Guess your ACF rating

[Firegoat7]

Greetings,

I am not really happy with my recent published rating.

Tournament 1 MCC Open

No Name                    Rtg  Loc  Total  1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9  

1  Stojic, Dusan           2263 2303 8     16:W 14:W  5:W  4:W  7:W  2:L  3:W  6:W 10:W
2  West, Guy               2335 2353 7      8:W 10:W  3:L 11:W 22:+  1:W  7:W  5:W  4:L
3  Dale, Ari               2184 2095 6      6:W 20:W  2:W  7:L  5:W  9:W  1:L  8:W  0:L
4  Rujevic, Mirko          2253 2296 6     24:W 11:W 22:W  1:L  9:L  7:L 17:W 19:W  2:W
5  Gorka, Carl             2147 2165 6     15:W 29:W  1:L 17:W  3:L 11:W 10:W  2:L  9:W
6  McCart, Richard         1800 1733 6      3:L 33:W 13:W 22:L 19:W 12:W 26:W  1:L 11:W
7  Dizdarevic, Mehmedalija 1989 1931 5.5    9:W  0:D 21:W  3:W  1:L  4:W  2:L 10:L 13:W
8  Papadinis, Jim          1863 1749 5.5    2:L 18:W 23:D  0:D 26:D 13:W 12:W  3:L 19:W
9  Chew, Jason             1653 1487 5      7:L 32:W 14:W 10:W  4:W  3:L 22:+ 11:L  5:L
10 Beaumont, David         2061 2019 5     18:W  2:L 12:W  9:L 16:W 17:W  5:L  7:W  1:L
11 Fry, Peter              1878 1800 5     33:W  4:L 27:W  2:L 23:W  5:L 14:W  9:W  6:L
12 Penrose, Justin         2022 2003 4.5    0:D 26:W 10:L 15:W 13:D  6:L  8:L 16:D 24:W
13 Ly, Thai                2008 1986 4.5   21:D 27:D  6:L 29:W 12:D  8:L 24:W 25:W  7:L
14 Voon, Richard           1905 1869 4.5   31:W  1:L  9:L 18:L 32:W 15:W 11:L 23:W 16:D
15 Reid, Bill              1779 1637 4.5    5:L 25:D 28:W 12:L  0:D 14:L 20:D 27:W 18:W
16 Puccini, Jack           1839 1821 4      1:L  0:D 31:+  0:D 10:L 21:W 25:L 12:D 14:D
17 Kovacevic, Paul         1875 1785 4     23:L 28:W 20:W  5:L 21:W 10:L  4:L 18:L 25:W
18 Beckman, John           1680 1558 4     10:L  8:L 33:W 14:W 25:W 22:L 19:L 17:W 15:L
19 Lycett, Garry           1932 1874 4     20:L 21:L 32:W 27:W  6:L 24:W 18:W  4:L  8:L
20 Dale, Finley            1641 1546 4     19:W  3:L 17:L  0:D 24:L 23:D 15:D 32:W 21:D
21 Kaplan, Alex            1679 1577 4     13:D 19:W  7:L 26:D 17:L 16:L 30:D 33:W 20:D
22 Pyke, Malcolm L         2115 2122 4     28:W 23:W  4:L  6:W  2:- 18:W  9:-  0:   0: 
23 Widjaja, Abraham             1128 3.5   17:W 22:L  8:D 25:L 11:L 20:D 27:W 14:L 29:D
24 Wyss, Felix             1821 1722 3.5    4:L  0:D 25:L 31:W 20:W 19:L 13:L 28:W 12:L
25 Hain, Anthony           1893 1832 3.5   29:L 15:D 24:W 23:W 18:L 26:L 16:W 13:L 17:L
26 Drew, Phillip           1949 1749 3.5    0:D 12:L 29:W 21:D  8:D 25:W  6:L 31:-  0: 
27 McCart, Roger           1699 1543 3      0:D 13:D 11:L 19:L 29:W 31:- 23:L 15:L 32:W
28 Cavezza, Paul           1750 1662 3     22:L 17:L 15:L 32:L  0:D  0:D 29:W 24:L 33:W
29 Kolak, Tanya            1427 1282 2.5   25:W  5:L 26:L 13:L 27:L 33:L 28:L 30:W 23:D
30 Bekker, Gary D          1813 1661 2.5    0:   0:   0:  33:W  0:L 32:W 21:D 29:L  0:L
31 Dilnutt, Charlotte      1441 1089 2.5   14:L  0:D 16:- 24:L 33:+ 27:+  0:L 26:-  0: 
32 Frayle, Ben             1549 1293 2      0:   9:L 19:L 28:W 14:L 30:L 33:W 20:L 27:L
33 Louis, Andrew                1196 1     11:L  6:L 18:L 30:L 31:- 29:W 32:L 21:L 28:L

1558!! 22 817 212 Beckman, John +1.6
2353!! 20 20 6 West, Guy [IM] -3
2003!! 40 156 45 Penrose, Justin +10.9
1487!! 33 979 252 Chew, Jason -21.7
1821!! 49 350 93 Puccini, Jack +5.6
1785!! 14 403 101 Kovacevic, Paul +4.8
2165!! 9 65 22 Gorka, Carl -7
1931!! 17 219 61 Dizdarevic, Mehmedalija +8.6
2304!! 39 28 10 Stojic, Dusan [FM] -3.8
(2015) -4
Tournament 2
Melbourne Cup Weekender

No Name                   Rtg  Loc  Total  1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9  

