ACF Bulletin #211, April 7, 2003

** Chess Today
Daily Chess News - Annotated Games - Chess Lessons and Hints
Interviews, reviews and more!
Free trial -

** Italo-Australian Club 41st Doeberl Cup
Australia's premier weekend tournament!
Canberra, 18-21 April - Total Prizes: $10,000

** University Open 2003
$4000 total prizes - Category 3 Grand Prix
12-13 July - Adelaide University, SA

** Job Opportunity - Chess Kids, Melbourne
A position as full-time Chess Coach is available with 
Chess Kids from the start of Term 2 (May 1st). Salary: $27,700 + super (9% of gross)
Contact or David on 0411-877-833 for more details.


* Australian Chess Directory updated
* WA: Midland Masters update
* Victoria: Box Hill Autumn Cup
* NSW: City of Sydney update
* ACF Council Meeting
* Uncanny resemblance
* Letters
* Chess World Grand Prix 2003
* Upcoming tournaments


ACF homepage:
Bulletins online:
Bulletin Board:
International news and games:


Unveiled only a few weeks' ago, Matthew Sweeney's momentous 
Australian Chess Directory has already been updated. It has links
and contacts to everything important in Australian chess.

The April edition of the directory is available online at

If you wish to add contact details, please email Matthew at


The next ACF Council meeting will be conducted, as normal, by phone on
Monday, 14 April 2003 at 7 AEST.  
- Joseph Tanti


WA's 1st FIDE rated event - the 10 player Midland Masters is close to its
completion with most players having a couple of adjournments plus one game
to go. As can be seen from the cross-table Tristan Boyd and Adam Haasse are
best placed to take out first place (Adam has a superior adjourned position
against Michael Wilkins). Of the 3 players rated below 2000 Jay Lakner is
doing best, here is his win against top seed Haydn Barber.

Scores after 6 rounds:
4.5 Boyd 
4.0 Lackner (/7)
3.5 Hortsmann (/6), Haasse (/5)
3.0 Barber, Wilkins, Byrne
2.0 Partis, Phillip
1.5 Hardegan

Jay Lakner (1938) - Haydn Barber (2228)

1. c4 f5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. O-O O-O 6. d4 d6 7. Nc3 Nc6 8. d5
Ne5 9. Nxe5 dxe5 10. b3 a6 11. Ba3 Qe8 12. Qc2 g5 13. c5 Kh8 14. d6 c6 15.
Rad1 Be6 16. Bb4 a5 17. Ba3 e4 18. Bc1 h6 19. f3 exf3 20. exf3 exd6 21. Rxd6
Qf7 22. f4 g4 23. Rfd1 Rfe8 24. Na4 Nd5 25. Bxd5 Bxd5 26. Nb6 Be4 27. Qd2
Rab8 28. Bb2 Bf3 29. Rd7 Re7 30. Qd6 Rbe8 31. Qxh6+ Kg8 32. Bxg7 Re1+ 33.
Rxe1 Rxe1+ 34. Kf2 Re2+ 35. Kf1 Re1+ 36. Kxe1 Qe8+ 37. Be5  1-0

- Rob Maris 


Final Bulletin
The Box Hill Chess Club's 2003 Autumn Cup has been won by 
Sam Chow for the first time. 
114 players participated in a 7 round SWISS played at 60 minutes 
plus 30 seconds per move each Friday evening since 31/1/2003.
Sam Chow won with a score of 6.5/7 and the event featured 2IMs 
(Peter Froehlich, and Michael Gluzman), as well 14 players rated 
over 1900.
The field is essentially divided into an A and B division; achieved 
by the administrators permanently accelerating the top 50% players 
with a 3 point bonus. This has proven to be a very beneficial innovation 
at Box Hill as it avoids the wide rating gap differences usually seen 
in SWISS pairings, but still allows B division players to obtain a 
pairing against an A division player; this usually occurs from round 
3 onwards. 
B Division players are not eligible for A Division prizes.
The event proceeded with Gerrit Hartland as DOP, but having to handle 
no disputes, and Phillip O'Connor as the computer pairings officer.

The full results follow:
1st Sam Chow 6.5, 
2nd Leon Kempen 6, 
3rd  M.Campara, M. Dizdarevic, D.Dragicevic, V.Kildisas.
Best A Junior John Nemeth, Best A Senior Peter Schultzer.

U1700: Equal 1st, K. Jenkins, D.Stojic.

B Division: 1st R.Martin, P.Carey.
Best B Junior: D.Van Dijk, C.Hickman, R.Muthusamy, R.Vijayakumar, 
Best B Senior Anton Nincevic, Best Unrated Peter Braham.

U1150: Equal 1st, W.Smith, P.Papa, D.Yu, J.Lugo

- Trevor Stanning


Four players are tied for first - two of them juniors - after seven rounds 
of the City of Sydney Championship

Leading scores after seven rounds:
5.5 Canfell, Xie, Yu, Bird
4.5 Seberry, Silver, Navarro
4.0 Krejci, Charles, Cabilin, Zvedeniouk, Fell

Some games from round 6, courtesy Peter Cassetari and the players:

