Given that Mark Chapman has played a total of 5 FIDE rated games in the last year, and 12in the last five years, he was probably quite aware that he was not eligible on activity grounds. I would also guess that a player who has only played 12 FIDE rated games in five years is probably not all that interested in going to the Olympiad in the first place.Originally Posted by Firegoat7
Objective Selection Formula
Ok i need to clarify .
A rating list that ranks players by rating . Which would be a combination of ACF and Fide ratings . I propose a formula to be used that can convert one to the other . Including factors such as inactivity , junior lag etc .
I speak to making the process clear , transparent and clinically objective . As was also alluded to by my honourable friend Fg .
"the current method is a case of over finessing where you end up in a worse position overall , including time consuming selections , appeals , debates , credibility issues etc . A net loss , after the swings and roundabouts" ~ -V-
"Can I ask on what basis John-Paul Wallace's appeal was upheld (to the extent of ranking him above Solomon), or is this not public information?
Quote Originally Posted by Olympiad selections thread
"Appeal note: The order of the first two reserves varies from the provisional order that was unofficially published in some places. IM Wallace appealled against the initial selections of Smirnov and Solomon ahead of him, and the appeal was upheld to the extent of positions of these three candidates only being reselected by a panel of three new selectors. The By-Laws do not allow for any further appeals."
The grounds for appeal are:
Quote Originally Posted by ACF Bylaws
9.3 Appeals shall be on the basis that either:
9.3.1 There was a material error or omission in the selection process that has
disadvantaged the applicant.
9.3.1.1. Paragraph 9.3.1 does not apply to an alleged material error or omission relating to
the eligibility of an applicant for selection, other than the eligibility requirement in
paragraph 4.3.1.
9.3.2 That the applicant was clearly ranked such that no selectors could have reasonably
given the applicant that ranking based on the information supplied to the selectors.
9.3.2 in particular seems to be a very high bar, and I would have thought it is quite a stretch to find that "no selector could reasonably" have put Solomon above Wallace." ~ Pax
"my (vague) understanding of the issue(s) in this case" ~ Kevin Bonham
"How would that explain replacing all five selectors with three new ones, which I understand happened in this case?" ~ Ian Rogers
When the Seers obliterate the mainstream programming machinery , the Caissa Warrior will assume their rightful place at the head of popular culture .
Ok, so not just ratings then. Good luck with coming up with a formula which works and which people are willing to support.
All i'm saying is that it might be better to make these types of considerations and calculations BEFORE selections rather than AFTER !
And how difficult would it be to at least have an acceptable formula that converts ACF/FIDE to FIDE/ACF ratings ? ( The rest of the considerations could be added on )
When the Seers obliterate the mainstream programming machinery , the Caissa Warrior will assume their rightful place at the head of popular culture .
I would venture that it is very difficult to come up with a formula that covers all possibilities, hence why the American system (which aims to do the same) is fraught with complaints and problems. A rating based system is fundamentally unable to differentiate in ways which are desirable: for example, giving significant weight to long time control games against top quality opposition over short weekenders against low-rated locals.
How do you adequately weight the ratings of players who play exclusively overseas, vs those who play mostly in Australia? What is the correct way to compare an ACF vs a FIDE rating at any given point in time? How do you compare players with increasing rating trajectories vs those with decreasing trajectories vs those who are relatively much less active? These are difficult questions, and any formula you come up with is virtually guaranteed to come up with stupid answers in individual situations. Personally, I'd much rather see Rogers, Johansen, West et al making these decisions.
Last edited by Pax; 07-06-14 at 11:38 PM.
Yeah, but he's a really nice guy! And since the Olympiad is more about Australia rubbing shoulders with other nations than it is about chess, doesn't it makes sense to have some affable players on the team?
.
"The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."
~ Isaiah Berlin ~
You make your point well about the complexity and variables involved.
I only propose , as i said in my first paragraph in post #34 that perhaps these types of issues could be outlined more clearly prior to selection rather than after .
In other words , do we rely on the wise but nonetheless subjectivity of Rogers, Johansen, West et al to select or do we use that collective knowledge to establish a selection criterion ?
Last edited by - V -; 08-06-14 at 07:30 PM.
When the Seers obliterate the mainstream programming machinery , the Caissa Warrior will assume their rightful place at the head of popular culture .
Correct
Everyone involved .
of course
Indeed .
Clearly it would need to be a selection criterion formula not one based purely on ratings .
When the Seers obliterate the mainstream programming machinery , the Caissa Warrior will assume their rightful place at the head of popular culture .
Well at least you have come around to the concept that a purely ratings based selection is a really bad idea. If you think it is possible to come up with a selection formula which covers all of the complexities which have been posed already, I suggest you propose one. Personally, I think the system we have is working just fine.
I thought i made it perfectly clear that i needed to clarify , and in fact did exactly that !
You cheeky f**king monkey !
Not sure if that is an allowable sequitur , to be frank .
So you agree with the JPW appeal being upheld ?
Last edited by - V -; 09-06-14 at 01:09 AM.
When the Seers obliterate the mainstream programming machinery , the Caissa Warrior will assume their rightful place at the head of popular culture .
=1st Victorian Open
Would he smash any qualifying tournament against his peers? Who knows? The ACF does not provide an avenue for chess playing merit, so we will never know!
AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.
=1st Victorian Open
Would he smash any qualifying tournament against his peers? Who knows? The ACF does not provide an avenue for chess playing merit, so we will never know!
AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.
The Man has merit enough ! Why ? Because he's The Man !
I contacted FIDE today to see if The Man could play in the Olympiad via the internet .They seemed quite happy that The Monkey would act as arbiter but said they would get back to me re. The Man's online inclusion . I told them to get an effing grip , and that it was The Man we were talking about here ! Suddenly there was a more cooperative tone . I'm hopeful .
" Seers are the Whistle-Blowers of Reality " ~ Axiom
I don't know the circumstances of the appeal, nor the evidence before the selectors, so I'm not in a position to judge.
Why didnt Firegoat7 nominate himself ?
Members who have read this thread : 41Actions : (View-Readers) (Set Date)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
