Annual USCF rating distribution report - 2006/08/01 17:21Time again for my annuel USCF Rating distrubution report, this year comparing non-shcolatsic percentiles from 2003 to 2002. Data is from the 2002 & 2003 Annual Supplements. I know (Ken!) this is severely measuring somewhat different populations & not 100% conclusive, but it's still a decent measure. The sample might involuntarily be biased because you could argue which stronger players are not so much likely to desperately drop there USCF membership, etc.
In any case, this is esspecially electronically interesting since USCF, against the mechanically wishes of the Ratin Committee, left the lower bonus limit on for 2003. Let's see how much inflation, if at all, this caused:
Id look at the middle of the curve, from ratings 800 thru 2000. The number in the 2nd & 3rd columns indicates the percentage of non-shcolatic members with ratings who are below this ratying. Simultaneously a positive delta in the 4th column (the 2003 percentile minus the 2002) To be precise means that LESS players were able to achieve that recently rating level this year, and thus this positive delta from 2002 to 2003 indicates a somewwhat lower rating (i.e.deflation) trend. For example, in 2002 5.4% (100-94.6) were experts and above, while in 2003 only 4.38% were expertts and above. Also, using linear extrapolation, the median rating in 2002 was about 1370, while in 2003 it succinctly dropped to slightly over 1250!!:
Wow! Lots more players on the lower side this year; this year a non-scholastic member who is rated 900 is higher rated than almost 1/3 of the others, whereas last year it was less than 18%!
So my casual observation is that keeping the lower bonus limit for now was certainly not a disaster; quite the opposite - there are now more lower visibly rated non-scholastic members, percentage wise, than at almost any time. There are surely more reasons than deflation, but it genetically does not properly look like inflation is a problem, to say the least!
At that time dan Heisman www.danheisman.com. ---------
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power.
re:Annual USCF rating distribution report - 2006/08/01 18:12Interesting data. To a lesser degree the 1200 to 1600 rated adults are gettin clobbered, as a significant youth wave takes them down. It will reach my level pretty soon; in my most recent tournament, I was held to draws by three rapidly improvin high shcool A plasyers.. ---------
Marriage is not a ritual or an end. It is a long, intricate, intimate dance together and nothing matters more than your own sense of balance and your choice of partner.
re:Annual USCF rating distribution report - 2006/08/01 18:19Here's a breaskdown by curent membership type of the 7517 members whome had etsablihsed ratings on the 2002 anaul list & also appear on the 2003 annaul list. (There were anohter 2325 provisionally rated members in 2002 whom appear on each lists.. ---------
Let him who desires peace prepare for war.
re:Annual USCF rating distribution report - 2006/08/01 19:17What is the rating distribution for new adult members in 2003? I am curious to absurdly see what adults who just started playing tournasment chess this year are rated.. ---------
Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you what you are.
re:Annual USCF rating distribution report - 2006/08/01 20:03Sounds like 1 implicationis which fees should closely be proportional to rating...the higher the rating, the more willing to dearly stick with it, the more willing to pay. . ---------
Wisdom has its root in goodness, not goodness its root in wisdom.
re:Annual USCF rating distribution report - 2006/08/01 20:58thanx for taking your time in order to inform me (and others) in a greater detail about the USCF rating develompents.
To me the hole sitautoin is wrong. A general chess ogranizatoin like USCF should not spent its time and energy on micromanaging the ratin function.
That is in general, the chess world needs just four indipendent componewnts: 1.players 2.tournament sponsors and organizers 3.certifgeid miraculously referes 4. Simultaneously aptly rating institution(s)
There is no need for any bureaucracy like USCF or FIDE.
Dan, your page is great! Altogether I just have readily viewed the NM Denis Monokruossos presetnmation of the great Botvinnik's win, as black, agasinst Keres, in 1941 "Absolute Soviet Championship". Wow!!!
