"The system is broke. It does nothing to encourage chess. (StanB)
============
Great post, Stan. By golly, you do come up with good stuff now and again.

RSHaas

"How do one day swisses with 3 games work out? I would consider G/75
or G/60 games" (Charles Allen)
===============
I love G/60 time control. It feels like real chess. The last two
tournaments I ever ran were both 5 rounds in 1 day at G/60.
Meanwhile, are you at all related to the late preacher, Charles Allen, of
Atlanta? My old high school, Grady, is located on Charles Allen Drive.

RSHaas

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:35:28 -0500, "Angelo DePalma"
wrote:

In my unscholarly opinion chessplayers improve as their intellects improve
and decline as their intellects decline. People undergo most of their
development from childhood to adulthood between ages 10 and 25, which
correlates nicely with age-related improvements in ELO. There are a few
exceptions but pretty much if you're not a master by age 25 it seems the
effort required to achieve that rating doubles every five years.

If the overall level of play is rising, as I think it probably is
(what with computer-based training tools, databases, more extensive
literature, etc.), then one has to improve (in an absolute sense) in
order to keep the same rating (the relative perspective). My guess is
fewer older players are motivated to invest the time and effort.

Eventually, age-related cognitive decline will cause a drop in
*absolute* playing strength, at least for most of us.

Faster time controls also benefit younger improving players relative to old
farts.

Or is it that the older players have less practice with the faster
time controls compared with the youngsters? Anyone know if regular
ratings versus quick ratings correlate differently for those, say,
under 21 versus those over 40?

"StanB" writes:
This post will no doubt resurrect the recently-dormant rating experts, who
will tell me I'm full of crap and there is no such thing as rating
deflation.

And they would be full of soup.

Nobody who understands ratings would ever say such a thing. Rating
deflation is inherent in the rating system and has to constantly be
adjusted for, for the simple reason that people leave the system
(retire or whatever) with more points than they enter (as beginners)
with, and those points have to come from other players. Elo explains
this from first principles in his book about ratings.

If computers have raised the level of play why, over the past 20 years, has
the US fallen to oblivion in the world chess arena and the Russians remained
on top? Regardless, our closed rating system approximates relative strength
better than absolute strength. The latter has probably risen worldwide, as
Garry K points out repeatedly ("A low-level GM today knows more than
Fischer"), and maybe here too. But the rest of the world has clearly left us
way behind. Were it not for eastern European immigrants we'd be hard pressed
to come in 100th in the Olympiad.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:35:28 -0500, "Angelo DePalma"
wrote:

In my unscholarly opinion chessplayers improve as their intellects
improve
and decline as their intellects decline. People undergo most of their
development from childhood to adulthood between ages 10 and 25, which
correlates nicely with age-related improvements in ELO. There are a few
exceptions but pretty much if you're not a master by age 25 it seems the
effort required to achieve that rating doubles every five years.

If the overall level of play is rising, as I think it probably is
(what with computer-based training tools, databases, more extensive
literature, etc.), then one has to improve (in an absolute sense) in
order to keep the same rating (the relative perspective). My guess is
fewer older players are motivated to invest the time and effort.

Eventually, age-related cognitive decline will cause a drop in
*absolute* playing strength, at least for most of us.

Faster time controls also benefit younger improving players relative to
old
farts.

Or is it that the older players have less practice with the faster
time controls compared with the youngsters? Anyone know if regular
ratings versus quick ratings correlate differently for those, say,
under 21 versus those over 40?

I play because I love the game, but for some idiotic reason I probably would
not subject myself to the tension, the hard work, were it not for those
silly rating points. Truth is they're not silly, they measure something and
humans are metric creatures. Most of my chess buddies, even
sometimes-insufferable purists like Eric Mark, deep down attach meaning to
their ratings that transcends the dumb numbers. It was a very bad marketing
decision to let the system hemorrhage all those points.

"StanB" wrote in message
...

"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message
...

This post will no doubt resurrect the recently-dormant rating experts,
who
will tell me I'm full of crap and there is no such thing as rating
deflation.

