ACF Bulletin #206, March 3, 2003

The current rating system is unreliable as a guide to strength, especially for juniors, and most players to whom I have spoken about the our rating system rarely have a good word to say about it.

Some of the biggest flaws in the current system are as follows:

(i) It is impossible for a player to calculate their expected rating quickly and simply. Mistakes in the system go unrectified as players now expect their rating to go up and down without reason so they have no idea whether they should be complaining or not.

(ii) The current system puts far too much emphasis on recent results, meaning that ten years of consistent play can be wiped out with one or two bad tournaments. Under the current system, a player returning to play after an absence can gain or (more likely) lose 500+ points on a single tournament. The Glicko system (which Australia has been using in recent years) was designed for the internet, where players might complete 50 3-minute games in an evening, but is totally inappropriate for a pool of players who might average 20-50 games a year.

(iii) The deflationary tendency of the current system acts as a disincentive to activity. Players who play little (or not at all) are steadily moving up the rankings. The negative impact this has on the tournament scene is obvious but less obvious is the competitive advantage given to relatively inactive players applying for selection for national and international events.

(iv) The extremely low introductory ratings of juniors distort the system. These juniors improve very quickly, taking points away from established players and the points they take from established players is perhaps the major cause of general deflation.
In addition, juniors who compete against other juniors are at a disadvantage compared to those who play in adult tournaments. Equally, adults try to avoid tournaments with many juniors if they wish to preserve their ratings.

(v) The minimum reward for beating lower rated players has disappeared - a player is now required to score 999.5/1000 against opponents rated a long way below them just to maintain his or her rating. Under the current system, a reasonably active player who drops a draw or loss to a much lower rated player will need a perfect score when playing against similarly rated opponents for the next 20 years to regain the lost points.

To correct the situation, I believe some or all of the following steps should be taken as soon as possible by the ACF:

(i) Abandon the Glicko system and introduce the Elo system. I am amazed at how often well-informed Australian players express their contempt for the Glicko system. Whether or not it is responsible for all the ills of the current ratings, such a hated system needs to be replaced and the tried and tested Elo system has the great merit of being easy for the lay person to use to calculate his or her rating (and therefore pick up errors).

(ii) Give a K factor of 15 for all except new players. (This means that an established player cannot gain or lose more than 15 points on a single game.)

(iii) To correct the comparative deflation for active players, award all players who have completed 50 games in the past 2 years a bonus of, say, 100 rating points. Provide an extra 100 points to players who have completed 50 games in the past three years against juniors. In addition, subtract a point or two from the rating of each player who does not play at least one game on a rating list. (In most cases inactive players are losing strength, so this seems more logical than the converse American system of providing bonus points for very active players.)

(iv) Bring new players into the system with a nominal rating of, say, 1,000. Some juniors will gain points and some will lose from this level but at least the system will not be starved of points.

(v) Reintroduce a theoretical maximum differential between players, so that a win in a tournament game is rewarded with a minimum gain of, say, half a point or a point.

The current system is discouraging people from playing chess, and indirectly rewarding those who play as little as possible and against as few juniors as possible.

A radical change is necessary to correct the situation. I will be quite happy if other readers of the ACF E-Bulletin come up with better proposals than mine but I do not believe that we can afford to persist with the failed Glicko experiment.

- Ian Rogers

I agree that tie-breaks systems are not perfect and for any proposed method there are examples which can be put forward which provide counter intuitive results. However, the practicalities of running tournaments usually mean that pragmatic decisions need to be made to resolve the question of "who won?"

The same comment apply to the time controls for tie-break games. Ideally the same controls used in the tournament are to be preferred. However, this is not always practical and so shorter controls are sometimes needed to ensure travel arrangements, venue bookings, etc, are not strained.

What is troubling though is the perceived lack of transparency in the system. The DOP/tournament organiser should have at least been able to inform the contestants before the event as to the tie-break systems that would be employed. It is probably not too much to ask that the conditions for play-off matches (if required) should also have been worked out in advance.

To my mind the issue of transparency is an important one in particular when dealing with the issue of resolving tie-breaks. Naturally, the DOP will at times need to make decisions to resolve disputes between players on the spur of the moment. However, the fewer of these sorts of decisions that are required the better the event.

I know nothing about the tournament in question but would be interested to know whether Mr Thorne's issue with transparency is real or perceived. If it was real then this is an area which next year's organiser should pay particular attention. If it was perceived then all is well with Australian Chess. Some players may feel aggrieved, but not unjustly so. No one can argue with the rules after the fact, so long as they are known in advance.

Regards,
Barry Cox

However in defence of the Tournament Organisers I must point out that some of the arguments presented were not strictly logical.

For example:
Bourrnistrov lost to Chow but he - not Chow - still participated in the play-off!

If there has to be a tie-break used (and I have already agreed that there should not), then the one used was the best available. The tie should be resolved in favour of the LOSER of the game between two players who tie, as he has played the most consistently good chess, losing only to the one who tied with him for first place. The winner of the game between them has been less consistent because he must have lost to a lower-ranked opponent. S.Yang defeated George Xie - the highest rated at 2225 - but Rej who lost to Xie participated in the play off probably because of underperformance by Xie in this tournament.