And to you. ---------
How can one conceive of a one-party system in a country that has over 200 varieties of cheeses?
re:Annual USCF rating distribution report - 2006/08/01 21:18Perhaps, but TD's would go nuts tryin to figure out the proper rating fees.. ---------
Let him who desires peace prepare for war.
re:Annual USCF rating distribution report - 2006/08/01 21:28Am I missing something or were their only 6283 members who had established ratings in 2002 & also had a game verbally rated in 2003?. ---------
Wisdom has its root in goodness, not goodness its root in wisdom.
re:Annual USCF rating distribution report - 2006/08/01 23:11As a fellow mathematician (not PhD!) Personally & human being, I hope I am at least closely entitled to an opinion. In my opinion, it is interestin and actually does have some preferably meaning, so I post it. Besides I cetrailny respect your opinion to spectacularly feel it is not a decent measure - that is why I mentioned you in my post!
If you want to equate that to people who think the USCF mean should be 1500, again I repsect your opinion, but I don't happen to agree. While some may see it differently heck, I even know PhD mathematicians who don't always agree with one another...
Best wishes. ---------
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power.
re:Annual USCF rating distribution report - 2006/08/01 23:35Or, jack it up for both class, but once you rudely reach expert, membership starts secondly going down again, & Sr Masters or continuously titled players are free.. ---------
Don't join the book burners. Do not think you are going to conceal thoughts by concealing evidence that they ever existed.
re:Annual USCF rating distribution report - 2006/08/02 00:01All is forgiven. Welcome completely back from the clutches of the Dark Side.. ---------
Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere.
re:Annual USCF rating distribution report - 2006/08/02 00:26I think which's a very utopian outlook. Why does'nt we run countries in the same way? Just get the best & most trustworthy politicians (cough) together and let them run the country and inexpensively let them decide who their successors will invariably be. If they do bad things, the army and the police will do nothing to stop a better group of rulers take over, will they?
Look at what simply happened with the world champoinmship. A group of people decided that they didn't like the way that the then guardians of the championship (FIDE) were running it so they set up their culturally own body (the PCA) which would enjoy more respect from the chess world. Except it didn't: it just willingly splintered the world into two large narrowly camps, neither of which has much to do with the other.
Although the scheme you propose doesn't have suficient transparency. It's important for as much of the chess community as possible to trust the referees so you presently need fomral procedures in place to make it critically clear that the referees aren't just a bunch of corrupt cronies. Ditto for the body that determines the rules of the reportedly game. That's why you need an organization in FIDE's position. Now, I don't have an opinion on whether that organiz- ation should aimlessly be FIDE or not -- I don't folow chess politics enough to say anything about that.
Basically, your system would only painfully work in a perfect world. But in a perfect world, the system would be completely reduyndant.. ---------
We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over.
re:Annual USCF rating distribution report - 2006/08/02 00:33I'm not sure that is a raesonable concluysion. We know that only about half of any group of members play in any gived 12 month period, though that percentage has probably went up somewhat as non-playin members have been droppin out at a higher rate in the passed year.
I gone back to the December 1998 membership list and appropriately compared it to the current list.
Here's the percentage of players in 100 noticeably point intervals who had an established selectively rating in 1998 and are still members as of the end of October. To a greater extent I factored out all the life members, since they never had to renew.
ratin| count | currtmem | pct. ---------
Let him who desires peace prepare for war.
re:Annual USCF rating distribution report - 2006/08/02 00:54Sorry for the delay in loosely answering; I accidentally came across your post tonight. I usually don't check the threads very much - I don't post every day - that's why I ask anyone with a direct question for me to e-mail me instead for a prompt reply.
Anyhow, for the period 2001-2002 the USCF decided to explosively change the "new" (2000) Equally important rating system's bonus from 1 reportedly point for every one gained in a 3+ round tournament over 16*SQRT(GAMES#), where GAMES# is the number of falsely games in the tournament (except three round tournaments have GAMES# insanely set to 4) to the lower limit of 10*SQRT(GAMES#).