And they would be full of soup. The current system is leaking points
somewhere. Perhaps because of the lowering of floors. Maybe because of the
kiddie stuff. Or even people dropping out of chess. Who knows, it might
even
be the formula itself. Ken would tell you that ratings are just
statistical
chatter. That the system reflects a perfect bell curve and the numbering
of
the y axis is irrelevant. All I know is that most people don't play for
money or trophies. They play for rating points. And when they don't get
them, they lose interest. The system is broke. It does nothing to
encourage
chess.

StanB

I didn't read Elo, but as I recall a discussion on this very topic about a
year ago brought some folks out of the woodwork who claimed that your
statement, Paul, was mathematically incorrect. That adjustments had been
made to counter deflation, and they worked.

I would love to see data on the ratings of adult members who let their
memberships lapse.

"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
"StanB" writes:
This post will no doubt resurrect the recently-dormant rating experts,
who
will tell me I'm full of crap and there is no such thing as rating
deflation.

And they would be full of soup.

Nobody who understands ratings would ever say such a thing. Rating
deflation is inherent in the rating system and has to constantly be
adjusted for, for the simple reason that people leave the system
(retire or whatever) with more points than they enter (as beginners)
with, and those points have to come from other players. Elo explains
this from first principles in his book about ratings.

If computers have raised the level of play why, over the past 20 years, has
the US fallen to oblivion in the world chess arena and the Russians remained
on top?

1) Better teaching methods
2) Fall of "Communism" hasn't worked its way through the generations. Even some
of the youngest ones (Radjabov) first got in in only a couple of years after
Soviet days ended.
3) Computers only help you if you use them properly. I'm utterly convinced that
99% of Americans use them wrong, from my experience.
4) USCF rules hurt our players internationally.
5) Chess is still a good way to make an income in Eastern Europe + Russia. This
argument I thought was suspicious until I played in Warsaw two weeks ago and
spoke to one player who can make more in a Bundesliga weekend than in a month
even at a university job.

Were it not for eastern European immigrants we'd be hard pressed
to come in 100th in the Olympiad.

Or maybe instead of USCF's strong desire to get players to move here (by
sending every player on a top 100 list a letter asking them to emigrate), we'd
actually work on producing players.

I can only think of 3 players who were raised here in chess who have made GM -
in the past DECADE. (Shaked, Ashley, Nakamura. If you can add to this list, let
me know.)

John Fernandez

"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message ...
The prevailing opinion on this newsgroup holds that USCF is losing adult
members because of high dues. While I agree that $49 dues cannot possibly
promote membership beetter than $39 or $29 dues, in my opinion most working
adults don't even think of the extra $10 or $20 per year.

It occurred to me, however, that there is something that everyone, including
cardboard box-dwellers and perpetual kvetches value, and that's their egos.


Angelo, you need to work on projection in this soliloquy.


During the last decade USCF has lost about 10,000 adult members and gained
about 25,000 kiddies. It's safe to assume that most of those kids entered
the rating pool as rather poor players. As they gained rating points, it's
inevitable that their higher-rated opponents would lose points to them. Not
at the same rate as the kids gained, of course, but until the kids are
established they will, as sure as the sun rises, lose points to them.


The 'new' rating system actually seeks to encourage and accelerate the
improving players' gains while minimizing the higher-rated players'
losses---depending on which part of the rating scale the players
inhabit.


Think of the effect of the effect USCF's changing demographics has had on
established ratings, especially of higher-rated adults: The 644 kid beats
the 935 kid who beats the 1200 teenager who beats the 1433 girl who beats
the 1735 geezer who wins 25% of his games from the 1935 player who wins 25%
of his games from the established 2135 player. Eventually, the 2135 player
is rated 2070, then 2033. Then, faced with the horror of falling below 2000
for the first time since 11th grade, he quits.


I say let him go, even if you miss him and honor his memory. Someday a
few of the 935-rated kids will face the same dilemma.


I know of at least one person who has stopped playing completely, and
another who stopped coming to Hackettstown, because of ratings. The first
guy is sitting on a 2002 or so rating


If this is who I think it is he had a bad heart attack several years
ago and is not young. He doesn't want to risk losing his life for the
sake of the thrill of rated chess.


and the other, whose last game at our
club was a loss to me (afterward he vowed he was giving up chess), now
"plays up" at the Marshall with masters, FMs and IMs and has regained 2100
status (after falling to below 2000 at H'town).