Ronald Yu-Greg Canfell
 1. d2-d4 Ng8-f6 2. Bc1-g5 Nf6-e4 3. Bg5-f4 d7-d6 
 4. f2-f3 Ne4-f6 5. e2-e4 g7-g6 6. Nb1-c3 Bf8-g7 
 7. Bf1-d3 Nb8-c6 8. Ng1-e2 O-O 9. O-O e7-e5 
 10. d4xe5 Nc6xe5 11. Kg1-h1 c7-c6 12. Qd1-c1 Rf8-e8 
 13. Bf4-g5 Qd8-b6 14. h2-h3 Nf6-h5 15. g2-g4 Nh5-f6 
 16. f3-f4 Ne5xd3 17. c2xd3 h7-h6 18. Bg5xf6 Bg7xf6 
 19. Ra1-b1 d6-d5 20. e4xd5 Re8-e3 21. Kh1-g2 Bc8-d7 
 22. Rf1-f2 c6xd5 23. d3-d4 Ra8-e8 24. Qc1-d2 h6-h5 
 25. Rf2-f3 Re3xf3 26. Kg2xf3 Qb6-e6 27. Rb1-g1 Kg8-h7 
 28. Qd2-d3 Bf6-h4 29. f4-f5 Qe6-f6 30. Ne2-f4 h5xg4+ 
 31. h3xg4 Kh7-g7 32. Rg1-g2 Bh4-g5 33. Nc3-e2 a7-a6 
 34. Ne2-g3 Qf6-d6 35. Qd3-d2 Kg7-g8 36. Rg2-h2 Bd7-b5 
 37. b2-b3 a6-a5 38. a2-a4 Bb5-d7 39. Rh2-h1 b7-b5 
 40. a4xb5 Bd7xb5 41. Rh1-h2 Bb5-c6 42. Qd2-c1 Re8-b8 
 43. Rh2-b2 a5-a4 44. b3-b4 a4-a3 45. Rb2-b3 a3-a2 
 46. Ng3-e2 Bc6-b5 47. Qc1-b2 Bb5-c4 48. Qb2xa2 g6xf5 
 49. g4xf5 Qd6-e7 50. Qa2-b2 Qe7-e4+ 51. Kf3-g4 f7-f6 
 52. Rb3-f3 Kg8-g7 53. Ne2-g3 Qe4-e1 54. Qb2-f2 Qe1xb4 
 55. Qf2-e3 Rb8-h8 56. Ng3-h5+ Kg7-f8 57. Nf4-g6+ Kf8-g8 
 58. Qe3-e6+ *

Gareth Charles-George Xie
 1. e2-e4 c7-c5 2. Nb1-c3 e7-e6 3. Ng1-f3 Nb8-c6 
 4. d2-d4 c5xd4 5. Nf3xd4 Ng8-f6 6. Bc1-e3 Bf8-b4 
 7. Bf1-d3 d7-d5 8. Nd4xc6 b7xc6 9. e4-e5 d5-d4 
 10. e5xf6 d4xe3 11. f6xg7 e3xf2+ 12. Ke1-f1 Rh8-g8 
 13. Bd3xh7 Qd8-f6 14. Qd1-f3 Qf6xf3 15. g2xf3 Rg8xg7 
 16. Bh7-e4 Bb4-c5 17. Be4-d3 f7-f5 18. Kf1-e2 a7-a5 
 19. Nc3-d1 Ra8-a7 20. Nd1xf2 Rg7-g2 21. Ra1-f1 e6-e5 
 22. Ke2-e1 Bc8-e6 23. a2-a4 Be6-d5 24. Nf2-h3 Ra7-b7 
 25. b2-b3 e5-e4 26. f3xe4 Bd5xe4 27. Bd3xe4 f5xe4 
 28. Ke1-d1 Bc5-a3 29. Rf1-e1 Rb7-d7++  Checkmate 0-1


A few days the ACF website featured the spectacular game Dreev-Tiviakov 
from the just completed Dos Hermanas tournament in Spain: 
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. a3 Bb7 5. Nc3 d5 6. cxd5 Nxd5 7. Bd2 Nd7 8.
Nxd5 Bxd5 9. Qc2 c5 10. e4 Bb7 11. d5 exd5 12. exd5 Bd6 13. O-O-O O-O 14.
Bb5 h6 15. Bc3 Nf6 16. Bc6 Rb8 17. h4 Ng4 18. Kb1 Bc8 19. Rde1 g6 

20. Re6!! Bxe6 (Black can't allow ...fxe6 21.Qg6+)

21. dxe6 f5 22. h5 gxh5 23. Rxh5 Qe7 24. Nh4 Qxe6 25. Nxf5 Be5 26. Bd5 1-0

Sead Krajina writes: "I have seen the game Dreev - Tiviakov and this nice Re6 move. 
That reminded me of one of my games against John Nutter 3 years back at Mingara 
when John produced similar, and I would say more shocking move - Rd3. Have a look, 
it is entertaining how he attacked and how I defended (he lost even he had 
600 points higher rating at that time)."

Sead Krajina 1470 - John Nutter 2013
played at Mingara on 26/6/2000 
annotation by Sead 

1.e4 e5 
2.f4 (this was King's Gambit tournament - we all were required to play these 3 first moves) 
2...d5 (I was expecting everything but this) 
3.exd5 e4 
4.Bb5+ (I don't think John was expecting this loofty move - the thing is get him off the lines he knows) 
5.dxc6 bxc6 
6.Bc4 (is this OK?) 6...Nf6 
7.d3 (starting my development :) ) 7...Bg4 
8.Ne2 (another crumpy move - not much choice) 8...Bc5 (boy, John is starting attack) 
9.Nbc3 (development, eh, 2-3 moves lagging behind John) 9...exd3 (I felt relief after this move) 
10.Qxd3 (trying to exchange Qs, to ease his pressure) 10...Qb6 (no, he wont do it, grrrr) 
11.Rf1 (things are getting awkward around my K but I did not have much choice) 11...0-0 
12.h3 (while my K is badly exposed I am attacking his B with my little pawn - but what to do) 
12...Rd8 (John is doing nicely) 
13.Qg3 (where to go :( ) 13...Bf5 (another nice repositioning move) 
14.Bb3 (defending C pawn vigorously :) ) 14...Na6 (now N is coming too :( ) 
15.Bd2 (another 'development' move - lagging 5-6 moves out of 15 ! and desperately trying to castle) 
15...Nb4 (here it comes) 
16.0-0-0 (finally - but is this going to be safe?) 16...a5 (now A pawn - look his attack man) 
17.Qf3 (clearing the way for my K side 'attack' ??) 