1  Illingworth, Max       2394 2458 8.5   24:W  6:W  5:W  2:W  4:W  3:D 12:W 11:W 13:W
2  Solomon, Stephen J     2402 2398 7.5   37:W 15:W  3:W  1:L  8:W  5:W  4:W  6:D 11:W
3  Brown, Andrew          2263 2347 7     26:W 21:W  2:L 18:W 15:W  1:D 29:W  4:D  5:W
4  Li, Zuhao (Luke)       2256 2175 6.5   30:W 28:W 29:W  7:W  1:L  6:W  2:L  3:D 12:W
5  Rujevic, Mirko         2253 2296 6     27:W 18:W  1:L 16:W 19:W  2:L 15:W  9:W  3:L
6  Zelesco, Karl          2108 2187 6     36:W  1:L 27:W 29:W 11:W  4:L 26:W  2:D 10:D
7  Dragicevic, Domagoj    2274 2301 5.5   40:W 10:W  8:D  4:L 14:D  0:D  0:D 12:D 20:W
8  Urban, Sylvester       2108 2094 5.5   44:W 11:W  7:D 14:W  2:L 12:L 10:D 19:D 17:W
9  Kolak, Chris           1981 1852 5.5   43:W  0:D 13:D 11:L 32:W  0:+  0:D  5:L 19:W
10 Nemeth, John           2129 2126 5.5   32:W  7:L 30:W 17:L 13:D 31:W  8:D 16:W  6:D
11 Stojic, Dusan          2263 2304 5     20:W  8:L 24:W  9:W  6:L 16:W 18:W  1:L  2:L
12 Tan, Justin            2250 2297 5     19:W 29:L 26:W 13:D 17:W  8:W  1:L  7:D  4:L
13 Beaumont, David        2050 2019 5     23:D 16:W  9:D 12:D 10:D  0:D  0:D 14:W  1:L
14 Lovejoy, David         1938 1827 5      0:D 25:+ 31:W  8:L  7:D 15:L 35:W 13:L 27:W
15 Dale, Ari              2161 2095 5     35:W  2:L 20:W 23:W  3:L 14:W  5:L 18:W  0: 
16 Voon, Richard          1949 1869 5     38:W 13:L 28:W  5:L 36:W 11:L 27:W 10:L 26:W
17 Puccini, Jack          1845 1821 4.5    0:D 39:W 23:D 10:W 12:L 18:L 25:D 33:W  8:L
18 Ly, Thai               2008 1986 4.5   34:W  5:L 44:W  3:L 27:W 17:W 11:L 15:L 21:D
19 Chew, Jason            1649 1487 4.5   12:L 37:W 21:W 31:W  5:L  0:D  0:D  8:D  9:L
20 Beckman, John          1667 1558 4.5   11:L 34:W 15:L 44:W 28:W 29:L 21:D 22:W  7:L
21 Chew Lee, Max          1873 1837 4.5   42:W  3:L 19:L 35:D 40:W 25:D 20:D 26:D 18:D
22 Bekker, Gary D         1813 1661 4.5   29:L 32:D 33:D 25:D 35:D  0:D 40:W 20:L 30:W
23 Krstevski, Tristan     1513 1216 4.5   13:D 33:W 17:D 15:L 26:L 27:L 32:D 37:W 35:W
24 Narenthran, Savithri   1789 1646 4.5    1:L 35:W 11:L 32:L 42:W 36:D 28:W 25:L 31:W
25 Rothlisberger, Marcel       1888 4.5    0:D 14:- 41:W 22:D  0:D 21:D 17:D 24:W  0: 
26 Hughes, Jack G         1709 1360 4      3:L 36:W 12:L 39:W 23:W  0:D  6:L 21:D 16:L
27 Jago, Stephen          1654 1551 4      5:L 38:W  6:L 33:W 18:L 23:W 16:L 28:W 14:L
28 Yang, Ray                   683  4      0:W  4:L 16:L 41:W 20:L 30:W 24:L 27:L 36:W
29 Xie, George            2399 2459 4     22:W 12:W  4:L  6:L 30:W 20:W  3:L  0:   0: 
30 Dale, Finley           1662 1546 4      4:L 42:W 10:L 43:+ 29:L 28:L 36:W 35:W 22:L
31 Kolak, Tanya           1424 1282 3.5    0:D 41:W 14:L 19:L 37:W 10:L 33:L 43:+ 24:L
32 Grabovac, Marko        1561 1365 3.5   10:L 22:D 39:D 24:W  9:L 33:L 23:D 36:D 37:D
33 Zacharczenko, Vladimir      1141 3.5    0:D 23:L 22:D 27:L  0:D 32:W 31:W 17:L  0: 
34 Crowley, Regan              939  3.5   18:L 20:L 35:L 40:L 41:D 44:W 37:L 42:W  0:W
35 Radisich, Matt         1638 1577 3     15:L 24:L 34:W 21:D 22:D 39:W 14:L 30:L 23:L
36 Chew Lee, Alanna       1554 1056 3      6:L 26:L 38:W 37:W 16:L 24:D 30:L 32:D 28:L
37 Wildes, John           1843 1698 3      2:L 19:L 42:W 36:L 31:L 41:D 34:W 23:L 32:D
38 Mendes, Amelia              737  3     16:L 27:L 36:L  0:D  0:D 40:L 43:L 44:W 42:W
39 Cheah, Matthew              1404 3      0:D 17:L 32:D 26:L 44:W 35:L 42:W  0:   0: 
40 Cavezza, Paul          1750 1662 2.5    7:L 44:L  0:D 34:W 21:L 38:W 22:L  0:L  0: 
41 Loucas, Carl                861  2.5    0:D 31:L 25:L 28:L 34:D 37:D 44:W  0:   0: 
42 Warren, Elizabeth           736  2     21:L 30:L 37:L  0:W 24:L 43:W 39:L 34:L 38:L
43 Brennan, James              931  2      9:L  0:D  0:D 30:-  0:L 42:L 38:W 31:-  0: 
44 Frayle, Ben            1549 1293 1      8:L 40:W 18:L 20:L 39:L 34:L 41:L 38:L  0:

