"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...
David Kane wrote:


You completely miss the point. Simply, the bonus point
mechanism will inflate the ratings differently depend on the
activity level of the players. So it is a possible explanation
for why the scales do not align exactly.

How does this bonus point system work? It's surely not the same as
the USCF bonus point system. USCF bonus points do not reward
*play* - they reward *good performances*.

Sigh. It uses the USCF formulae. But if there are two
identical pools, pool A and pool B, but pool A plays more
frequently than pool B, then pool A will get more bonus points.

Why? Because there will be more performances, and hence
more "good" performances.





Personally I don't think bonus points make sense for
this pool, but I don't see it doing significant harm.

What is it about the pool that obviates the need for bonus points?

It is a scholastic rating system with no old-timers to protect.

I have seen the following many times: play, get a good result,
get bonus points. Next week, play again, underperform
the new rating. If we looked at both tournaments as one
"performance" there would be no bonus. But with bonus
points applied to each week, players come out ahead of
where they would have been. Not only does this
have the "desired" effect of pumping points into the system
(what the USCF wants to keep grandpa happy) but it also *distorts*
the system for those playing actively. I am not saying it is a huge
or significant distortion, but a needless one.



And ratings of players who play more frequently in the NWSRS will
not have the lag that their USCF ratings have.
What lag? USCF events are now rated the same day they are played.

If people play one USCF event per year and 10 NWSRS events per year,
then their NWSRS rating will be up to date; their USCF rating will be
old. Given that players of this age improve, the NWSRS rating will be
higher.

Theres a solution for that...


The rating formulae do not factor in the time (though probably could
or should for kids) At these ratings, ratings are determined over ~10 games,
and the formulae makes no distinction whether they were played last week, or
3 years ago. But the predictive value of 3-year-old results is very low when
you are talking about a 9-year-old.

do you have data to support that?

I mean...it *sounds* right - but not everything that sounds right
pans out.

I've already given anecdotal evidence.




There have
been comic misjustices in tournaments where USCF ratings were used -
e.g. one boy won the "biggest upset" prize every round even though
in the NWSRS system he had the highest rating and was winning
as expected. But his USCF rating was several years old, and
600 points out of date.
Probably because he was playing "rated" chess under a competing system which
reduced his incentive/opportunity to play in USCF-rated events.
It's a bit twisted to discourage USCF play...and then use USCF ratings.

I agree that it would have been more intelligent to use ratings
from the more accurate NWSRS system for that award. But
that would have undercut the organizer's purpose to "sell" USCF ratings.
It's a free country. No one was coerced into playing that event,
and the organizer was allowed to do whatever he wanted.



Perhaps the organizer means to reward players who have AVOIDED USCF-rated play
over the last year? There exist coaches who steer
their kids away from USCF-rated play during the year, so that they will
be radically underrated when they go to Nationals.

Not at all. This is a well-meaning director trying to encourage
USCF play.


I don't believe trying to align the scales would have any practical
advantages.
Depends on what you mean by "align the scales". Elo points out a need
for a national rating service to attempt to keep the rating scale stable
over time (so that historical comparisons are at least in the right
ballpark).

The same requirement holds for multiple systems at the same time. If the
scales overlap at all, it's nice if "2000" on one scale roughly matches
"2000" on the other scale.

Note that that is NOT the same as saying that every individual should have
his rating adjusted so it's the same in both systems. In fact, that is the
mark of a bad ratings administrator! if a player is active in both systems,
and OTHER means are used to effectively align the scales, then the player's
two ratings should be reasonably close, and there should be NO NEED to
"adjust" one or the other.

Systems which *use* USCF ratings, but which do not submit their events for
USCF rating, are doomed to create these "comic injustices".


People who play in the NWSRS are ranked quite accurately
by it. If people want to know what their rating would be in the
USCF, they could look for USCF events and play in them.
Or they could look at ratings of players who play in both and
try to figure out a correction. You're starting to sound a bit
like those "innumerate" folks you deride. Do I have to remind
you that ratings are not an absolute scale?


No, but perhaps I need to remind you to "read Elo". If you are running
an Elo-like system and report ratings on a scale of roughly 1000-3000, then it
is irresponsible (bordering on fraud - which is the usual motivation in these
cases) to *not* try to keep roughly aligned with the
FIDE scale.

No one has ever pretended that these are USCF
or FIDE ratings. They are clearly marked appropriately
on each and every tournament flyer. The vast majority of readers
of these flyers will never have heard of the USCF or
FIDE, of course. To them, it's just their rating.

Your accusation of fraud is unfounded and desperate. I think
that most would consider the systems "roughly" aligned by the way.
The NWSRS is probably much closer to USCF than most
online ratings, e.g.


If you want to avail yourself of the "the scale is arbitrary" argument,
then perhaps you should choose a different scale? Here, I'm repeating the
same argument when I opposed the transition in USCF from the old Postal Rating
scale to a new one which appears to be 'aligned' with the
USCF Regular OTB scale. The problem, of course, is that it is *not*
"aligned" at all.