The two should be separated. It is happening
anyway but it is good to say it explicitly.

The separation of the two systems is good
both for the general chess playing public and
for the professional chess player:

the presence of the rating system for pros
reliefs the open system from the pressure
of being extra subtle, and especially from
the obligation of being resistent to the cheating
attempts. The open system would be strictly
for fun. It would be useless and even unethical
to make a serious reference to the open rating
to claim one's chess strength. E.g., the organizers
of the pro events would invite players according
to their pro-rating, and would disregard the open
rating. The only exception could be at the very
lowest entry pro level, where all kind of factors
come to into play (this is not a serious, difficult
problem anyway).

Why all this is important? Because it'd make
the open system cheaper, something like a
penny per game, per player.

***

On the other hand, the professionally rated
games would have to be played under
well understood and controlled circumstances.
The pro rating system should make cheating
virtually impossible.

This would have to make the professional rating
much more expensive per game. The separation
of the two kind of ratings would make the
pro rating more meaningful. Indeed, it is
important not to mix chess games which
have very different meaning.

Also, the data base of the pro games would be
much smaller, the relevant games would happen
less often (say, no more than a thousand per day),
hence it'd be realistic to apply a sophisticated rating
function. Such a sophistication would be essential
to professionals (but not to amateurs).

Regards,

Wlod

13.06.2006 02:04, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod):

the presence of the rating system for pros
reliefs the open system from the pressure
of being extra subtle,

"Subtle" in which sense?

and especially from
the obligation of being resistent to the cheating
attempts. The open system would be strictly
for fun.

Most players, including amateurs don't regard ratings as fun but take it
quite seriously.

It would be useless and even unethical
to make a serious reference to the open rating
to claim one's chess strength.

It will happen nevertheless.


Why all this is important? Because it'd make
the open system cheaper, something like a
penny per game, per player.

What exactly will make it cheaper?


On the other hand, the professionally rated
games would have to be played under
well understood and controlled circumstances.

Principally this is already the case with the Elo-rating.

The pro rating system should make cheating
virtually impossible.

And the example of arranged tournaments tells, that this is quite difficult.


This would have to make the professional rating
much more expensive per game. The separation
of the two kind of ratings would make the
pro rating more meaningful. Indeed, it is
important not to mix chess games which
have very different meaning.

Your separation looks a lot like the difference betwenn national rating
and Elo - at least in the past, when the lower bound was at 2200.

Such a sophistication would be essential
to professionals (but not to amateurs).

Sophisticated equations don't make it more expensive to calculate. So,
why not giving it also to the amateurs?

Greetings,
Ralf

Ralf Callenberg wrote:
13.06.2006 02:04, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod):

the presence of the rating system for pros
reliefs the open system from the pressure
of being extra subtle,

"Subtle" in which sense?

Please, be patient. I will address these issues
in separate posts.

Most players, including amateurs don't regard
ratings as fun but take it quite seriously.

Serious rating has to cost money.
Amateurs who want a serious rating
would have to pay for rating quite a bit,
say $10 per game instead of 1 cent per
game; even $10 per game would be possible
oinly if there were enough of them to pay
such a fee, and to justify the system.
After all, if they are not very strong, they would
have to pay for the rating themselves, they would
not find any sposors (excpet for some romantic
cases :-)

It would be useless and even unethical
to make a serious reference to the open rating
to claim one's chess strength.

It will happen nevertheless.

But others would be entitled to doubt the vadility
of such claims (and we would make fun of them
on rgc[mp] :-)

Why all this is important? Because it'd make
the open system cheaper, something like a
penny per game, per player.

What exactly will make it cheaper?

A multipurpose rating, which had to serve
also professionals, would need all kind
of constructions and precautions which
amateur system does not need. E.g. in a
purely amateur system I would not worry
that someone is using a PC program on
his/her 2nd computer. (A whole spectrum
of rating systems is possible, say a semi-
professional rating, with different fees per
game, but it's premature to go into such
complications).

On the other hand, the professionally rated
games would have to be played under
well understood and controlled circumstances.

Principally this is already the case with the Elo-rating.

In this post I am not attempting anything truly
original. I just wanted to state certain issues
to make future discussions easier.