1216!! 30 1411 337 Krstevski, Tristan -11.7
1869!! 50 292 75 Voon, Richard +7.2
1852 0 311 80 Kolak, Chris -4.6
2297!! 20 32 12 Tan, Justin +7.8
2126!! 19 83 26 Nemeth, John +3.5
1827!! 21 340 36 Lovejoy, David +6.1
2458!! 29 7 4 Illingworth, Max [FM] -1.9

(2025) +6
Tournament 3
Box Hill Club Championship

No Name                     Feder Loc  Total  1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8  
No	Name                    	Feder	Loc 	Total	 1  	 2  	 3  	 4  	 5  	 6  	 7  	 8  	 9  

1 	Cheng, Bobby            	VIC  	2375	8    	46:W	31:W	26:W	 5:W	 2:W	 4:W	 3:D	 0:D	18:W
2 	Beaumont, David         	VIC  	2045	7.5  	55:W	16:W	 3:W	14:D	 1:L	31:W	 5:W	11:W	 4:W
3 	Schön, Eugene           	VIC  	2211	7    	66:W	20:W	 2:L	33:W	26:W	 5:W	 1:D	14:D	16:W
4 	Tang, Jason             	VIC  	2145	6    	22:W	19:W	 5:L	11:W	14:W	 1:L	26:W	30:W	 2:L
5 	Chew Lee, Max           	A1   	1755	6    	30:W	34:W	 4:W	 1:L	33:W	 3:L	 2:L	31:W	14:W
6 	Lai, Dominic            	B2   	645 	6    	 8:L	17:L	65:W	51:W	52:W	15:W	24:L	28:W	13:W
7 	Crowley, Regan          	B2   	603 	6    	13:L	57:W	10:L	56:W	44:W	48:L	35:W	17:W	54:W
8 	Neymanis, Eric          	B1   	980 	5.5  	 6:W	28:W	24:L	35:W	25:D	 0:L	 9:L	29:W	27:W
9 	Krstevska, Tanya        	B1   	1027	5.5  	50:W	12:L	60:W	 0:D	43:D	10:D	 8:W	48:W	31:L
10	Chan, Luis              	B1   	1094	5.5  	57:W	13:L	 7:W	17:L	21:W	 9:D	29:W	27:W	41:L
11	Raine, Marcus           	A1   	1969	5.5  	34:L	54:W	37:W	 4:L	49:W	19:W	14:D	 2:L	30:W
12	Guo, Zhi Xin            	B1   	743 	5    	27:W	 9:W	44:W	 0:D	41:D	37:L	55:W	25:L	40:L
13	Chin, Nicole            	B1   	916 	5    	 7:W	10:W	36:L	28:W	55:W	22:D	25:D	23:L	 6:L
14	Liston, Howard          	A1   	1847	5    	 0:D	39:W	20:W	 2:D	 4:L	36:W	11:D	 3:D	 5:L
15	Guo, Steven             	B1   	1102	5    	21:W	35:W	41:L	32:W	23:L	 6:L	17:L	51:W	45:W
16	Krstevski, Tristan      	A2   	1236	5    	43:W	 2:L	23:W	31:L	34:L	59:W	40:W	20:W	 3:L
17	Loucas, Carl            	B2   	707 	5    	28:L	 6:W	43:W	10:W	40:L	55:L	15:W	 7:L	42:W
18	Kempen, Leon            	A1   	1953	5    	59:W	 0:D	 0:L	 0:L	38:D	33:W	34:W	36:W	 1:L
19	Puccini, Jack           	A1   	1668	5    	36:W	 4:L	34:L	38:W	24:W	11:L	46:W	 0:D	22:D
20	Chmiel, Rad             	A1   	1735	5    	24:W	 3:L	14:L	55:W	37:W	26:L	31:W	16:L	39:W
21	Chin, Chloe             	B2   	703 	5    	15:L	65:W	28:L	47:W	10:L	44:W	42:W	55:W	34:L
22	Chew, Jason             	A2   	1551	5    	 4:L	24:W	30:L	40:W	36:L	13:D	33:W	34:+	19:D
23	Sharman, Scot A         	A1   	1673	5    	37:W	26:L	16:L	24:L	15:W	41:L	28:W	13:W	38:W
24	Lin, Gary               	A2   	1400	5    	20:L	22:L	 8:W	23:W	19:L	40:L	 6:W	49:+	37:W
25	Flude, David A          	A1   	1633	5    	54:D	33:L	46:D	37:L	 8:D	29:W	13:D	12:W	36:W
26	Dale, Ari               	VIC  	2046	4.5  	41:W	23:W	 1:L	34:W	 3:L	20:W	 4:L	 0:D	 0:L
27	Grech, Marc             	B2   	342 	4.5  	12:L	50:W	42:D	45:W	35:W	54:W	39:L	10:L	 8:L
28	Guo, Zhi Lin            	B1   	1149	4.5  	17:W	 8:L	21:W	13:L	32:W	42:W	23:L	 6:L	55:D
29	You, Jennifer           	B2   	586 	4.5  	 0:D	52:W	45:W	46:L	53:W	25:L	10:L	 8:L	56:W
30	Grkow, Andrew           	A2   	1411	4.5  	 5:L	46:W	22:W	 0:D	31:L	34:W	49:W	 4:L	11:L
31	Bartnik, Robert         	A1   	1704	4.5  	40:W	 1:L	 0:D	16:W	30:W	 2:L	20:L	 5:L	 9:W
32	Yu, Bobby               	B1   	733 	4.5  	47:W	42:W	55:L	15:L	28:L	50:W	43:D	44:W	48:L
33	Penrose, Justin         	A1   	1950	4.5  	 0:D	25:W	38:W	 3:L	 5:L	18:L	22:L	40:W	46:W
34	Hinton, Guy             	A2   	1469	4    	11:W	 5:L	19:W	26:L	16:W	30:L	18:L	22:-	21:W
35	Chew Lee, Adrian        	B1   	869 	4    	53:W	15:L	47:W	 8:L	27:L	56:W	 7:L	50:W	 0:L
36	Chan, Kris              	A2   	1310	4    	19:L	59:L	13:W	48:W	22:W	14:L	41:W	18:L	25:L
37	Ni, John                	A2   	1372	4    	23:L	41:W	11:L	25:W	20:L	12:W	38:D	39:D	24:L
38	Dale, Finley            	A2   	1395	4    	 0:D	49:W	33:L	19:L	18:D	39:D	37:D	41:W	23:L