17...Rd3 (BANG - I almost fell off the chair. John The Beast  has got my Q in most 
unbelievable move, on my half, with almost all pieces on the table! What the hell to do? ) 
18.Na4 (Nothing, just calmly counterattack his Q   :) . It looks bizare but it is 
quite strong - if he takes Q, I take Q, if then he takes R my jumping N takes his R and, 
if he takes my second R then my K takes it back !!- we are square) 18...Qb5 (is this strong - I believe not) 
19.Nec3 (has he forgotten that I am attacking his Q :) ) 19...Qb8 
20.Qe2 (Finally I found where to put my Q) 20...Bd4 (he calmly keeps his R on d3 and goes for more - 
John The Beast) 
21.g4 (remember my K side 'attack' - here is it again regardless to the black pieces - 
just look at the table :( ) 21...Ne4 (now John blew it - he has a bad habit of overdoing attack) 
22.Nxe4 Nxa2+ 
23.Bxa2 (he did not see that b2 is protected by Na4) 23...Qb5 (attacking N and Q indirectly) 
24.Nec3 (I believe this seals my defence) 24...Rxc3 (John is throwing in everything now) 
25.Nxc3 (has he missed to see that my N now protects my Q?) 25...Qb4 
26.Qc4 (faced with forced exchange and down 2-3 pieces he gives up :) ) 1-0

- Sead Krajina


29 September to 3 October 2003
An official Australian Chess Federation event
Venue Rydges Oasis Resort Caloundra, Sunshine Coast, Queensland
Six clubs have confirmed their entry. The event will definitely proceed.
Full details at:

- Graeme Gardiner


Dear Editor -

I agree with Tassos. The number of "letters" relating to the ratings debate 
make for a boring read. This is especially worse since each contribution is 
of essay length!

It's a very interesting discussion. But the email bulletin is not the proper 
place for it. The bulletin should be mainly for reportage. I suggest you 
create a mini-site within the site and have all these 
essay-length contributions there. In any case, there's always the BB.

- Amiel Rosario


 - from Charles Zworestine -

I'll be brief, as I'm sure people are sick of the whole ratings debate by
now! I had to respond to Alek Safarian's letter in the last bulletin. He's
right, he is a good friend; so I am not offended, and there is nothing
personal here. But I believe his letter is based on a misunderstanding. I
never meant the proposed "survey" to reflect "legitimacy" (to use Alek's
term) or otherwise of either ratings system! "Popularity amongst players" is
not the issue here either. I was merely trying to determine by means of
player responses whether or not there was any issue for concern here. If
there is, perhaps "the ACF would step into this debate and announce an
enquiry into the Australian rating system" (to quote Ian Rogers). If not,
leave the whole thing alone. And the survey needn't be at the Doeberl Cup
(so Kevin Bonham has no need for concern), but a more general one if that is
felt necessary. But the players should be asked one way or the other. After
all, we are in a democracy - if Alek's objection of ignorance were taken on
board, hardly anyone would ever vote in either state or federal elections!

- Charles Zworestine.


This comment may be silly and if so, don't print it.

If a main concern is equivalenve between FIDE ratings and ACF ratings then
why don't we:
* include FIDE results into ACF rating calculations?
* use the same rating system as FIDE?

- Trevor Watt

(Since I don't know much about ratings, I can't tell whether the question is silly or 
not - it certainly makes sense to me - ed)


- from Robert Goris -

To the Glicko supporters
I have read a lot of letters saying what good guys both Bill and Ian are (as
if that is relevant in this debate -its not a personality test/attack -its
an honest debate). Ratings aren't important??? And seen endless debates on
the pros and cons of the Glicko system -some of these letters are by people
who really don't understand what they are talking about. We'll enough is
enough! I totally support Ian's stand on this -that the Glicko system must
go! Lets keep this problem simple so as ALL chessplayers might understand
what is really going on (including the ACF! members).

In the recent letters the topic of how many rating points can you lose in
one game was raised. The JP Wallace case was sighted -where as Bill states
JP would lose 30 rating points after losing to a player rated 2001. With ELO
he would lose a maximum of 15 rating points. What I would like to know is -
How many rating points would JP lose if he hadn't played for 5 years and
played someone rated 1300, blundered his queen and lost (grandmaster have
blundered queens too!) ? Please tell us, Bill? I imagine it would be well
over 100 rating points! Would that mean that JP is now no longer worthy of
an IM title, because his rating falls to 2250? (for example) because of one

Bill, what is the maximum amount of rating points you can lose with the
Glicko system? (ELO is 15)

As far as I can see, the Glicko gives  too much emphasis to one game. If for
example a player rated 2150 preforms to a 2200 strength over 6 games, then
goes and loses a game against a 1400 rated player (he might have been
sick -that happens to humans!) he is likely to a truckload of rating
points -especially if he hadn't played for 3 or more years. Then does this 1
game count for more than the other 6 games? According to the Glicko system
it does! But the smart ELO system isn't so prejudice -you will only lose 15
points. This point alone should kill the Glicko system once and for all.

As I see it the Glicko system should only be used on computers not HUMANS
(we DO blunder from time to time!)
FIDE have been using the ELO system for years and it seems fine for its
35,000 plus members. Most other chess federations use ELO so why aren't we?
Does any other country use the Glicko system? I know the US thought about
it, but gave it the big thumbs down. ELO can also be easily understood by
all, unlike the Glicko system! So why are we putting up with it!

Bill, I would like it if you could answer some of these questions with just
figures and one word answers, no mathematical rhetoric or excuses please!
Keep it simple so that all chessplayers might understand.

Finally, PLEASE ACF this rating issue needs some action! If you really have
the interests of Australian chess in mind switch back to ELO. And the strong
players will come back.