The pro rating system should make cheating
virtually impossible.

And the example of arranged tournaments tells,
that this is quite difficult.

Prearranging is impossible to counter 100%, but
at least one can reduce the number of motives
for this kind of cheating. Here is a realistic goal:

it should not be possible to gain anything
by cheating for people who otherwise
don't care one for another.

Let me make it more precise (and modest):

it should be impossible for a party of two
or more people to cheat in such a way
that would gain anything in terms of their
total monetary award.

This is a very nice, objective goal (you see,
you have strimulated me to formulate some
original ideas :-). This is a minimal requirement,
sure, but maximal are imppossible.

Here is a silution within the pennies (perhaps
I'll work on it more pedantically later):

There is a fixed amount of $$ which
participants of the event are going
to win. The money will be distributed
after thetournament proportionally to
each player's rating performance.

As you see, for any reasonable rating function,
the total amount of $$ won by any subgroup
of pplayers depends mainly of their performance
against other players and almost does not
depend on the results between the conspiring
players (or else the rating function is useless
and should not be used).

I understand that I didn't solve all the problems.
At least I gave you an idea how to address such
issues. I have implemented at least one
modest partially cheating preventing axiom.

One has to address the whole competition system
(not just rating). For instance:

When you have an elemination tournament,
where the top 1 or top 4 players advance to
the next stage then cheating is imppossible
to avoid, when some players are dishonest.
It is imppossible to avoid because there is
no objective way to tell cheating from the
honest playing (and losing to a friend). Afterwards
one can play all kind of probabilistic games but
they will never amount to a proof of cheating.

And "cheating" is not even the best notion
for this topic. There can be perfectly ethical
but still objectively dobtful situation.
Consider titles awarded for Olimpic performances.
At a chess Olimpiad it is possible to choose
your opponents and to avoid some other
opponents. It is also possible to say pass
once you made norm, while in a regular tournament
you'd have to play to the end, thus risking your norm.
(This issue is not abstract. It was actually relevant,
if you check carefully the history of Olimpiads).
All this makes olimpic performances unsuitabe for
the purpose of awarding titles. Actually, the whole
notion of GM titles was imperfect (but good enough
for the practical purposes at the time).

Such a sophistication would be essential
to professionals (but not to amateurs).

Sophisticated equations don't make it more
expensive to calculate. So,
why not giving it also to the amateurs?


Ralf, thanks to the wikipedia controversy,
I know that fairness is essential to you, that
you attach a value to the notion of fairness.
Thus, please, don't put words in my mouth.
I never said that the cost inducing sophistication
of the rating SYSTEM is related to the sophistication
of the rating FUNCTION. Please, be patient. I hope
to explain things in the next posts.

Ironically, I said something opposite to what
you imply about my position. I said on rgc[mp]
SEVERAL times that the rating function should
be SIMPLE. (Only a mathematically unsohisticated
"expert", like Elo, would go for a sososophisticated
function).

Regards,

Wlod

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod) wrote:
Ralf Callenberg wrote:
Most players, including amateurs don't regard ratings as fun but
take it quite seriously.

Serious rating has to cost money. Amateurs who want a serious
rating would have to pay for rating quite a bit, say $10 per game
instead of 1 cent per game

Why? The `serious rating' that I have from the ECF (formerly BCF)
costs something like 0.40ukp/game to cover the administrative costs.
Why should I have to pay $10 per game just to have some guy enter data
into a computer and have it calculate a number for me?


Why all this is important? Because it'd make the open system
cheaper, something like a penny per game, per player.

What exactly will make it cheaper?

A multipurpose rating, which had to serve also professionals, would
need all kind of constructions and precautions which amateur system
does not need. E.g. in a purely amateur system I would not worry
that someone is using a PC program on his/her 2nd computer.

Are you proposing extending the rating system to every game ever
played? I don't bring a `first computer' to my tournament games, let
alone a second. I don't want my off-hand games rated: apart from
anything else, I want to be able to drink beer and chat with my
friends while playing.


On the other hand, the professionally rated games would have to be
played under well understood and controlled circumstances.

Principally this is already the case with the Elo-rating.

It's completely independent of the formulae (Elo's or otherwise) that
are used to compute the ratings.