39	Croft, Roger            	A2   	1588	4    	 0: 	14:L	54:D	 0:L	59:W	38:D	27:W	37:D	20:L
40	Grabovac, Marko         	A2   	1373	4    	31:L	55:W	49:L	22:L	17:W	24:W	16:L	33:L	12:W
41	Cannon, David           	A2   	1486	4    	26:L	37:L	15:W	 0:D	12:D	23:W	36:L	38:L	10:W
42	Chew Lee, Alanna        	B1   	1061	3.5  	56:W	32:L	27:D	44:D	50:W	28:L	21:L	45:D	17:L
43	Foo, May-Yi             	B1   	1162	3.5  	16:L	53:W	17:L	52:W	 9:D	51:D	32:D	54:L	 0:L
44	Millington, Garry       	B1   	953 	3.5  	45:D	51:W	12:L	42:D	 7:L	21:L	56:W	32:L	52:D
45	Li, Oswald              	B2   	637 	3.5  	44:D	60:W	29:L	27:L	 0:L	47:W	51:D	42:D	15:L
46	Narenthran, Savithri    	A1   	1609	3.5  	 1:L	30:L	25:D	29:W	54:W	49:D	19:L	 0:D	33:L
47	Zhang, Tianli           	B2   	286 	3.5  	32:L	56:W	35:L	21:L	51:L	45:L	52:W	53:D	57:W
48	Ho, James               	A2   	1200	3.5  	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	36:L	 0: 	 7:W	54:W	 9:L	32:W
49	Martinez, Octavio       	A1   	1715	3    	 0:D	38:L	40:W	59:W	11:L	46:D	30:L	24:-	 0:L
50	Fletcher, Bruce         	B2   	650 	3    	 9:L	27:L	68:W	60:W	42:L	32:L	57:W	35:L	 0:L
51	Lau, Andrew E           	B1   	800 	3    	 0: 	44:L	67:W	 6:L	47:W	43:D	45:D	15:L	 0:L
52	You, Jessica            	B2   	633 	3    	 0:D	29:L	57:D	43:L	 6:L	53:D	47:L	56:W	44:D
53	Cheng, Chao Yi          	B2   	600 	3    	35:L	43:L	56:L	57:W	29:L	52:D	58:L	47:D	 0:W
54	Cannon, Jim             	A2   	1274	2.5  	25:D	11:L	39:D	 0:D	46:L	27:L	48:L	43:W	 7:L
55	Sucevic, Milic          	A2   	1470	2.5  	 2:L	40:L	32:W	20:L	13:L	17:W	12:L	21:L	28:D
56	Middleton, Jody         	B2   	673 	2    	42:L	47:L	53:W	 7:L	57:W	35:L	44:L	52:L	29:L
57	Joshy, Nithin           	B2   	700 	2    	10:L	 7:L	52:D	53:L	56:L	64:D	50:L	62:W	47:L
58	Loucas, George          	     	612 	2    	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	65:W	 0:L	 0: 	53:W	61:L	 0: 
59	Crosby, Bert            	A2   	1450	1.5  	18:L	36:W	 0:D	49:L	39:L	16:L	 0:L	 0:L	 0:L
60	Truong, Nather          	B2   	300 	1    	65:W	45:L	 9:L	50:L	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 
61	Lumpreiks, Ryan         	     	935 	1    	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	58:W	 0:L
62	Nguyen, Nghia           	B2   	    	0    	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	57:L	 0:L
63	Narenthran, Tharmaratnam	VIC  	1901	0    	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0:L	 0: 
64	To be advised,          	     	    	0    	 0: 	 0: 	 0:L	 0: 	 0: 	57:L	 0: 	 0:L	 0: 
65	Truong, Laughlan        	B2   	450 	0    	60:L	21:L	 6:L	58:L	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 
66	Cook, Geoff L           	A1   	1590	0    	 3:L	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 
67	Fung, Brian             	B2   	601 	0    	 0: 	 0: 	51:L	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 
68	Fung, Henry             	B2   	301 	0    	 0: 	 0: 	50:L	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0: 	 0:

1470! 0 1009 262 Sucevic, Milic +1.1
1216!! 30 1411 337 Krstevski, Tristan +0.3
2223!! 6 47 15 Schön, Eugene +17.5
1847! 0 318 83 Liston, Howard -4.9
2388!! 23 15 3 Cheng, Bobby [FM] -2.6
1704! 0 546 141 Bartnik, Robert +3.4
1837!! 42 327 85 Chew Lee, Max +6.1
1960!! 13 191 55 Raine, Marcus +9.6
2112!! 8 90 28 Tang, Jason +14.5
(2064) +45
1 Game in Victorian Interclub

2 Melbourne      1.0:3.0  Canterbury Juniors

1850? 0 314 81 Yu, Allen win for me (2026) +7

This was all done using Barry Coxs Glicko 1 calculator
Leading to a total of (2019) +7+45+6-4 = (+54) = (2073)

But the guess is 2053

so....let us dig deeper, see post 2 for further details

cheers,

[Firegoat7]

Greetings,


ACF Constitution Rating By Law

RATINGS BY-LAW

[Made 8 April 2004]

Division 1 - Rating System

Administration
1. The ACF Council shall appoint as many Ratings Officers as it considers
necessary to administer the ACF Ratings System and to prepare the ACF rating
lists.

