Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 19:31:38 10/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 1999 at 11:50:01, KarinsDad wrote: >On October 07, 1999 at 02:26:44, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >[snip] >>> >>>Say two 1600 players are supposed to play, but in the last round, one gets in a >>>car accident (he is not injured, he just cannot make it to the tournament) and >>>forfeits. Nobody knows why he forfeited, so the TD sends in the pairings to the >>>federation. >> >>This isn't a good example, because once it became known that the person didn't >>show up for no fault of their own (it would have been illegal for them to leave >>the scene of the accident without permission of police), the ratings auditor >>would re-rate the tournament, not counting the forfeit as rated. More usually, >>the tournament report is not sent in the same day, so the TD will probably get a >>call explaining the situation. >> >>My chess club has touraments that are played at the rate of one game a week, >>every Thursday evening. The tournaments are 4-7 weeks long, depending on the >>tournament. So we'll keep the two 1600 players who are supposed to play, one of >>whom occasionally forgets that it's Thursday and doesn't show up to play. I >>hope this situation seems realistic to you. > >Yes, so since the guy forgot to show up or because it was his Wedding >anniversary or because his boss asked him to work late should NOT affect his >rating. Ratings should not be used to attempt to predict results between >potential games, ratings should be used to attempt to predict results between >actual games. Where's "potential game" coming from? It's an actual game. The round started, one guy's clock got started. The game is on. >>>These two players are both 1600 (let's assume that they both maintained their >>>rating in the first x rounds of the tournament). They are fairly close in >>>strength. But after this tournament, one of them is rated 1616 and the other is >>>rated 1584. Is it true that the 1584 player is REALLY 32 points lower than the >>>other? Of course not. But, that does not stop him from getting this rating. >> >>>How can one state that it is MORE accurate to predict results between the 1584 >>>and the 1616 player when in reality, they should both be 1600 players? The >>>prediction should be off. Please explain with more detail since I am clueless on >>>this (and yes, I realize that if someone has a propensity to forfeit, this would >>>lower his rating in the long run). >> >>Let's call the fellow who jumped to 1616 "A", and the fellow who dropped to 1584 >>"B". It's clear that player B deserves a lower rating than player A. The two >>players have the same level of skill, but B is less likely to show up, so his >>expected score over a series of games against A would be less than 50%. > >This is an assumption on your part (i.e. noise). Ratings should be a method to >predict probabilities of results of actual games, not probabilities of game >results (i.e. the probability of a no-show should NOT be part of the equation). > >> >>>Thanks, >>> >>>KarinsDad :) >> >>The rating system just follows what you ask it to follow. If you want to model >>"games where both people showed up on time", that is legit enough, I suppose. >>Canadian ratings model "all games", which seems more valid to me, personally. >>Of course, some people don't want to rate the games that the GM played when they >>were sick, or the games where the program lost because the hardware was >>overclocked too much, et cetera. I guess it's different strokes for different >>folks... >> >>Before anyone objects too loudly about rating games where a fellow doesn't show >>up, consider: not too different is the case of another fellow at my chess club >>who does show up for his games reguarly. He is a software developer working on >>Y2K code. Once in a while, he gets a call on his cell, stands up, and resigns >>his game, because he received a call from work and he has to go in. It might >>seem "unfair" to rate that game... at least if he was winning at the time. But >>he lost the game! What can you do? And you know, he's more likely to lose >>games in the future for the same reason. Worst of all, sometimes people play on >>in fairly hopeless positions against him, in the hope that his phone will ring! > >However, the difference is that he starts the games. He may not finish them due >to his "problem", but then again, that would be reflected in any rating system. > >> >>CFC ratings predict results, period. > >No, they don't. CFC ratings predict results of potential games (whether they are >played or not) as opposed to results of actual games. I realize that there are >different strokes for different folks, but I have to tell you that this seems >really strange to let random noise into the equation. I don't accept your classification of games. They are all "actual games". > > If the USCF wants to predict "results of >>games when both people show up before 1 hour has went by on their clocks" >>instead, I guess that's their business. >> >>Dave > >Guess so. To tell you the truth, I have not even thought about this subject >before this week, so I do not think that I have a preconceived notion on how it >should work. However, I have a feeling that the reason you are so comfortable >with the CSC system is that is what you are used to. > >And, I can see one major advantage of the Canadian system. It enforces the >"gentleman's agreement" to play the game. If you don't play and your opponent >still had to show up, your rating suffers. That is probably the REAL reason for >the rule. And, looking at it in this light, it makes total sense to use it. I don't claim to speak for the people who designed the rule. I know that I like it, though. But thanks for coming up with another good reason to have it. ;-) > >KarinsDad :) Dave
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.