- Robert Goris


(from David Richards)

In response to Graham and Billís statement

As for Box Hill and Gold Coast chess clubs if they are so concerned about 
under-rated juniors how come they have not raised the issue either with us 
directly or to the ACF via Chess Victoria or the CAQ?í


Itís true that the Gold Coast has not yet formally addressed the CAQ or the 
Ratingís Committee in this matter, but The Gold Coast Chess Club Committee 
have for some time been concerned that the ACF Main List is unable to deal 
with the reality of rapidly improving juniors who generally play too few (long) 
games with the result that there is always a significant time lag before their 
true playing strength is accurately reflected in the list. The committee has 
delegated to me the responsibility for relaying our concerns to the ACF 
Ratings Officers. I have raised concerns about the ratings system in a series 
of e-mails to Bill and this is a distillation of my comments: 


(Some alterations to original text have been made for purposes of clarification)


Glickman says "Suppose two players, both rated 1700, played a tournament game

with the first player defeating the second. Under the ELO system, the first player
would gain 16 rating points and the second player would loose 16 points. But
suppose that the first player had just returned to tournament play after
many years, while the second player plays every weekend. In this situation,
the first player's rating of 1700 is not a very reliable measure of his
strength, while the second player's rating of 1700 is much more trustworthy.
My intuition tells me that (1) the first player's rating should increase by
a large amount because his rating of 1700 is not believable in the first and
that defeating a player with a fairly precise rating of 1700 is reasonable
evidence that his strength is probably much higher than 1700, and (2) the
second player's rating should decrease by a small amount because his rating
is already precisely measured to be near 1700."

Now even if we accept there is a quantum of truth in the Professor's
intuition, consider the situation if the player were aged (say) 12, and the
first player hadn't played in tournaments for 3 years (say). To suggest we
have any certainty in either players rating is sheer contrivance. The first
boy has had 3 years to mature, and may have been playing chess on the
internet, or with his friends. The second boy may be being coached, may be
studying, he may be entering puberty early. Neither you nor I can make any
sensible predictions about the accuracy of either rating, the situation is
too complex. Have you ever seen any studies to suggest the Prof's intuition
is correct in this situation? And is this assumption alone to be the main
engine for dynamic change in the system?  

If a child is playing 25 games a week, while I play only 1 game, do you
still think his RD should be less than mine? With each game he plays, 
doesn't his progress accelerate, not decelerate. Glickman's intuition produces a
formula which essentially says 'the more a child plays chess, the less
quickly he will improve'. If this is the case, we'd better stop them playing
so they can improve more quickly! A system that rewards sloth and 
punishes effort is simply wrong.

From Professor Glickmanís report for the USCF Ratings Committee
on the proposed introduction of a two-parameter rating system (Glicko) in 1996;

"Hobby players who are satisfied to improve slowly, or not at all, have
fairly certain ratings. These players are the bedrock for a ratings system."

The two parameter rating system works better on the internet because there
is free exchange throughout the system. For example, I've as much chance of
playing somebody from Chile as I have from New Zealand.

Australian Chess suffers more from geographical isolation than perhaps
anywhere else, which means regional distortions are developing. On the Gold
Coast we have a large, active junior population. For example at the 

Gold Coast Classic 2002 over 70% of players were juniors and most
of the games played were junior vís junior games. Hobby playing adults
such as myself, who have work and family commitments, play much less frequently.
In addition, the population of adult players is much smaller.

In this situation, Glicko treats the junior population as the 'bedrock' and
the dynamics of the system is reversed. The ratings of the Adults tend to
move towards the ratings of the more stable junior population. This is not
because we're a bunch of senile, old gits loosing our marbles; it's simply a
reflection of the vagaries of Glicko.

Below is a list of 20 Queensland juniors;

(names omitted) 

Anyone familiar with Queensland Junior Chess would instantly recognize these
names as some of the most talented and dedicated juniors in the state. All
are represented on the ACF list as having a !! rating.

Yet these are precisely the kind of juniors Glicko is supposed to be
identifying and rocketing up the ratings! Glicko is identifying them
alright, it's slowing down their progression and penalizing them for every
game they play, every effort they make. For the same performance, 
these players would probably be treated better under ELO than Glicko.
Itís true that increasing variability, such has been done in Glicko 2, 
could improve the dynamic change, but it would only be at the expense
of the stability of the adult population.

A mathematical model serves the function of describing a system in a way to
make that system predictable. The problem with both ELO and Glicko is
neither recognises we are dealing with 2 populations, with separate
characteristics. The junior population is dynamic, the adult stable. The
greater the variability (Glicko 2), the more it will describe the junior population and
destabilise the adult population. The less the variability, the less it will
describe the junior development.

What the ratings committee is saying is that we have a good mathematical model, letís
make the population fit into that, without really thinking about what you're
measuring. Children are developing, are maturing in a way Glicko doesn't
accurately predict. It is a compromise formula trying to describe 2
populations. What's more, the maturation (reflected in higher RD) is always
retrospective rather than current.

Although Glicko and ELO were devised to describe chess performance with
fairly linear characteristics (the Glicko methodology is actually Bayesian), 
what we're really looking has a particular biological characteristic, which really is
more complex than either model predicts.

I believe Ian Rogers comments are not motivated by self interest, but
genuine concern to ensure the future of chess in this country. If I can
quote your letter to Ian:

"Back in August 2000 there were 49 players (not including OS players) rated
2200 or over on the Active list. In March 2003 there are 40 players 2200 or
over, however a number of the players active in August 2000 are no long

This represents a 20% decline over the last 2 year or so, at a time when
chess is booming. No matter what the reasons, any loss should be more than
offset by the growth and development from the burgeoning pool of new
players. This is simply not happening, is it?

My own interest stems from what I see on the Gold Coast. Many chess players
are fiercely protective of their ratings, and frankly refuse to participate
in tournaments where they know they could loose points to juniors. We need
the adult structure to provide the impetuous for juniors to stay in chess. I
have worked hard on maintaining adult participation on the Gold Coast, and I
can see, rightly or wrongly, how the negative sentiment towards the ratings
system has exerted its effect.

Glicko isn't working, it's creating distortions and those distortions are
compounding. I would suggest performing a critical analysis of the results
of Glicko since its inception so we can properly assess the effect it is
having. I would also suggest a proper analysis of junior development in order to
devise a model that more closely describes their progression in real time.