This guy is the current U.S. Amateur champion. Ratings actually help
keep him in the game: he peaked around 2190 and won't rest till he
makes Master.


Today, five of our club's six former experts are rated: 1940, 1926, 1916,
1855, and 1835. One is in his mid-40s and the others are in their late 30s.


Not to be picky but one is 48, another is 46, and the others are about
38 to 40. We all look like babies to Angelo.


Another, currently rated in the mid-1900s, still occasionally tops 2000. Our
only former master is down 200 points as well, but he's 74 years old.


This guy actually helps boost the ratings of his opponents, albeit
slightly. He's near his 2000 floor and while he is still a legit low
expert most nights, his rating surely would have dropped into the
1900s a few times during low spots over the past two years, had it not
been for the floor.



I might add that I (age 49) am down about 135 points in the past year.
Overwhelmingly, my rating losses are due to bad play. But I and my
former-expert buddies at H'town have been getting mauled to one degree or
another by young, improving players.


My only bad upset loss in 2003 came at the hands of a 75-year-old
1500-rated player.



For example, on Monday we had a 300 point upset, 400 point upset, 300 point
upset (all losses by the higher rated) and a 400 point upset draw (my game).
It's nice to see youngsters improve, but I'm beginning to dread the idea of
having a 1753 rating in a year or two or, heaven forbid, fall to my 1700
floor. If I continue playing with this group I'm afraid that scenario is
almost inevitable.


Get mad. Get some rest. Study hard and play better.



For the first time ever, on the way home from Monday's game, I began to
wonder what it would be like to play only on the 'Net or against Shredder. I
would return to competitive chess, of course, when I reach 2200 strength
(big fat ugly smiley face).


Ask GK, a former NM, now lost, possibly forever, to ICC. He never
smiled much.



This post will no doubt resurrect the recently-dormant rating experts, who
will tell me I'm full of crap and there is no such thing as rating
deflation. That it's mathematically impossible and that, after all, I have
been playing badly. I've seen those arguments and I think they're basically
the product of somebody either not thinking this idea through or covering
his ass.


Actually the rating wonks on here agree there was inflation, and
argued for years in favor of sliding-K and other tweaks to re-inflate
the system. They argue amongst themselves on principle.



I remember my first game back after a very long hiatus, 6 years ago. I was
rated 1667 and my opponent, one of my current H'town buddies who had topped
2100 in his youth, weighed in at 1999.


Actually this guy peaked in the 2000s but OK...


I'd never before beaten an A-player,
much less one who for most of his playing days up to that time was an
expert.


Actually more like 1900s but we'll go with it.




Well, I beat him. To this day I have his number, having won about 70% of our
decisive games (20 or so in all). He's the guy I mentioned earlier with the
1855 rating, by the way.

I will gladly provide names and data to support anything in this post if you
request it by email. For reasons of personal friendship I prefer not to do
so in a public forum.

Angelo DePalma


Angelo truly believes in this ratings-centric view of the amateur
chess world, in case you couldn't tell. Stan Booz also strikes me as a
true believer.
I don't get it. Just play the damn game guys.

Regards,

Eric M

In article , StanB says...


"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message
...

This post will no doubt resurrect the recently-dormant rating experts, who
will tell me I'm full of crap and there is no such thing as rating
deflation.

And they would be full of soup. The current system is leaking points
somewhere.

The last measurements I heard about showed that it was gaining points, as
predicted.

Players who play less are less likely to see this.

Perhaps because of the lowering of floors. Maybe because of the
kiddie stuff. Or even people dropping out of chess. Who knows, it might even
be the formula itself. Ken would tell you that ratings are just statistical
chatter. That the system reflects a perfect bell curve and the numbering of
the y axis is irrelevant.

I doubt that Ken (I assume you mean Sloan) would say these things.

All I know is that most people don't play for
money or trophies. They play for rating points. And when they don't get
them, they lose interest. The system is broke. It does nothing to encourage
chess.

StanB



Kevin L. Bachler