As you see, for any reasonable rating function, the total amount of
$$ won by any subgroup of pplayers depends mainly of their
performance against other players and almost does not depend on the
results between the conspiring players (or else the rating function
is useless and should not be used).

This makes no sense whatsoever. The rating function and the prize
money allocation are completely separate. Whether or not Elo's
formulae (or anyone else's) for computing ratings are `reasonable'
does not depend on how prize money is allocated. Are you saying that
Elo's formulae would somehow become `unreasonable' if all the prize
money were given to the player with the most Z's in his name?


Only a mathematically unsohisticated "expert", like Elo, would go
for a sososophisticated function.

What are your ground for this ad hominem attack on Arpad Elo? Why do
you believe that his rating function is `sophisticated' ? It looks
pretty unsophisticated, to me...


Dave.

--
David Richerby Mentholated Dictator (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a totalitarian leader but it's
invigorating!

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod) wrote:
the presence of the rating system for pros reliefs the open system
from the pressure of being extra subtle

Subtle?


and especially from the obligation of being resistent to the
cheating attempts.

That is an issue of tournament organization, not of rating system
design.


The open system would be strictly for fun. It would be useless and
even unethical to make a serious reference to the open rating to
claim one's chess strength.

What on earth is it for, then?


Why all this is important? Because it'd make the open system
cheaper, something like a penny per game, per player.

Why would I want to pay even a penny a game for something that you've
just said is completely useless?


On the other hand, the professionally rated games would have to be
played under well understood and controlled circumstances. The pro
rating system should make cheating virtually impossible.

That is an issue of tournament organization, not of rating system
design.


This would have to make the professional rating much more expensive
per game.

Why?


Also, the data base of the pro games would be much smaller, the
relevant games would happen less often (say, no more than a thousand
per day), hence it'd be realistic to apply a sophisticated rating
function.

Dude, ratings are calculated by computers. This is the 21st century:
computers can rate millions of games per day using any reasonable
formula.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Gigantic Accelerated Monk (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a man of God but it's twice as
fast and huge!

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod) wrote:
Ralf Callenberg wrote:
Most players, including amateurs don't regard ratings as fun but
take it quite seriously.

Serious rating has to cost money. Amateurs who want a serious
rating would have to pay for rating quite a bit, say $10 per game
instead of 1 cent per game

Why? The `serious rating' that I have from the ECF (formerly BCF)
costs something like 0.40ukp/game to cover the administrative costs.
Why should I have to pay $10 per game just to have some guy enter data
into a computer and have it calculate a number for me?


Why all this is important? Because it'd make the open system
cheaper, something like a penny per game, per player.

What exactly will make it cheaper?

A multipurpose rating, which had to serve also professionals, would
need all kind of constructions and precautions which amateur system
does not need. E.g. in a purely amateur system I would not worry
that someone is using a PC program on his/her 2nd computer.

Are you proposing extending the rating system to every game ever
played? I don't bring a `first computer' to my tournament games, let
alone a second. I don't want my off-hand games rated: apart from
anything else, I want to be able to drink beer and chat with my
friends while playing.


On the other hand, the professionally rated games would have to be
played under well understood and controlled circumstances.

Principally this is already the case with the Elo-rating.

It's completely independent of the formulae (Elo's or otherwise) that
are used to compute the ratings.


As you see, for any reasonable rating function, the total amount of
$$ won by any subgroup of pplayers depends mainly of their
performance against other players and almost does not depend on the
results between the conspiring players (or else the rating function
is useless and should not be used).

This makes no sense whatsoever. The rating function and the prize
money allocation are completely separate. Whether or not Elo's
formulae (or anyone else's) for computing ratings are `reasonable'
does not depend on how prize money is allocated. Are you saying that
Elo's formulae would somehow become `unreasonable' if all the prize
money were given to the player with the most Z's in his name?


Elo's definition of performance might
be "reasonable" for many situations,
and certainly has *some* general predictive
value, but it has not been demonstrated
optimal.

Example. Some tournaments, to reduce
draws, have been played with the
experimental "0-1-2-3 BAP" scoring
system. (W draw, B draw, W win, B win).
It is quite possible to have a good "BAP"
performance and a poor "ELO" performance.
Don't you think, using your knowledge
of math, you could come up with a more
predictive rating function for games played
under these conditions? I know I could.