Best Wishes
David Richards


- Bill Gletsos replies to David Richards' letter -

David Richards kindly sent me a copy of his letter.

Its unfortunate that David in his letter in this bulletin fails to point
out that many of the points he raises I addressed in my replies to him. 

David says, "Now even if we accept there is a quantum of truth in the
Professor's Intuition". It is quite clear that Glickman's premise is

As for his questioning of the relative merits of two theoretical 12 year
olds and the accuracy or otherwise of their ratings, all that can be done
is base the accuracy on the results that have been submitted. Based on that
information a degree of accuracy can be determined. He suggests that one
boy may have been playing chess on the internet or with friends and the
other may have been coached or studying. Equally possible is that none of
this is occurring. The Glicko2 system handles both cases.

David would like to make the assumption that all juniors must dramatically
improve. This is not the case, some do most don't.

David's statement "If a child is playing 25 games a week, while I play only
1 game, do you still think his RD should be less than mine?" shows a
complete lack of understanding of the Glicko/Glicko2 systems. If we took
David's theory to the extreme then we get to the absurd situation that
people who play no games of chess have the most reliable ratings.

The more games a person plays the more information one has about the
accuracy of a players rating. This however is dependant on the ratings of
the player's opposition. There is little information to be gained by a 1700
player continually beating players rated 1000. The 1700 playing 6 games
against reliably rated players close to his rating provides much more
statistical accuracy than the 1700 beating players rated 1000 or losing to
players rated 2400 over 30 games.

I pointed the following out to David in one of my emails.

"Under Glicko the more you play the more you RD goes down however the rate
of decrease is based on the RD's of your opponents. Under Glicko improving
players (including juniors) ratings will increase faster than under ELO.
Although the Glicko is superior to ELO in all aspects there are situations
where improving players should have their rating increasing faster.
Professor Glickman had already rectified this in the Glicko2 system. The
Glicko2 system introduces a volatility measure. In the Glicko2 system your
RD only decreases if your performance in the current rating period is
similar to your previous rating. If it's not your RD will increase.

To quote Professor Glickman "The Glicko2 system recognises the possibility
that players can undergo sudden surges in underlying skill, and that this
may be reflected in repeated strong performances. In the Glicko2 system,
when a player has performances that are inconsistent with his/her rating,
the rating change will be larger than usual because the system recognises
that an underlying skill change may be occurring. Also the measure of
uncertainty will increase when a series of inconsistent results occurs.""

Quoting Glickman when he is discussing the USCF ELO system doesn't have
much bearing on the Glicko system.

Regional distortions may occur, but proof rather than assumption is needed

Your comment "In this situation, Glicko treats the Junior population as the
'bedrock' and the dynamics of the system is reversed. The ratings of the
Adults tend to move towards the ratings of the more stable Junior
population. This is not because we're a bunch of senile, old gits loosing
our marbles; it's simply a reflection of the vagaries of Glicko." is a fine
statement, its just unfortunate that it has no basis in fact.

Naturally I recognise the list of Queensland juniors you emailed me.

It is completely false to say, "For the same performance, these players
would probably be treated better under ELO than Glicko. It's true that
increasing variability, such has been done in Glicko 2, could improve the
dynamic change, but it would only be at the expense of the stability of the
adult population.".

Its quite conceivable that a player with a !! based on many recent games
could gain a significant number of rating points in a single period and
still maintain a !! rating. The Glicko2 will easily handle this. Junta
Ikeda in the ACT is an excellent example.

There is nothing to suggest that the juniors you mention, as a whole should
be rocketing up the ratings. Some in fact performed worse in March 2003
than their December 2002 rating. I see no evidence that Glicko2 is
penalising these juniors.

To argue that the Glicko system does not handle populations with separate
characteristics is also wrong. The very function of the Glicko system and
more so in the Glicko2 is to recognise that player characteristics are
different and act on that difference.  As such your statement that we make
the population fit into the model is incorrect.

As for your "What's more, the maturation (reflected in higher RD) is always
retrospective rather than current.", the RD has nothing to do with
maturation. If it did all 60, 70 and 80 year olds would have high RD's.
This is simply not the case.

Also "Although Glicko and ELO were devised to describe chess performance
(with fairly linear characteristics), " is incorrect. Individual players
performances are a normal distribution. It certainly isn't linear. Chess
ratings or any rating system (e.g. golf or tennis) is trying to measure
ability in a particular area; it's not a biological

Lets look at your statement "This represent a 20% decline over the last 2
year or so, at a time when chess is booming. No matter what the reasons,
any loss should be more than offset by the growth and development from the
burgeoning pool of new players. This is simply not happening, is it?". We
are not talking about just any group of players we are talking about the
top 1.3% of the rating list. It is not a reasonable assumption to make that
as older players weaken and drop off the top part of the list that they
will automatically be replaced by other younger players. Just look at
tennis. Australia had in the 50's, 60's and 70's many of the world's top
players but this was certainly not true in the 80's even though more
Australians were playing tennis than previously.

Lastly your "Glicko isn't working, it's creating distortions and those
distortions are compounding." is not demonstratable. Proof, facts and
substance are what are needed. This has so far not been forthcoming Saying
something without producing any facts to back it up does not make something
true, unless of course you're the Iraqi Information Minister. 

I'm not unsympathetic to the issue of junior ratings. If Gold Coast Chess
Club would like to submit a report citing and documenting specific examples
of juniors they believe are under-rated they should forward this to the
CAQ. If the CAQ agree, they can raise the issue at an ACF Council meeting
and the claim will be investigated. Individual players can as always query
their ratings directly with Graham Saint or me. It's only for general type
claims that they need to come via the ACF Council, as the ratings take
enough of our time without having to investigate unsubstantiated claims. I
have made it quite clear at ACF Council meetings that Graham Saint and I
are quite happy to investigate any documented claims from State

Rather than continuing to bore the majority of Bulletin readers, I would
suggest those that have an opinion on the ratings continue the debate on
the ACF Bulletin Board.

