"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:28:38 -0400, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
wrote:


How can you say that a player who knows only how the pieces moves is of
1000
strength? When I was rated 969 back in the late sixties I knew far more
than
how to move the pieces. Over the years I've played dozens of opponents,
adults and children, in the 900-1300 range. I assure you they are much
more
savvy than you say they are.

Gotta agree with Angelo on this. For example, in the Montana Open
this year, one player rated 839 scored 2-3, beating players rated
1477 and 1540).

Going to the USCF web site and searching for tournaments "under 1000"
brings up a few hits. People don't usually enter tournaments as soon
as they learn how the pieces move.

It seems to me that ratings of roughly 1000 and below are unstable and
relatively untrustworthy because it doesn't take that much study and
practice to improve enough to gain hundreds of rating points. Think
about going from 1000 to 1400 versus going from 1900 to 2300.

Mike is right about instability of ratings below 1000. I failed to mention
that my next rating after 969 was 1530, earned after playing in a few
tournaments in mid-late 1968.

We've had a bunch of 900-1300 players come through our club. I assure you
they know MUCH more than simply how to move the pieces. My two daughters
know little more than how the pieces move, and their ratings are in the 500s
I believe.

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:28:38 -0400, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
wrote:

Mathematically, someone who loses all their games
should have a rating of zero, but there may be sound reasons for awarding
some other rating.

No, they should have a rating that predicts such a performance, which
will depend on the rating of their opponents. Losing every game against
a bunch of 2400 players does not imply a rating of zero even if you lose
a thousand in a row. Losing every game against a buch with average
ratings of zero should result in a rating a long way below zero.

Which is why I believe if you go 0-8 at the World Open against an average
opponent rating of 1200, your first published rating will be 800. Someone
who knows the rating system please comment.

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:28:38 -0400, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
wrote:

Mathematically, someone who loses all their games
should have a rating of zero, but there may be sound reasons for awarding
some other rating.
No, they should have a rating that predicts such a performance, which
will depend on the rating of their opponents. Losing every game against
a bunch of 2400 players does not imply a rating of zero even if you lose
a thousand in a row. Losing every game against a buch with average
ratings of zero should result in a rating a long way below zero.

Which is why I believe if you go 0-8 at the World Open against an average
opponent rating of 1200, your first published rating will be 800. Someone
who knows the rating system please comment.



OK. My comment is: you are incorrect.

--
Kenneth Sloan
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/

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:03:14 -0500, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
wrote:

It seems to me that ratings of roughly 1000 and below are unstable and
relatively untrustworthy because it doesn't take that much study and
practice to improve enough to gain hundreds of rating points. Think
about going from 1000 to 1400 versus going from 1900 to 2300.

Mike is right about instability of ratings below 1000. I failed to mention
that my next rating after 969 was 1530, earned after playing in a few
tournaments in mid-late 1968.

We've had a bunch of 900-1300 players come through our club. I assure you
they know MUCH more than simply how to move the pieces. My two daughters
know little more than how the pieces move, and their ratings are in the 500s
I believe.

The question of ratings for adults who have just learned the moves
could be answered experimentally -- teach a few adults the rules of
the game and then plop 'em in a tournament with a mix of other adult
players with established ratings in the range of, say, 600 - 1200.
Have some prizes, big enough to motivate people. Might be a better
use of our money for the USCF to underwrite something like this,
rather than dumping 50 grand on consultants.

I again agree with Angelo -- my bet is on the ratings being somewhere
in the 500s, nowhere near 1000.

Kenneth Sloan wrote:
Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
I thought I had escaped this sort of nitpicking by deleting
rec.games.chess.politics from my newsgroup list.

I can't speak for the 0000 rating because I don't know how USCF treats
a 0/18 result. I believe they give 400 points below the average opponents'
ratings but I'm not sure.

No, they don't.

Mathematically, someone who loses all their games should have
a rating of zero, but there may be sound reasons for awarding
some other rating.

False. Mathematically, someone who loses all their games
should have a rating of -infinity. Do the math.

Once again: 0000 is not special. There is zero significance to zero.
The only number on the Elo scale which has any absolute reference is
2000. Elo specifically describes what a 2000 player is, and says that
he choose that number to represent that class of player partly so that
there was enough "ballast" to prevent ratings from becoming negative.

It turns out he was wrong about the second part - he didn't anticipate
the scholastic chess movement. But, until roughly 1970 he was largely
correct. USCF has historically had several "magic numbers" and strange
start-up or racheting procedures that involved ratings in the 0900-1200
range. (but not anymore).

How can you say that a player who knows
only how the pieces moves is of 1000 strength?

From long years of observation. You know - facts?

And, if you are going to question my claims, please have the courtesy to
quote me correctly. I included a caveat about being an adult, of normal
intelligence. The 1000 number does not apply to children, or dummies.

I have no particular interest in a USCF rating dispute.
For whatever it's worth as one data point, however, I present the
case of one USCF member, a former writer in rec.games.chess.*

Here's the USCF member record for Donald A Mihokovich
(who wrote as 'KidDon' in rec.games.chess.*):
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12868376

Don Mihokovich, an unrated adult player, entered the 'Under
1200' section of the 2003 Florida Class Championships.
Don Mihokovich scored 2 / 5 for a provisional rating of 997.

(I don't know how long Don Mihokovich had been playing
chess before he entered his first USCF tournament.
I don't know to what extent Don Mihokovich may have
understood more than simply how to make legal moves.)

With regard to his intelligence, Don Mihokovich has written:
"To be honest, I keep my Mensa membership in place to
pad my resume--as do a majority of Mensans I know.
I never tested into Mensa, but also qualified based on
one or more of the standardized tests (ACT, SAT, or
LSAT) in which I finished in the top 2%."
--Don Mihokovich (19 September 2003, in the RGCP
thread, 'How smart are you?')

