In article , Miriling says...

Former USCF president John McCrary, in his Chess History (Episode 10) in the
October issue of Chess Life (page 7), writes that "Kenneth Harkness, the
Business Manager of the USCF, developed a rating system that was adopted by the
USCF in 1949."
Harkness, writing in the Official Chess Handbook (published in 1956), reports
that "In 1950, it (his rating system) was accepted as the first official rating
system of the USCF."
Harkness writes that he developed his system during the years 1946 through
1949, but it wasn't until 1950 that the federation "accepted," i.e. adopted,
his system. The first rating list appeared in the November 20, 1950, issue of
Chess Life. It contained the ratings of about 2,400 players as of July 31,
1950.

George Mirijanian

George, I'm not quite sure I understand the point of your post. Are you trying
to create the first online CL?

Kevin L. Bachler

"Miriling" wrote:
.... John McCrary .... writes that "Kenneth Harkness ....
.... developed a rating system that was adopted by the USCF in 1949."
.....
.... Harkness .... reports
that "In 1950, it (his rating system) was accepted as the first official
rating
system of the USCF." ....
.... Harkness writes that ....
.... it wasn't until 1950 that the federation "accepted," i.e. adopted,
his system. ....

Here's what Arpad Elo has to say:

".... The equation yielded invalid results, and continued application of
the formulae developed uncertainties in the ratings which became
disturbingly larger than could be expected from common statistical
variation. Although the system had been broadly used, covering many
thousands of players in USCF between 1950 and 1960, and adopted by a number
of federations elsewhere, the results never lived up to the hoped-for
objectives, and it has since been replaced by the Elo system almost
universally."

(from The Rating of Chess Players Past and Present, 1978)

I guess it all depends on whom you ask.

Bill Smythe

I believe that Harkness's contribution has been universally undervalued in
favor of Elo's "tune up" work.

Should at least be called the Harkness-Elo system (HELO?).

BTW, thanks to Bill G's saving Harkness' original, handwritten notebook of
computations from being thrown out by the office in the late 90s, we have it on
display here at the Museum in MIami.

Regards, al

".... The equation yielded invalid results, and continued application of
the formulae developed uncertainties in the ratings which became
disturbingly larger than could be expected from common statistical
variation. Although the system had been broadly used, covering many
thousands of players in USCF between 1950 and 1960, and adopted by a number
of federations elsewhere, the results never lived up to the hoped-for
objectives, and it has since been replaced by the Elo system almost
universally."

(from The Rating of Chess Players Past and Present, 1978)

I guess it all depends on whom you ask.

Bill Smythe

Subject: Harkness System as reported in October CL

On 14 September 2003 (AlforChess) replied in
Message-id:

I believe that Harkness's contribution has been universally undervalued in
favor of Elo's "tune up" work.

Should at least be called the Harkness-Elo system (HELO?).

BTW, thanks to Bill G's saving Harkness' original, handwritten notebook of
computations from being thrown out by the office in the late 90s, we have it
on
display here at the Museum in MIami.

Regards, al


Harkness deserved more credit for the rating system than he received. I would
be in favor of renaming it the Harkness-Elo system, as suggested by Al.

George Mirijanian

In article , Miriling says...

Subject: Harkness System as reported in October CL

On 14 September 2003 Kevin L. Bachler replied in
Message-id:


George, I'm not quite sure I understand the point of your post. Are you
trying
to create the first online CL?

Kevin L. Bachler


The point of my post was to correct McCrary's facts.

George Mirijanian


Ah, now I see. I haven't received the Chess Life yet, and I thought the quotes
of Harkness in your post were quotes of McCrary quoting Harkness, and it was
confusing. Now I see I was simply confused!! Thanks.

Kevin L. Bachler

Al, the Harkness rating system and the Elo rating system are so profoundly
different that calling it a tune-up is like calling a jet a tune-up of a
horse.
Harkness should be recognized, but the system had major flaws and was
replaced,
not tuned.

Kevin L. Bachler


I should learn more about the specifics. Regards, al

(AlforChess) writes:

Al, the Harkness rating system and the Elo rating system are so profoundly
different that calling it a tune-up is like calling a jet a tune-up of a
horse.
Harkness should be recognized, but the system had major flaws and was
replaced,
not tuned.

Kevin L. Bachler


I should learn more about the specifics. Regards, al


but...didn't you already make a public judgement? Isn't it a bit late
to inquire into the facts?


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/info/faculty/sloan/

but...didn't you already make a public judgement? Isn't it a bit late
to inquire into the facts?


Oh, I dunno. I hope it's never too late. But thank you for your suggestion.

Al

Sloan der Kleinerer said:

but...didn't you already make a public judgement? Isn't it a bit late
to inquire into the facts?

Hello, pot. This is the kettle. I have a comment to make about your color.

SBD

In article , AlforChess says...

Al, the Harkness rating system and the Elo rating system are so profoundly
different that calling it a tune-up is like calling a jet a tune-up of a
horse.
Harkness should be recognized, but the system had major flaws and was
replaced,
not tuned.

Kevin L. Bachler


I should learn more about the specifics. Regards, al


I would point out again, though, that I think Harkness doesn't get enough
attention. I think USCF has suffered from the lack of a "handbook" for years,
for example. When I was in my teens and twenty's, I ran two adult clubs in the
area, but would not have been able to manage it without Harkness' books.

Kevin L. Bachler