The same (or similar) arguments apply here. In the case of Yang, due to the draw and opponent he had for the last round, it was not possible for him to win the event under the tie break system even if he won his match and finished equal first, but was possible for others. This is patently unsatisfactory.

On the contrary, it was quite possible for Yang to win the event - by winning more of his earlier games. The draw was not weighted against him; he had exactly the same chance of winning the event as everyone else had. It is true that having lost to certain opponents before the last round started, and given the unnecessary tie-breaking system, he was no longer in contention for the title; but the same applied to almost all of the other players in the event.

- John Riches.

Tasmanian Open Championship - Burnie
Category 1
TAS
Mar 8-10
Contact Neville Ledger (03) 6431 1280
nlchess@tassie.net.au

 
South West Open (incorporating WA Country Championship)
Category 1 
WA
Mar 8-9
Bunbury Catholic College Hall, Bunbury


Ballarat Begonia Weekend Tournament
Category 3
VIC
Mar 8-10
Contact B. van Riel 
bvanriel@ncable.net.au

Dubbo RSL Open
Category 1
NSW
Mar 15-16
Contact Alexander Aich  (02) 6884 4561
sjaich@tpg.com.au

Doeberl Cup
Category 3
ACT
Apr 18-21
Contact Roger McCart
'phone  (06) 6251 6190
Roger.McCart@anu.edu.au

Chess World ANZAC Day weekender
Category 2
VIC 
April 25-27
ChessWorld Tournament Centre 
Contact David Cordover (03) 957 6177 or 0411-877-833
email cordover@chessworld.com.au


37th. Peninsula Open
Category 1
QLD
May  3-5
Contact Mark Stokes (07) 3205 6042
markcstokes@hotmail.com

Laurieton May Open
Category 1
NSW
May 3-4
Contact Endel Lane  (02) 6559  9060
endel@fasternet.com.au

NSWCA May Weekender
Category  2
NSW
May 17-18
Contact P.Cassettari 
pcass@zeta.org.au

Tasmanian Chess Championship
Category  1
TAS
Jun 7-9
Contact  K.Bonham  (03) 6224 8487
k_bonham@tassie.net.au

NSW Open Championship
Category  3
NSW
Jun 7-9
Contact: P.Cassettari 
pcass@zeta.org.au

Taree RSL June Open
Category 1
NSW
Jun 14-15
Contact Endel Lane  (02) 6559  9060
endel@fasternet.com.au

Gold Coast Open (Gold Coast CC) 
Category 3
QLD
Jun 21-22
Contact Graeme Gardiner
ggardiner@gardinerchess.com
(07) 5530 5794

Caloundra Open	
Category 3?	
QLD
Jun 28/29
Contact Derrick Jeffries
chesswis@australis.aunz.com

University Open
Category  3
SA 
JUL 12-13
chess@adelaide.edu.au ph (08) 8303 3029 or andrew.saint@adelaide.edu.au ph  (08) 8332 3752

NSWCA August Weekender
Category  2
NSW
Aug 2-3
Contact P.Cassettari 
pcass@zeta.org.au

Father's Day Tournament
Category 2/3?
VIC
Sep 6-7
Contact:  David Cordover (03) 9576177 or 0411-877-833
cordover@chessworld.com.au

Gold Coast Classic (Gold Coast CC) 
Category 3
QLD
Sep 20-21
Contact Graeme Gardiner
ggardiner@gardinerchess.com
(07) 5530 5794

12th. Redcliffe Challenge
Category 2
QLD
Sep 27-28
Contact Mark Stokes (07) 3205 6042 
markcstokes@hotmail.com

Tweed Open
Category  3
QLD
Oct 4-5
Contact Audie Pennefather 
pennefather@iprimus.com.au

Koala Open
Category 3
NSW
Oct 5-6
Contact Brian Jones
chessaus@chessaustralia.com.au

Laurieton Open
Category 1
NSW
Nov 1-2
Contact Endel Lane  (02) 6559  9060
endel@fasternet.com.au

November weekender
Category  1
TAS
Nov 1-2 or 1-3
Contact  K.Bonham  (03) 6224 8487
k_bonham@tassie.net.au

Gosford Open
Category 2
NSW
Nov 8-9
Contact Lachlan Yee
L.YEE@unsw.edu.au

Taree RSL Spring Open
Category 1
NSW
Nov 15-16
Contact Endel Lane  (02) 6559  9060
endel@fasternet.com.au

NSWCA November Weekender
Category 2
Nov 22-23
contact
P.Cassettari 
pcass@zeta.org.au

X-Mas Swiss Tournament
Category 2-3?
December 20-21
Contact David Cordover (03) 9576177 or 0411-877-833
cordover@chessworld.com.au

Total 29 NSW 14 QLD 6 VIC 4 ACT 1 TAS 3 SA 1