- Bill Gletsos


- Bill Gletsos' reply to Ian Roger's letter in Bulletin 210 -

It is unfortunate that Ian claims that I was shockingly misleading as I
could make the same claim about him. However I am willing to believe that
Ian is simply stating his case as he sees it, just as I am stating mine.
Firstly let me point out his claim that Graham Saint had no part in the
letter is incorrect as around 50% of the letter was drafted by Graham and
in fact the idea of the various simulations was Grahams.

(i)     When it comes to discussing Ian's results in the interclub games
both Ian and I are guilty of omission. As Ian well knows games won or lost
on forfeit have never been counted in the ACF rating system. It therefore
never occurred to me that Ian would include the forfeit game in discussing
his results. Under the circumstances I feel he should have mentioned that
one of these was a forfeit. That said I should have realised he had
included the forfeit and included it in my response. So there can be no
further misunderstanding I will explain it all in complete detail. The
results of the interclub tournament that Ian refers to showed he had played
3 rated games winning 2 (against Agulto and Dauvergne) and losing 1 (to
Charles Ghenzer) and a 4th game was recorded as a double forfeit between
him and Jean_Paul Wallace. Almost immediately after the player result
reports were sent to the Olympiad selectors Ian emailed me and pointed out
that he had won the game against Charles Ghenzer and that no double forfeit
ever occurred between him and Jean_Paul Wallace as no game had ever even
been scheduled to take place. I accepted Ian's word without question and
corrected the Ghenzer result and removed the double forfeit game from the
rating records and reprocessed the ratings. This was done within 24-48 hrs
of Ian informing me of the error.

(ii)    Ian can say what he likes regarding Markus Wettstein, the simple
fact is that since returning to Australia, Markus Wettstein has in the
normal rating system failed to win a game against a player rated over 2000
and only has one draw against a player rated 2026 up to the March 2003
rating period. Clearly Markus Wettstein's rating should not exceed 2000
based on his results in Australia.

(iii)   I have to totally disagree with Ian's recollection of the
conversation he had with me regarding Speck's rating. For him to now
suggest that it was I who told him I had fiddled Speck's rating (as per his
accusation in Bulletin 208) is a complete falsehood. I expect Ian to
retract his accusation immediately.

(iv)    There was no pressure brought to bear by people in the ACT with
regards to ACT Junior ratings. Depending on whom I spoke to I had received
conflicting reports on the issue of under rated ACT juniors on a number of
occasions. This was both before and after the Glicko system was introduced.
Graham and I had hoped the Glicko system would rectify it but this was not
the case. When we tested prior to the implementation of the Glicko2 system
we determined that it also could not rectify the problem in any sort of
acceptable time frame. Based on this I informed the ACT that Graham and I
intended to take steps to remedy the problem with the ACT juniors once and
for all and would be asking the ACF Council to authorise this at there next
meeting (Sept 2002). The ACF Council approved this action.

(v)     The FIDE system is far from perfect. To cite it as an example of a
good rating system is stretching things. Ian's continuing push for the 336
rule ignores its statistical irrelevance. Professor Elo makes it quite
clear that the correct way for calculating ratings is to calculate the
expected score on a game-by-game basis without any cutoff. This leads to
the most accurate rating calculation. If the expected score is calculated
based the use of the opponent's average rating this will produce a usable
but less accurate rating. In fact the rating is only usable when the rating
difference of the player and each of his opponents is less than 350 points
and at a stretch 400 points. If the ratings exceed these limits then a
cutoff should be used. Although using average ratings with a cutoff will
result in a more accurate rating than using an average rating without
cutoff it is still less accurate than using expected scores on a game by
game basis with no average rating involved. Elo notes that use of a cutoff
will lead to a bias in the ratings. In fact Stewart Reuben makes the same
observation about averaging and the FIDE 350 cutoff rule with regards the
FIDE system on page 115 of "The Chess Organiser's Handbook Second Edition".
As it appears Ian will not accept this fact then there it would appear
there will be no consensus here and further discussion on the 336 rule
seems pointless. 

(c)     "Perhaps the ratings officers should keep their ears to the ground
a bit more and they would hear a large numbers of complaints regarding the
current rating system." As was said previously Box Hill and Gold Coast
Chess Clubs should have raised their concerns with their respective State
Associations. In fact the first anyone mentioned the Gold Coast Chess Club
to me was after this debate in the bulletin started when David Richard's
started an email exchange. Having ones ear to the ground can simply mean
that you hear a rumble then get run over by a truck. 

(d)     Ian's suggestion I contradicted myself is not demonstrated by his
reply. His claim that the removal of the 336 rule was responsible for the
deflating of most active elite players is just pure and simply wrong. The
336 rule was abolished just prior to the April 1999 rating list. Ignoring
the 150 uplift that occurred in April 2002 there is no evidence of
deflation occurring amongst the active "elite" players between December
1998 and August 2000. All these lists were under the ELO system. As has
been stated many times since Ian started this debate in the Bulletin there
is no deflation in the group of very reliable active players under the
Glicko system.

So Ian wishes to argue that psychological factors should be taken into
account by a rating system. I honestly feel the less said about this idea
the better, however if someone can come up with a statistically sound
method to incorporate psychological factors then feel free to discuss it on
the ACF Bulletin board.

As for his criticism of our testing of various rating models, some of them
are a bit rich. It was after all Ian who suggested a starting rating of
1000, based on his assertion that using performance ratings for starting
ratings was too low. If a starting rating of 200 isn't too low I don't know
what is.

Ian says he could propose an equally valid example where the ELO system
with a starting rating of 1000 and a 336 rule could outperform the Glicko
system. Unfortunately for him he provides no evidence of this.

