indication of how well each player did relative to his rating.
>

It's very close to worthless to track performance rating
round to round early in a tournament because it's not
adjusted for color and the number of games is so small.
It could make some sense to look at it at the end of a
fairly long tournament, as a way to get an idea of who's
on the way up and who's on the way down.