So Don Mihokovich (an adult member of Mensa)
entered his first (non-quick) USCF tournament
and emerged with a 997 provisional rating after
five games in an 'Under 1200' section.

I shall leave it to USCF members to argue about
how the facts in this case should be interpreted.

--Nick

Take a look at the distribution of INITIAL ratings for adult USCF players
sometime. There's a very nice, and fairly sharp, peak around 1100.

When I was rated 969 back in the late sixties I knew far more than
how to move the pieces.

But, were you an adult of normal intelligence?

--
Kenneth Sloan
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/

On 29 Oct 2006 22:31:04 -0800, "Nick"
wrote:

Kenneth Sloan wrote:
I included a caveat about being an adult, of normal
intelligence. The 1000 number does not apply to children, or dummies.

For whatever it's worth as one data point, however, I present the
case of one USCF member, a former writer in rec.games.chess.*

Here's the USCF member record for Donald A Mihokovich
(who wrote as 'KidDon' in rec.games.chess.*):
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12868376

Don Mihokovich, an unrated adult player, entered the 'Under
1200' section of the 2003 Florida Class Championships.
Don Mihokovich scored 2 / 5 for a provisional rating of 997.

(I don't know how long Don Mihokovich had been playing
chess before he entered his first USCF tournament.
I don't know to what extent Don Mihokovich may have
understood more than simply how to make legal moves.)

In my experience, adults who enter their first tournament have been
playing for some time and are usually among the stronger players in
whatever group in which they've been skittling. That's why they
decide to test themselves in rated competition. I know of *no*
players who entered their first tournament shortly after learning the
moves.

With regard to his intelligence, Don Mihokovich has written:
"To be honest, I keep my Mensa membership in place to
pad my resume--as do a majority of Mensans I know.
I never tested into Mensa, but also qualified based on
one or more of the standardized tests (ACT, SAT, or
LSAT) in which I finished in the top 2%."
--Don Mihokovich (19 September 2003, in the RGCP
thread, 'How smart are you?')

So Don Mihokovich (an adult member of Mensa)
entered his first (non-quick) USCF tournament
and emerged with a 997 provisional rating after
five games in an 'Under 1200' section.

So an attorney and Mensa man scored about 1000 in his first
tournament.

I shall leave it to USCF members to argue about
how the facts in this case should be interpreted.

Since KidDon's background places him well within the upper five
percent in terms of intelligence, even if he had just learned the
moves, the facts don't seem to support Ken's claim.

--Nick

Take a look at the distribution of INITIAL ratings for adult USCF players
sometime. There's a very nice, and fairly sharp, peak around 1100.

To interpret this, we need to know the average chess experience level
of adult players entering their first tournament.

When I was rated 969 back in the late sixties I knew far more than
how to move the pieces.

But, were you an adult of normal intelligence?

--
Kenneth Sloan
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/

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:03:14 -0500, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
wrote:

It seems to me that ratings of roughly 1000 and below are unstable and
relatively untrustworthy because it doesn't take that much study and
practice to improve enough to gain hundreds of rating points. Think
about going from 1000 to 1400 versus going from 1900 to 2300.

Mike is right about instability of ratings below 1000. I failed to mention
that my next rating after 969 was 1530, earned after playing in a few
tournaments in mid-late 1968.

We've had a bunch of 900-1300 players come through our club. I assure you
they know MUCH more than simply how to move the pieces. My two daughters
know little more than how the pieces move, and their ratings are in the
500s
I believe.

The question of ratings for adults who have just learned the moves
could be answered experimentally -- teach a few adults the rules of
the game and then plop 'em in a tournament with a mix of other adult
players with established ratings in the range of, say, 600 - 1200.
Have some prizes, big enough to motivate people. Might be a better
use of our money for the USCF to underwrite something like this,
rather than dumping 50 grand on consultants.

I again agree with Angelo -- my bet is on the ratings being somewhere
in the 500s, nowhere near 1000.

Ken Sloan beats me hands down when it comes to understanding the rating
system, but I know much more than he does about practical play and player
strength. 1000-strength players know considerably more than how to move the
pieces.

"Kenneth Sloan" wrote

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

Which is why I believe if you go 0-8 at the World Open against an average
opponent rating of 1200, your first published rating will be 800. Someone
who knows the rating system please comment.

OK. My comment is: you are incorrect.

Ok then. I'm incorrect but you don't seem to know the answer.

Por favor, someone who knows something about ratings please tell me what
this player's first published provisional rating will be. I was under the
impression it would be 800. Right or wrong, I'm interested in the answer.

Which is why I believe if you go 0-8 at the World Open against an average
opponent rating of 1200, your first published rating will be 800. Someone
who knows the rating system please comment.

OK. My comment is: you are incorrect.

Ok then. I'm incorrect but you don't seem to know the answer.

Por favor, someone who knows something about ratings please tell me what
this player's first published provisional rating will be. I was under the
impression it would be 800. Right or wrong, I'm interested in the answer.

Roughly 400 below the lowest rated opponent.

We once had a local player who started 4-0, winning against a 1273,
970, 1109 and 2045 and he was provisionally rated 2432/04.

- Tom Martinak

Ken Sloan beats me hands down when it comes to understanding the rating
system, but I know much more than he does about practical play and player
strength. 1000-strength players know considerably more than how to move the
pieces.

For what little it matters, a bit over two years ago I joined the ICC
and I
barely knew the rules. I was given an initial rating of 1000. It didnt
take long until
that rating dropped to about 800.