This can however be easily proven to be false. If a 200 rated junior beat a
1000 rated player with the 336 rule in place the win would count for the
junior as a win against a 556 rated player. With a K = 15 this would mean
the 200 rated player would get 13 points. If however the 336 rule was not
in place the 200 rated junior would get 15 rating points. How this helps
the under rated junior is beyond me. 

In fact it is mathematically impossible for an actually improving player to
be advantaged by the 336 rule. The 336 rule only advantages players who are
not scoring as well as they should and disadvantages those that are
performing better than expected. 

As for Ian's assertion that I made a serious error about activity points in
the USCF rating system, it is I believe Ian who is in error. By the way I
cannot claim credit for coining the term "fiddle points". The term belongs
to critics of the USCF scheme.

As I mentioned previously players would receive "activity" points simply by
playing in tournaments. To be precise the activity points were 2 points for
every rated game. This meant that if you played 100 rated games you would
gain 200 rating points irrespective of the result of the games. 
Throughout the whole of the 90's no such activity points were awarded in
the USCF rating system. For Ian to suggest such activity points existed
thought this period contradicts the facts. The USCF Executive passed a
motion 5 to 2 that from January 2001 activity points would be implemented,
even though this was objected to by the USCF Ratings Committee by a vote of
13-0. Fortunately this stupidity only lasted a few months and the activity
point scheme scrapped. There had been a period in the late 70's early 80's
where the USCF Executive introduced activity points. I do not know what the
value of these activity points was. This eventually led to a gross
inflation of the USCF rating pool.

Ian says, "Clearly the Executive Board understood better than the Ratings
Committee that bonus points would encourage people to play chess."
As the USCF Ratings Committee correctly pointed out activity points would
"result in a few players becoming extremely active in pursuit of a rating
which far exceeds their ability, but many more are likely to be turned off
by the fact that we no longer have a credible rating system. In the end,
awarding prizes in tournaments by rating section will become unfair, Top 50
lists (especially for juniors) will be distorted by the prominence of weak
but very active players, and players will not be able to determine their
relative strength from their own rating after a year's time."

I too want a rating system that works well for Australian chessplayers and
benefits Australian chess. The current system clearly does this.

That is not to say it could not be improved.

However 336 cut-offs, static starting ratings for new players (especially
juniors), activity points, deducting points for inactive players and
reverting to the ELO system are no improvements at all.

It's my understanding that Graham will be responding in next week's
bulletin to Ian's proposed simulation, once he and Ian determine the exact
circumstances Ian would like simulated.

Also there is a graph at that shows the
distribution of ratings back in August 2000 (the last ELO) and the current
March 2003 list. Note the graph does not include players marked as OS on
the rating list. If you replace the AUSratgraph.jpg in the URL with
XXXratgraph.jpg where XXX is NSW, VIC, QLD, ACT, SA, WA or TAS you will get
the equivalent graph for the respective state. The Australian graph clearly
shows there is no deflation occurring at the top end of the graph.

Clearly Graham and I disagree with Ian's suggestions. We do however
acknowledge his right to express his opinions, just as I am sure he
acknowledges our right to express ours.

- Bill Gletsos


The question of Nick Speck's rating seems to have rather overshadowed the
main ratings debate so I wish to make the following observations:
My recollection of a conversation with Bill on the Speck question differs
profoundly from Bill's and unfortunately my attempt at addressing this
question with humour in ACF Bulletin 210 clearly fell flat.
I see nothing remotely defamatory about suggesting that Bill would correct
by hand a rating which the Glicko system produced which looked too high (or
low), but if Bill says he never does or has done this, I accept that.

- Ian Rogers



A Class 3 ACF Grand Prix Event 18-21 April 2003
Location: The Italo-Australian Club, 
78 Franklin Street, Forrest, Canberra, ACT.
Total Prizes: $10,000
Time Limits: Digital clocks will be used. 
All divisions: 90 minutes plus 30 seconds per move from the beginning.
Entry Fees:
Premier Division: Adult $100; Under 18s $60 
(GMs & IMs free, if entry received by 11-04-2003.
Major & Minor Divisions: Adult $90; Under 18s $50 
Please note that a $20 (Adult) /$10 (Under 18s) 
discount applies, if entry is received by 11-04-2003.
Entries to: 
Paul Dunn (Treasurer, Doeberl Cup)
20 Richmond St, Macquarie, ACT 2614
Please make cheques payable to ACTCA.
Roger McCart (Convener, Doeberl Cup) Ph: 02-62516190

Cabra-Vale Diggers Club, 1 Bartley Street, Cabramatta
Easter Saturday and Monday commencing at 9.30am.  
7 rounds of 1 hour each per player, loss on flagfall.  
Entry fees: full $25, Concession $15, Junior $10.  
Contact: Ernest Dorm 9727-2931

Victoria: Category 2 Grand Prix event
April 25-27
ChessWorld Tournament Centre 
Contact David Cordover (03) 957 6177 or 0411-877-833

8 rounds,15 minutes each
Friday 25th April 2003
Carina Leagues Club
Creek Road, Carina (opposite Meadowlands Rd)
Register by 10.00am
Entries: Close by 5pm Thursday 24th April
Rounds: Start at 10.15am - 4 before lunch and 4 after
Fee: $40-00 each player 
Contact: Clive or Wendy Terry (07) 3890-0064  041-3355479 
Only 20 places available so get your entries in early!
Morning tea provided - Club Bistro open from 1pm. 
Make all cheques to ROOKIES CHESS CLUB 
and post to 11 Jericho Circuit, Murarrie. 4172

Queensland Junior Rated! 
8 rounds, 15 minutes each. Friday 25th April 2003
Carina Leagues Club
Creek Road, Carina (opposite Meadowlands Rd)
Time: Register by 10.00am
Entries: Close by 5pm Thursday 24th April
Rounds: Start at 10.15am - 4 before lunch and 4 after
Fee: $15-00 each player 
Presentation of Trophies: No later than 4.30pm
Organisers and Arbiters: Clive & Wendy Terry 3890-0064  041-3355479
Limited places available - Morning tea provided - Club Bistro open from 1pm.
Make all cheques to ROOKIES CHESS CLUB 
and post to 11 Jericho Circuit, Murarrie. 4172