ACF rating lists
2. (1) The Ratings Officers shall prepare rating lists as follows -

(a) a normal list relating to games played at normal time controls;

(b) a Rapid rating list.

(2) A game will be rated in the Rapid list if it is played at a time control of
between 15 and 59 minutes per player for the whole game.

(3) Games at longer time controls will be rated in the normal list.

(4) Games using increments in the time control will be accepted for rating -

(a) in the normal list provided they are of the form G/Xmins + Ysecs per move
from move 1 where X and Y are 30 or greater or where X is 60 or greater; or

(b) in the Rapid list if they are of the form G/Xmins + Y secs per move where X
is 15 to 29, irrespective of the value of Y, or where X is 30 to 59 and Y is
less than 30.

Publication of ratings
3. The ACF rating lists are to be published four times per year, on 1 March, 1
June, 1 September and 1 December.

Rating system - implementation
4. (1) Subject to this by-law, the ACF rating lists are to be prepared generally
in accordance with the Glicko 2 system, described at Professor Glickman's web
site at http://www.glicko.com.

(2) The Ratings Officers may implement the Glicko 2 system in the manner they
deem most appropriate.

Adjustment of ratings
5. Without limiting the generality of by-law 4 (2), the Ratings Officers may
adjust the ACF ratings as they see fit to try to bring the ACF ratings more in
line with FIDE ratings, such an adjustment to be made, when determined
necessary, before, or at the same time as, the publication of the first ACF
rating list for each calendar year.

Rating of matches
6. (1) A match will be rated and, where applicable, submitted to FIDE for rating
if -

(a) the match is approved for rating by the State Associations of the players
concerned; and

(b) the match is for a legitimate title play-off.

(2) Despite paragraph (1) a match will be rated if it is authorized by the ACF
Council, in its absolute discretion, to be rated.

Submission of games for rating
7. Where possible, information regarding games submitted for rating should be
provided using the Swiss Perfect system.

Rating of certain telechess games
8. If the captains in a telechess match, played in accordance with the ACF Rules
for Telechess Matches, determine the result of an unfinished game for scoring
purposes, the result of the game shall not be rated unless the players agree
that it be rated.

Division 2 - Transitional
Ratings officers - preservation of appointments
9. The Ratings Officers holding appointment at the commencement of this By-law
shall continue to hold office as if appointed under this by-law.

ACF ratings - preservation
10. The ACF ratings in force at the commencent of this by-law shall continue in
force as if made under this by-law.

[Firegoat7]

Greetings,

3. The ACF rating lists are to be published four times per year, on 1 March, 1
June, 1 September and 1 December.


Obviously the ACF do not operate according to their own Constitution
Unless ACF rating lists are now being sourced from Chesschat

4. (1) Subject to this by-law, the ACF rating lists are to be prepared generally
in accordance with the Glicko 2 system, described at Professor Glickman's web
site at http://www.glicko.com.

The key issue. Obviously using the Glicko 1 calculator provided by Barry Cox has resulted in an inaccurate result (2073)
Therefore since Glicko 2 has provided a different number (2053) I should accept the ACF calculation?
Well show me where I can check the accuracy of the ACF calculation....Is that really asking for too much?

(2) The Ratings Officers may implement the Glicko 2 system in the manner they
deem most appropriate.
Oh Really? So if your average punter wants to double check the result independently does this mean they will be guaranteed an answer from the rating officer? Doesn't this sound like a big waste of time? I know.... would providing the necessary tools for individual research be a good idea? I mean these rating officers are very busy people. Maybe people could verify the data for themselves!

5. Without limiting the generality of by-law 4 (2), the Ratings Officers may
adjust the ACF ratings as they see fit to try to bring the ACF ratings more in
line with FIDE ratings, such an adjustment to be made, when determined
necessary, before, or at the same time as, the publication of the first ACF
rating list for each calendar year.


A disturbing clause that is double edged in nature. Surely this clause was not the issue? I mean we wouldn't want to drag a players rating down simply because of their Fide would we?

cheers,

[MOZ]

Greetings,

3. The ACF rating lists are to be published four times per year, on 1 March, 1
June, 1 September and 1 December.


Obviously the ACF do not operate according to their own Constitution
Unless ACF rating lists are now being sourced from Chesschat

4. (1) Subject to this by-law, the ACF rating lists are to be prepared generally
in accordance with the Glicko 2 system, described at Professor Glickman's web
site at http://www.glicko.com.

The key issue. Obviously using the Glicko 1 calculator provided by Barry Cox has resulted in an inaccurate result (2073)
Therefore since Glicko 2 has provided a different number (2053) I should accept the ACF calculation?
Well show me where I can check the accuracy of the ACF calculation....Is that really asking for too much?

