Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 6th 04, 01:17 AM
RSHaas
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Rating Service via State Associations

Why can't the many state associations simply get together and agree to set
up and support a national chess rating service? In that fashion we could get
out from under the greedy hand of Chess HQ and still have national ratings.

RSHaas
  #3   Report Post  
Old March 6th 04, 02:36 AM
Ray Gordon
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Rating Service via State Associations

Why can't the many state associations simply get together and agree
to set
up and support a national chess rating service? In that fashion we could

get
out from under the greedy hand of Chess HQ and still have national

ratings.

That seems to be a complete about face on your part as to the capabilities
of state associations. Haven't you pretty much been of the opinion that
they serve no purpose and accomplish little?

The more I learn about the ratings process, the more I am sure that no
volunteer organization could maintain a national rating system. Far too
many errors to correct, far too many 'situations' to resolve. I doubt
any one-person shop could do it either.


I'd love to try it.

I did the NCAA Division I basketball database for nine years. However, if
you want another person to judge, try Jeff Sagarin.

I suspect he could pull it off with little difficulty. He already has Elo
programmed into his power rating software. Odds are he'd query the crap out
of the database and have it running like a locomotive.

Ratings are not difficult to do if you know what you're doing. One person
should be able to handle a good 500-1,000 games a day manually without
difficulty, and a lot more if the submission process is automated.

--
Everything you need to know about women. FREE!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library

http://www.cybersheet.com/hotties.html
Why Hotties Choose Losers



  #5   Report Post  
Old March 6th 04, 03:03 AM
Mike Nolan
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Rating Service via State Associations

Paul Rubin writes:

(Mike Nolan) writes:
The more I learn about the ratings process, the more I am sure that no
volunteer organization could maintain a national rating system. Far too
many errors to correct, far too many 'situations' to resolve. I doubt
any one-person shop could do it either.


How does ICC manage?


ICC has at least 3 computer programmers on staff that I know of, plus a
full time business manager and several other full-time employees.
It is far from a one-man shop.
--
Mike Nolan


  #6   Report Post  
Old March 6th 04, 03:15 AM
RSHaas
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Rating Service via State Associations

"That seems to be a complete about face on your part as to the capabilities
of state associations. Haven't you pretty much been of the opinion that
they serve no purpose and accomplish little? " (Mike Nolan)
============
Well, not exactly. I don't see any one state association running a national
rating service, but I think if such a service could be established as an
independent entity the state associations, acting in unity, would be a good
initial step to establishing such a service that had credibility among the
broad range of chess players. I think a rating service could be done by 1 to 3
persons who got at least some money to operate it.
I'm still not impressed with state associations that produce only chess
newsletters and think their a big deal on that count alone. If we've gone to
the trouble of forming "chess associations" we should at least for chess
associations that actually do something. The American chess world has never
made good use of chess associations pers se. Most of them are just cosmetic
gestures.

RSHaas

  #7   Report Post  
Old March 6th 04, 03:23 AM
RSHaas
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Rating Service via State Associations

"The more I learn about the ratings process, the more I am sure that no
volunteer organization could maintain a national rating system." (Mike Nolan)
===========
Agree 100%. Pay 'em. A viable and credible independent rating service should
be "professional." Maybe each state association could kick in $500 to create
$25,000 in starting capital for the service. Go from there.

RSHaas
  #8   Report Post  
Old March 6th 04, 03:38 AM
Paul Rubin
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Rating Service via State Associations

(Mike Nolan) writes:
The more I learn about the ratings process, the more I am sure that no
volunteer organization could maintain a national rating system. Far too
many errors to correct, far too many 'situations' to resolve. I doubt
any one-person shop could do it either.


How does ICC manage?


ICC has at least 3 computer programmers on staff that I know of, plus a
full time business manager and several other full-time employees.
It is far from a one-man shop.


I doubt that the 3 programmers and the rest of the ICC staff spent
that much of their time on ratings. And it did ratings even when
Darooha was the only programmer involved. Also, WBCA was a one-person
operation that did ratings of OTB (blitz) games, though on nowhere
near the USCF's scale. On the other hand, WBCA was relatively low
tech, and most of its players were pretty experienced, which may have
helped it run more smoothly.

A real USCF-like rating system needs TD certification and a dispute
resolution mechanism, which falls more into USCF's governance mission
than its rating system. It's possible that the governance-type stuff
can be done by volunteers (some interested TD committee). A lot of
data errors can be eliminated by simply stopping processing paper
tournament submissions--just require all submissions to be 100% online
and do as much checking as possible in the software including the
client side pairing/reporting software. Someone then has to take care
of the code and admin the server, but do you still think that's too
much for one person?
  #9   Report Post  
Old March 6th 04, 03:48 AM
Mike Nolan
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Rating Service via State Associations

"Ray Gordon" writes:

I did the NCAA Division I basketball database for nine years. However, if
you want another person to judge, try Jeff Sagarin.


I don't know Jeff, but I know another person who does a football database.
(IMHO, his ratings are superior to Jeff's, but it isn't part of the
BCS clique.) He spends many hours on it every fall.

If I had to guess, Jeff has several people working for him at this point.
He went 'commercial' a number of years ago and does ratings for several
sports, including basketball.

Jeff also doesn't have to deal with a lot of corrections, the Big 10 doesn't
e-mail him to let him know that 6 of the teams listed in last week's
results actually played other schools or won games that were originally
reported as losses. :-)

Based on the feedback mail, I'm getting the strong feeling that at least
5% of the events have errors in them, mostly incorrect ID's. I think
it is possible that events submitted on diskette are more likely to
have bad ID's than ones submitted on paper, because the latter get
compared to the crosstable as they're being entered.

A key feature of the ratings system redesign is to simplify the corrections
process. Right now it is beyond cumbersome. A large part of the task
is tracking down the right information. Player 'A' says that the
report has an incorrect result, or that he isn't listed as having played.
The USCF has to rely on the information the TD sends in, thus it usually
requires that the TD be contacted asked to supply any corrections.

Ratings are not difficult to do if you know what you're doing. One person
should be able to handle a good 500-1,000 games a day manually without
difficulty, and a lot more if the submission process is automated.


The USCF rated over 490,000 regular games games in 2003 and another 150,000
quick games. There's probably a lot of overlap there because of dual
rating of games between G/30 and G/60, but that's still well over 1500
games a day, 365 days a year. Around 85% of the scholastic games are
submitted on diskette, for adult games it is closer to 75%.

And, believe it or not, the ratings calculations are the EASY part.
(Though it might not seem easy if you've tried to read the mathematical
description of the ratings system prepared by Mark Glickman and Tom Doan.)
--
Mike Nolan
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ethics of Officers in State Associations -- or -- "These are the days of our lives...." Louis Blair rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 17 November 17th 03 12:56 PM
Membership submissions by state associations Miriling rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 5 September 20th 03 12:58 AM
Ethics of Officers in State Associations -- or -- "These are the days of our lives...." Matt Nemmers rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 9 September 4th 03 12:19 PM
The Rights of Disruptive Players vs State Associations Bruce Draney rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 13 September 2nd 03 12:48 AM
Does unofficial rating of 2200 counts as NM? Denis rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 8 August 25th 03 03:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017