MAY 3-5 2003
D.O.P. Ian Murray
Mark Stokes 20 Melaleuca Drive STRATHPINE   4500 ĎPhone  (07) 32056042 
email :

One day event, low entry fee and $1,250 in cash prizes [60% of prizes for rating divisions!].
Ryde-Eastwood Leagues Club			
117 Ryedale Rd, West Ryde 
(1 minute from West Ryde Station)
Sunday 11th May
10am Registration
Rounds will commence on the hour, starting with Round 1 at 11:00am
Last round commences at 5:00pm. 
For further information contact Jason Lyons by telephone [0412 907 686], 
email, or visit the NSWCA website:

7 rounds "swiss"
sponsored by John Edmondson V.C. Memorial Club
185 George Street Liverpool
12th May till 30th of June, 2003,
"A" Division Rating 2050 - 1751  Entry Fees $ 40
"B" Division Rating 1750 - 1451  Entry Fees $ 30
"C" Division Rating 1451 & under Entry Fees $ 20
Cheque payable to JEVC Chess Club Liverpool
DOP: Eddy Katnic,  Tel. 02 9823 0163   Fax 02 9823 0194
Venue : Gardiner Chess Centre
11 Hardys Road, Mudgeeraba
9am start both days
** ENTRY FEE $40.00 **
Entrants must be members of their state chess association
Saturday 24th and Sunday 25th May
(Entries close noon Friday 23rd May)
ENTRY FEE - $40.00
CAQ membership fee $10
Please pay to
C/- Russell Mowles
30-32 Enkleman Road
Yatala 4207
Ph:(07)38076278 Mob:0408 785925

$4000 Total Prizes
Category Three Grand Prix
12th & 13th July
$35 Adult   $25 Junior/Concession
Adelaide University, SA
Official site

4-6 October 2003 at Rooty Hill RSL.
7 round FIDE-rated event. Australian Grand Prix Category 3. 
Time limit 90 minutes plus 30 seconds/move.
We have reverted to the traditional name used for this weekender since 
1993, when the Greater Sydney Open took over from the The New England Open.
It is a public holiday weekend (Labour Day) in NSW, ACT and SA.
- Brian Jones

Asian Under 16 Championships
21 -30 April Fergana, Uzbekistan
Asian Youth Championships (Under 10, 12 & 14)
6 - 14 June Mongolia
World Junior & Girls Under 20 Championships
21 June - 4 July Nakhichevan, Azerbaijan
World Youth Under 16 Olympiad
2 - 10 August Denizli, Turkey
World Youth Championship
23 October - 2 November Halkidiki, Greece
Players wishing to be considered for selection in overseas junior events for
the year 2003 are asked to email Kerry Stead, the ACF Junior Co-ordinator
with their name, date of birth & events they are interested in playing in as
soon as possible.
Kerry Stead
ACF Junior Co-ordinator

Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan
21 June - 4 July 2003
21 June 2003 (arrival) to 4 July 2003 (departure) 
at the Olympic Center of Nakhchivan. 
Only those born on or after 1st January 1983 are eligible.
The Registration Forms shall be submitted to 
Azerbaijan Chess Federation to be received before 30 May 2003.
Swiss System, 13 rounds, with a free day after the 7th round.


Doeberl Cup
Category 3
Apr 18-21
Contact Roger McCart
'phone  (06) 6251 6190

Chess World ANZAC Day weekender
Category 2
April 25-27
ChessWorld Tournament Centre
Contact David Cordover (03) 957 6177 or 0411-877-833

37th. Peninsula Open
Category 1
May  3-5
Contact Mark Stokes (07) 3205 6042

Laurieton May Open
Category 1
May 3-4
Contact Endel Lane  (02) 6559  9060

NSWCA May Weekender
Category  2
May 17-18
Contact P.Cassettari
0403 775476

Tasmanian Chess Championship
Category  1
Jun 7-9
Contact  K.Bonham  (03) 6224 8487

NSW Open Championship
Category  3
Jun 7-9
Contact: P.Cassettari
0403 775476

Taree RSL June Open
Category 1
Jun 14-15
Contact Endel Lane  (02) 6559  9060

Gold Coast Open (Gold Coast CC)
Category 3
Jun 21-22
Contact Graeme Gardiner
(07) 5530 5794

Suncoast Caloundra Open
Category 3
Jun 28/29
Contact Bob Goodwin

University Open
Category  3
JUL 12-13 ph (08) 8303 3029 or ph  (08) 8332 3752

NSWCA August Weekender
Category  2
Aug 2-3
Contact P.Cassettari
0403 775476

Father's Day Tournament
Category 2/3?
Sep 6-7
Contact:  David Cordover (03) 9576177 or 0411-877-833

Gold Coast Classic (Gold Coast CC)
Category 3
Sep 20-21
Contact Graeme Gardiner
(07) 5530 5794

12th. Redcliffe Challenge
Category 2
Sep 27-28
Contact Mark Stokes (07) 3205 6042

Tweed Open
Category  3
Oct 4-5
Contact Audie Pennefather

Greater Sydney Open
Category 3
Oct 4-6
Contact: Brian Jones (02) 9838 1529

Laurieton Open
Category 1
Nov 1-2
Contact Endel Lane  (02) 6559  9060

November weekender
Category  1
Nov 1-2 or 1-3
Contact  K.Bonham  (03) 6224 8487

Gosford Open
Category 2
Nov 8-9
Contact Lachlan Yee

Taree RSL Spring Open
Category 1
Nov 15-16
Contact Endel Lane  (02) 6559  9060

NSWCA November Weekender
Category 2
Nov 22-23
0403 775476

X-Mas Swiss Tournament
Category 2-3?
December 20-21
Contact David Cordover (03) 9576177 or 0411-877-833

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

Best wishes till next time
- Paul Broekhuyse