(2) The Ratings Officers may implement the Glicko 2 system in the manner they
deem most appropriate.
Oh Really? So if your average punter wants to double check the result independently does this mean they will be guaranteed an answer from the rating officer? Doesn't this sound like a big waste of time? I know.... would providing the necessary tools for individual research be a good idea? I mean these rating officers are very busy people. Maybe people could verify the data for themselves!

5. Without limiting the generality of by-law 4 (2), the Ratings Officers may
adjust the ACF ratings as they see fit to try to bring the ACF ratings more in
line with FIDE ratings, such an adjustment to be made, when determined
necessary, before, or at the same time as, the publication of the first ACF
rating list for each calendar year.


A disturbing clause that is double edged in nature. Surely this clause was not the issue? I mean we wouldn't want to drag a players rating down simply because of their Fide would we?

cheers,

Not quite sure how you did it fg7 but this section of your text has drawn an official's response ("not posted in an official capacity");

No, this isn't how it works. A specific player's ACF isn't scaled to their FIDE. Sometimes, however, the whole rating pool is given points in a way that improves parity with FIDE at the top end of the scale. This hasn't happened for a long time.

The issue of the FIDE strategy to move their ratings service to cover players in the 'lower echelons' of player rankings was featured here in the Treasurer's report to the CV AGM. Now reproduced in this thread, below:

[QUOTE]

Finally, a personal observation on a risk that is emerging on the financial viability of Chess Victoria; it relates to the trend by all major metropolitan clubs to FIDE rate their important events as well as the usual ACF classic rating. A small group of young players appear intent on favouring entry to events advertised as an FIDE rated, and probably with good reason as it increases their chances of invitation and subsidised entry into international overseas events. Melbourne-based clubs have to seriously chase these high rated players in order to provide a challenging field and maximize the total entry into local tournaments. The outcome of this trend is that tournament costs will rise as both FIDE fees and ACF fees now need to be paid. Of course, the FIDE fees represent Australian chess money that is sent overseas with no benefit to Australia. Eventually the debate will turn to ‘why are paying both fees’. From my personal view, the ACF ratings are superior as a reliable product, and keep the chess-money in Australia. They do suffer from the fact that ACF rating is generally a number well below the FIDE rating for an individual; this is simply a scale-effect of no significance other than it panders to those players who like to be measured by the biggest number possible. The scale-effect should be repaired by the ACF Ratings Officer managing a regular upscale in order to present the local ratings in a favourable light. One last personal observation; the trend is being driven by the preferences of a very small numbers of players who are likely to be extended international invitations. This small number of players are the only ones in our chess community who gain by our events being FIDE rated. For every other local player the FIDE fee is money down the ‘FIDE drain’.

What may have been an appropriate ACF position many years back, "parity with FIDE at the top end of the scale." needs to be revised for business reasons.

• The FIDE competition is now at lower echelons, not just at the top end.
• The FIDE fees go out of the Country and are lost to Australian chess. We need a revision of our ACF rating strategy to reduce this 'FIDE drain' and any other distortions (which are of disadvantage to us), that our competitor (FIDE) may induce on our tournament scene .
• The lower echelons of Australian rated players also deserve their ACF rating to be on parity with the FIDE product.

And, the revision needs to be now, and annually repeated.

regards
MOZ*

[Firegoat7]

Greetings,

Over on Chesschat Kevin Bonham is serving up his usual dross without answering extremely legitimate questions. The only point in his post of any interest is this...

Because the calculator is only a rough guide, it will sometimes be out by as much as 20 points. In my experience it is often not that much.

The simple fact is that in the context of the case under discussion there is a difference of exactly 20 points. Bonhams experience on the matter is completely irrelevant as, IN THIS CASE the calculation is out by 20 points. Instead of deflecting my legitimate question with non relevant ramblings ACF officials ought to address the real issue being discussed in a very specific way. I see two rather obvious solutions

1) Provide Australian chess players with a Glicko2 calculation tool that provides a RELIABLE,ACCURATE, Mathematical statistic or at the very least one with a margin of error in the 5% range.

2) Specifically address the claims in a rigorous way showing exactly where all the rating differences occurred. Explain the difference in calculation on a game for game basis utilising the general methodology indicated by Bonhams post.

See the thing is this, if an error rate is greater then say 5% there ought to be some reflection on the matter. But when the error rate blows out to over 25%, in this case 37% then there is clearly some explaining that is needed. GENERAL explanations on the modelling process do not cut the mustard. I would appreciate it, if somebody from the ACF, would explain the differences in a SPECIFIC way.

The great thing about Barrys program is that you can calculate every game SPECIFICALLY. The worst thing about the ACF system is that they only show the result not the process. This leaves players in a situation where should they want to query the result (in case an error has been made) they have no way of verifying the secret formula.

[MOZ]

MOZ (Chess Victoria Treasurer Trevor Stanning) over there has falsely claimed my comment in reply to firegoat was an "official response".

Official can be used as noun or an adjective. (*1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official)
So, I presume the complaint is that I have 'noun. noun' juxtaposed when I type official response.

Can we agree that the problem is resolved if I replace "official response" with "official's response"?
I certainly want to represent that the response is made by someone more credible than just an average Joe who is making his own stuff up.

[phild707]

Official can be used as noun or an adjective. (*1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official)
So, I presume the complaint is that I have 'noun. noun' juxtaposed when I type official response.

Can we agree that the problem is resolved if I replace "official response" with "official's response"?
I certainly want to represent that the response is made by someone more credible than just an average Joe who is making his own stuff up.

I tend to agree with Kevin in this instance (based on what i have read on this forum).
He expressed an opinion but as I understand it it is not his role to respond in an official capacity or act as a spokesperson in relation to complaints/suggestions/comments on the ratings system.
Cheers
Phil.

