Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old August 8th 09, 02:59 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default David Howell Rating Problem

David Howell has just won the British Championship, so now is a good
time to discuss the problem with his USCF rating.

This case came up as a very serious matter when I was on the Executive
Board of the United States Chess Federation.

David Howell's USCF rating was 1871 in 2000.

Five years later when now a grandmaster he came back to play in
another US tournament.

His 1871 rating would ruin the rating of anybody he played.

To avoid this, the USCF just arbitrarily raised his rating to 2521.
Take a look at:

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12771831

That solved the problem in this one case, but similar things on a
smaller scale happen all the time.

For example, a kid has a rating of 521, does not play rated chess for
8 years and when he comes back now his strength is 2021 but his rating
is still 521.

What to do about the frequent cases like this is a question that needs
to be addressed.

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old August 8th 09, 03:09 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,390
Default David Howell Rating Problem

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 18:59:17 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
wrote:

David Howell has just won the British Championship, so now is a good
time to discuss the problem with his USCF rating.

This case came up as a very serious matter when I was on the Executive
Board of the United States Chess Federation.

David Howell's USCF rating was 1871 in 2000.

Five years later when now a grandmaster he came back to play in
another US tournament.

His 1871 rating would ruin the rating of anybody he played.

To avoid this, the USCF just arbitrarily raised his rating to 2521.
Take a look at:

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12771831

That solved the problem in this one case, but similar things on a
smaller scale happen all the time.

For example, a kid has a rating of 521, does not play rated chess for
8 years and when he comes back now his strength is 2021 but his rating
is still 521.

What to do about the frequent cases like this is a question that needs
to be addressed.

Sam Sloan


You might think you could simply use the highest of USCF, FIDE or
other national rating (converted, if need be).

BUT...the reverse can also be true. A guy quits at 2200 -- comes back
40 years later when he's senile and plays at a 1400 strength, in which
case using the highest rating would exacerbate the problem.

So, you really can't do much about these anomalies. The rating
system is self-healing in the long run.
  #3   Report Post  
Old August 8th 09, 03:34 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2008
Posts: 235
Default David Howell Rating Problem

On Aug 7, 10:09*pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 18:59:17 -0700 (PDT), samsloan





wrote:
David Howell has just won the British Championship, so now is a good
time to discuss the problem with his USCF rating.


This case came up as a very serious matter when I was on the Executive
Board of the United States Chess Federation.


David Howell's USCF rating was 1871 in 2000.


Five years later when now a grandmaster he came back to play in
another US tournament.


His 1871 rating would ruin the rating of anybody he played.


To avoid this, the USCF just arbitrarily raised his rating to 2521.
Take a look at:


http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12771831


That solved the problem in this one case, but similar things on a
smaller scale happen all the time.


For example, a kid has a rating of 521, does not play rated chess for
8 years and when he comes back now his strength is 2021 but his rating
is still 521.


What to do about the frequent cases like this is a question that needs
to be addressed.


Sam Sloan


You might think you could simply use the highest of USCF, FIDE or
other national rating (converted, if need be).

BUT...the reverse can also be true. *A guy quits at 2200 -- comes back
40 years later when he's senile and plays at a 1400 strength, in which
case using the highest rating would exacerbate the problem.

So, you really *can't do much about these anomalies. *The rating
system is self-healing in the long run.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -




So I can still use my 1900 rating even though I can now beat Crafty
20.14 at Blitz?

  #4   Report Post  
Old August 8th 09, 05:27 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,390
Default David Howell Rating Problem

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 19:34:29 -0700 (PDT), RayGordon
wrote:


So I can still use my 1900 rating even though I can now beat Crafty
20.14 at Blitz?


Only if you play in a tournament.
  #5   Report Post  
Old August 8th 09, 08:42 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,977
Default David Howell Rating Problem

On Aug 7, 6:59*pm, samsloan wrote:

David Howell's USCF rating was 1871 in 2000.

Five years later when now a grandmaster he came back to play in
another US tournament.

His 1871 rating would ruin the rating of anybody he played.

To avoid this, the USCF just arbitrarily raised his rating to 2521.


Sam, with my bias toward positive, I was
forcing myself to see you in positive light
for quite some time. Unfortunately, there were
more and more signs which I couldn't ignore,
which were showing you as someone phony
in several major ways. Your deafness (complete
lack of interest) to some of my ideas was among
those signs, it has contradicted the image of
you which you were promoting. Among those ideas
some were related to rating. The solution of the
problem which you described above was spelled
among in my posts about rating. Actually, I have
two,solutions or call it a two part solution (each
part solving the problem to much extent even
by itself, while the total is still better).

Wlod


  #6   Report Post  
Old August 8th 09, 08:46 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,977
Default David Howell Rating Problem

On Aug 7, 6:59*pm, samsloan wrote:

What to do about the frequent cases like
this is a question that needs
to be addressed.


It's simple, Sam. Learn Polish. Then read Vistula,
where I am right now in the process of publishing
a series of articles about rating. The first two parts
will show up soon, followed by the rest.

Wlod
  #7   Report Post  
Old December 15th 15, 09:11 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2015
Posts: 1
Default FIDE rating converted to USCF


Wlod or others,

I would like your help to convert my Arena FIDE rapid rating 1658 and blitz rating 1781 to USCF ratings. What would they be? My thanks, Jon Fortune

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chess Ratings samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 7 May 10th 08 07:33 AM
Rating competency problem, continued Chess One rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 August 13th 07 12:48 PM
USCF Rating the Olympiad samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 19 March 5th 07 03:20 AM
Proposed Addendum to Chinese Chess for Beginners: Please comment Nick rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 20 June 9th 06 04:55 PM
Proposed Addendum to Chinese Chess for Beginners: Please comment Nick rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 22 June 9th 06 04:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017