This is probably peripheral to Ralf's point.
I await his full exposition.

"David Kane" wrote in message
. ..

This is probably peripheral to Ralf's point.
I await his full exposition.


Excuse me. This was Wlod's post. I am interested
in your proposal, but skeptical.

In article ,
David Richerby wrote:
[...] The `serious rating' that I have from the ECF (formerly BCF)
costs something like 0.40ukp/game to cover the administrative costs.

No it doesn't. That 40p is essentially the [inflated over
time] replacement for the previous levy scheme, which was simply
the BCF's way of extracting money from the grass roots in order to
run the international teams, etc., etc. The hard work of rating
is mostly done by local volunteers; the cost per game of running
some software over the results of that hard work is negligible.

Why should I have to pay $10 per game just to have some guy enter data
into a computer and have it calculate a number for me?

You shouldn't. It's quite bad enough that the 4NCL is now
requiring all players to be individual members of the ECF [or other
national federation], cost GBP16 [call it $30], the excuse being
that FIDE wants it for our games to be FIDE rated [about which I
care not a fig].

[Wlod:]
Only a mathematically unsohisticated "expert", like Elo, would go
for a sososophisticated function.
What are your ground for this ad hominem attack on Arpad Elo? Why do
you believe that his rating function is `sophisticated' ? It looks
pretty unsophisticated, to me...

The *function* is [over]sophisticated; I see nothing to
commend it over the old-fashioned BCF system [grade = average of
opponents' grades + (% score - 50), apart from a few minor tweaks].
You can do BCF in your head, or rate a tournament/league with
nothing more than the results, previous grades, pencil and paper.
You can't do that with Elo. Wlod is not the first or only person
to believe that Elo [a physicist rather than a statistician]
managed to hand-wave a mostly innumerate audience into thinking
rather more of his formula than is entirely justified. Whether
any other system, such as Glicko, is better is another debate,
but probably not [really] for this group.

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...


snippage

What I think Wlod has sought to accommodate in his preamble s a differential
among v. strong players, to benefit especially monied tournament activity,
rather than 99% of the rest of us

Only a mathematically unsohisticated "expert", like Elo, would go
for a sososophisticated function.

What are your ground for this ad hominem attack on Arpad Elo? Why do
you believe that his rating function is `sophisticated' ? It looks
pretty unsophisticated, to me...

I remind both you gentlemen that 'sophisticated' does not mean abstruse nor
erudite, it rather means 'doctored'.

Should there be no need to exercise this issue particularly of professionals
as an independent category, [or is there?], can we proceed to the New
Universal system, post-haste?

Phil Innes


Dave.

--
David Richerby Mentholated Dictator (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a totalitarian leader but
it's
invigorating!

http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/ratings/glicko2desc.pdf


"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod)" wrote in message
oups.com...
The two should be separated. It is happening
anyway but it is good to say it explicitly.

The separation of the two systems is good
both for the general chess playing public and
for the professional chess player:

the presence of the rating system for pros
reliefs the open system from the pressure
of being extra subtle, and especially from
the obligation of being resistent to the cheating
attempts. The open system would be strictly
for fun. It would be useless and even unethical
to make a serious reference to the open rating
to claim one's chess strength. E.g., the organizers
of the pro events would invite players according
to their pro-rating, and would disregard the open
rating. The only exception could be at the very
lowest entry pro level, where all kind of factors
come to into play (this is not a serious, difficult
problem anyway).

Why all this is important? Because it'd make
the open system cheaper, something like a
penny per game, per player.

***

On the other hand, the professionally rated
games would have to be played under
well understood and controlled circumstances.
The pro rating system should make cheating
virtually impossible.

This would have to make the professional rating
much more expensive per game. The separation
of the two kind of ratings would make the
pro rating more meaningful. Indeed, it is
important not to mix chess games which
have very different meaning.

Also, the data base of the pro games would be
much smaller, the relevant games would happen
less often (say, no more than a thousand per day),
hence it'd be realistic to apply a sophisticated rating
function. Such a sophistication would be essential
to professionals (but not to amateurs).

Regards,

Wlod