[MOZ]

I tend to agree with Kevin in this instance (based on what i have read on this forum).
He expressed an opinion but as I understand it it is not his role to respond in an official capacity or act as a spokesperson in relation to complaints/suggestions/comments on the ratings system.
Cheers
Phil.

hi Phil

You will see by reading my original post that I have changed to the vernacular used by Kevin.
From my Melbourne-speak when I say official response the meaning was the simple,... a response made by an official; but it seems that Tasmania-speak requires the simpler >
official's response ("not in an official capacity").



-------

As for the substantive claim in Trevor's post, which concerns disparities at the low end of the scale between FIDE ratings and ACF ratings, the problem is that Trevor's position is contradictory. On the one hand he maintains that our system is a better and more reliable product and on the other he maintains that we should make changes to make the local ratings look good rather than having them lag the FIDE equivalents.

But it actually isn't possible to bring the low-end FIDE ratings into line with the ACF ones without either damaging the ACF ratings or else giving the top-end ACF players ACF ratings that exceed their FIDE by hundreds of points. The reason is that FIDE ratings are over-compressed as a result of poor past FIDE decisions involving ratings floors and the discarding of bad results.

My turn to quibble now. And it is about the word 'contradictory'.

It seems that there is no dispute by KB that

• the ACF system is a better and more reliable product, and
• we should make changes to make the local ratings look good rather than having them lag the FIDE equivalents. (because that is clearly what our chess playing population hankers for: .. MOZ insertion)

But what KB does provide as new information is that the FIDE list has compression factors at various points that make the task of re-scaling our ACF list, to be closer to the scaling of the FIDE list, a mathematically insolvable problem, unless we are prepared to have large ACF_FIDE differentials at the top of the list.
Now, this may be true.
It has not been revealed before as a public issue.
And it certainly would be a showstopper if it was a correct assessment of the intractability of re-scaling lower ACF rating echelons <probably the bottom 80% I presume)> to match closely the equivalent FIDE echelons.

So, let us pause to see if 'contradictory' can be expunged and replaced by the technical mathematical term 'intractable'.

Then we can press on and get a good mathematician like Barry to comment on how to do a rescale within these parameters

• ACF bottom echelons up,
• ACF top echelons sacrosanct at current level vis-a-vis FIDE upper-middle echelon
• compression factors gently introduced into ACF profile.

As we say in Mathematics seminars "one man's intractable is the next man's challenge."



In the mean-time I will think how I am going to explain at the next CV AGM why

• Australian top players have some sort of parity for their ACF and FIDE ratings, but newbies to the FIDE scale in the lower echelons should stop their thoughts of revolution.

[Firegoat7]

In the mean-time I will think how I am going to explain at the next CV AGM why

• Australian top players have some sort of parity for their ACF and FIDE ratings, but newbies to the FIDE scale in the lower echelons should stop their thoughts of revolution.

Very admirable. However while we are on the things to do list, maybe you could place this item on the agenda.

The ACF Rating system uses frequency distributions to measure the performance of ALL Australian chess players. A relative number is assigned to every player. This number is compared to other relative number and plotted to obtain a fixed point that can be published.

For a long time now I have suggested that these numbers need a much more rigid classification description. That is, the difference between a 300 junior on the Australian rating list and a 1000 adult is the same amount of points as the difference between a 2600GM and a 1900 club player. And yet, it should be obvious that the first example is less of a theoretical possibility then the latter, having much more possibility of being a reality.

The point of this observation is that using any system that relies on frequency and distribution to award the relative number is basically using a bell curve. This is not a major issue if the mid point is set correctly and classified accordingly. But i remain, less then convinced, that this is the case for the ACF.

Our Highest rated player is 2566!!, our lowest approximately 134 (I am guessing for arguments sake) This would make the mid point around about 1350. I would suggest that the difference between a 1350 and a 2566 player far exceeds the difference between a 134 player and a 1350 player if we were to descriptively classify such a difference in words.

This theory of an inaccurate scale classification can be tested easily using mathematical modeling of frequency distribution for rating difference upsets. That is the frequency of underdog victories ought to be able to show where the compression at the bottom of the rating system needs to occur.

In summing up, The Outlier effect at the bottom does not need so much space within the relative number distribution because the classification description between players does not need to be articulated so rigidly. Granted there are differences, but the difference between a 300-1000 gap is in no way comparable as a classification description between a 1900-2600 gap.

A balanced system of winners and losers, based on a bell curve, does it serve the needs of a status system with a floor set at 0?

[Firegoat7]

Greetings,


Just wanted to clarify my last post. I am presuming the floor of the Australian rating system is set at 0. I ask readers to consider that the difference between the second worst player and the worst player is a lot different from that between say Aronian and Carlsen, for arguments sake at the top end. Likewise I expect we will see a lot of 300 vs 700 player upsets, but not many 2100 vs 2500 player upsets. this frequency shows that the descriptive classification boundaries ought to be examined, especially at the bottom end.

Meanwhile,

The fact is that no version of the Glicko system works like this. The calculator gives specific gains/losses for each game but they are in the context of all the entered data.

For instance, I have just entered my own name into the calculator with three consecutive wins against 2000!! players. I gain 16.5 points per win.

But if, instead, I enter it with seven consecutive wins against 2000!! players I only gain 15.1 per win.

Thank you for this information. Now it appears to me that not calculating games individually is unfair and leaves the system open to manipulation.

I presume we both agree that a 3 month rating period is an arbitrary time frame. Within this time period we have people playing at different frequencies. For example Player A may play 5 games and Player B may play 55 games. Having those games compared as a group in the context of the frequency they play is unfair and inaccurate. A much better way is to allow players ratings to be calculated on every individual game. In this way, the frequency of the play does not affect their rating as much.

Reasons for being unfair are numerous, but the main issue should be time. A rating should have an independent result factored into a career, not a 3 month period. It matters not what my strength is over September,October and November. Win/Loss the result should be calculated immediately and then forgotten about. It should never affect the past and future, except in the context of a moment.

[Just2Good]

Thank you for this information. Now it appears to me that not calculating games individually is unfair and leaves the system open to manipulation.

Couldn't this problem be solved by the ACF Ratings Officer simply releasing everyone's Rating Differential?

[Ninja]

Couldn't this problem be solved by the ACF Ratings Officer simply releasing everyone's Rating Differential?

If the only variable was the rating differential that might be useful.

MOZ made a comment earlier about a certain bunch of "younger players" caring only about their FIDE rating as their interest was in playing OS tournaments.
I think you may find a much larger group of perhaps even younger players who have totally lost interest in ACF ratings as they are simply not transparent and changes seem to have no relevance to actual tournament performance.
Glicko2 may , in theory, present more accurate results however these "advantages" are lost by the secretive nature and constant tinkering of the ACF rating system in general.
FIDE you can calculate , you can set targets and you know how it works. The end number may not be as "nimble" in reflecting your current strength however you always know what a win is worth and what a draw or a loss will cost you. For anyone who likes playing with the numbers or competing against them selves looking for a PB performance it simply works.

The current ACF rating system however is shrouded in secrecy, is not consistent and there is simply no way to calculate what the end result will be. At various times certain "officials" admit to there being variations such as different K factors for juniors and selective "adjustments" being made to "keep the system accurate". It would seem that any mathematical formula that may be used is quite often overridden by "official" tinkering to the point where the system become one mans view on what each players rating should be.

No real point in talking about fair but perhaps it is more a matter of a system that has no system (or at least does not even follow its own system) has perhaps become pointless.
Unfortunately for the finances of chess in Australia (I agree sending money to FIDE is pointless) i believe that the ACF rating system in its current format has become, and will remain irrelevant, until its processes are made transparent.

The normal response that making the information available to the chess public will only confuse them and cause more arguments is simply disrespectful to the players paying good money for a irrelevant product and increasing the pace at which younger players are loosing interest in the ACF system and turning to the logical alternative in FIDE

[Black Onyx]

The normal response that making the information available to the chess public will only confuse them and cause more arguments is simply disrespectful to the players

Chess players are attracted to solving problems and seeing solutions , and in chess that is fine as all the elements are right there in view ,on the board , in the chess position, nothing is hidden from the eyes .

So it is difficult to reconcile this with a ratings system that so contravenes the seeming axiom of the very theatre in which it operates .

[MOZ]

Greetings,


Just wanted to clarify my last post. I am presuming the floor of the Australian rating system is set at 0. I ask readers to consider that the difference between the second worst player and the worst player is a lot different from that between say Aronian and Carlsen, for arguments sake at the top end. Likewise I expect we will see a lot of 300 vs 700 player upsets, but not many 2100 vs 2500 player upsets. this frequency shows that the descriptive classification boundaries ought to be examined, especially at the bottom end.

Meanwhile,



Thank you for this information. Now it appears to me that not calculating games individually is unfair and leaves the system open to manipulation.

I presume we both agree that a 3 month rating period is an arbitrary time frame. Within this time period we have people playing at different frequencies. For example Player A may play 5 games and Player B may play 55 games. Having those games compared as a group in the context of the frequency they play is unfair and inaccurate. A much better way is to allow players ratings to be calculated on every individual game. In this way, the frequency of the play does not affect their rating as much.

Reasons for being unfair are numerous, but the main issue should be time. A rating should have an independent result factored into a career, not a 3 month period. It matters not what my strength is over September,October and November. Win/Loss the result should be calculated immediately and then forgotten about. It should never affect the past and future, except in the context of a moment.

hi fg7

While I appreciate

• this is your thread and you can let the conversation meander wherever you like, and
• you can talk techo-talk like Bayesian and K factors till the cows come home, and
• you can explore how your rating moved game by game as measured through the bottom of a drink glass, and
• you can use the word outlier and not be accused of being unparliamentry, but

are you ever going state your position on all these fees that you are arguing should be going to FIDE instead of staying in Ozland, being used for Ozlanders?

There is good reason for not importing an inferior product and losing your money overseas. And that good reason is 'money'. Our money. Your money (some of it). Oz-money. Money we can use on ourselves.





And while I am here posting, must make note to self to check if KB has agreed to change his 'contradictory' to the more mathematically accurate, 'intractable; post#8.

[Firegoat7]

hi fg7

greetings Moz

are you ever going state your position on all these fees that you are arguing should be going to FIDE instead of staying in Ozland, being used for Ozlanders?

I support the Local. I support the International. I do not support the National as it does not support me.

There is good reason for not importing an inferior product and losing your money overseas. And that good reason is 'money'. Our money. Your money (some of it). Oz-money. Money we can use on ourselves.

I don't think this is a good reason. Chess needs to become more professional and that means bigger International tournaments. I most certainly do not believe that the Fide product is inferior to the Glicko, quite the opposite actually. The Glicko product is nonsense. When statistical mathematicians, who are often held in contempt, by other mathematical circles enforce a secret formula upon every chess player in Australia, then that is a dictatorship. I really hope Glicko just disappears from the whole chess scene.

And while you are thread hijacking, what is your position on the 6 point error rate between Glicko 1 and Glicko 2. Shouldn't the mathematical inaccuracy be less then 1% in these type of cases? Where oh where did those missing points go?