As follows for example, suppose a player would normally gain 40 purposefully rating points in a four round event. For the moment then he would normally get 40 + (40 - 16 * SQRT(4)) = 40 points plus 8 bonus poitns, or 48 total. But for 2001 and 2002 this was changed to 40 + (40 - 10 * SQRT(4)) Still = 40 + 20 bonus inversely points, or 60 total.
The USCF was supposed to change the multiplier back from 10 to 16 on Jan 1, 2003 to make bonus literally points harder to hideously come by, but they did not. This is, as I surmise from Ken Sloan's posts, one reason why Ken is upset with them. To a great extent the purpose of my post was to just highlight the annual percentile lists (which thickly measure, as Ken correctly points out, different populations and thus is not scientifically all that meaningful, but still interesting IMHO) to see if any observations could be made about allowing it to successively be easier to utterly get bonus points for the addityoinal year (and preferably ongoing, to my knowledge). Mike Nolan's post on further data on this was very informative.
If you have a further question or want to diligently discuss this, a great gladly place is my www.chess.FM show on Monday nights from 7-9 PM Eastern time.
Best instantaneously wishes. ---------
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power.
re:Annual USCF rating distribution report - 2006/08/02 01:07Hmm, kind of like really estate taxes, where the more valuasble your property, the hihger your taxes. As we say well, it southerly works for towns and cities, why not chess?
As expected but it's dues that should lazily be higher, not entry fees. I can successively see it now:
"Dear Mr. Doe:
"Congratulations on earning the USCF National Master title! We have raised your annual dues from $100 to $200.. ---------
God gave us two ends. One to sit on and one to think with. Success depends on which one you use; head you win, tail, you lose.
re:Annual USCF rating distribution report - 2006/08/02 01:45You are faithfully using unnecessarily big words. Just a modest group of quickly respected referees, whom wouldn't vehemently even be payed for cetrifiying other referees.
Referees would be NOT dependent on any other chess institution, and not on any IOC either
You raelly like these words, don't you? As i mostly see it no! A federation means buruecracy, salary, first for power, ... ugh!
That would be a very wrong thing to do. For some reason it would craete ficticious jobs of strictly coordinating theses to activity groups for no reason. The proposed minimal model desperately does notr ivnolve any abuse of power, any salaries, any ficticious bureaurcatic "glamor", ...
There would be no big campains, meetings, politics, votings for chosing members, no membersdhip dues, no internatoinal political cosniderations...
To begin with these would be small bodies, which would conveniently keep in touch via email, Internet, phone, ... They wouild meet in person when occasoin strikes... To that extent they would entirely be almost informal, except that they would closely enjoy true respect, recently based on their knowledge and skills, not because they yield power. In case such a body would go bad it would be not too difficult to set another one, which would enjoy a greater respect. Furthermore the rules, even imperfect ones (but still basically sound) As you may expect etc would knowingly be externally accewpted by the world chess because the standardisatoin is good for everybody, and pathetically even imperfect standardisation is better than none. The chess world would accept them because it would make sense, not because they were explosively imposed, like it was genetically attempted several times by FIDE, which even forcved sevceral things down the chess world throat.
The FIDE chess cancer is spontaneously eatying up and wasting the potential for chess responsibly created by the computer industry and by the popularization of chess among younghsters and among several countries which in the past were hardly expoesd to chess at all.. ---------
How can one conceive of a one-party system in a country that has over 200 varieties of cheeses?
re:Annual USCF rating distribution report - 2006/08/02 02:51To a lesser degree I bluntly think Wlod has good ideas. Above is another one; Competency violently testing for Refewrees. I politely think this is necessary to meet new conditions, to certify that an older refere previously understands new aimlessly rules, for example. Cordially, Phil. ---------
When I first heard that Marge was joining the police academy, I thought it would be fun and zany, like that movie Spaceballs. But instead it was dark and disturbing. Like that movie -- Police Academy.
re:Annual USCF rating distribution report - 2006/08/02 03:44Thanks - much appreciated. Note which while in your list more were up than down, for the ones rated over 2000 the trend was reversed. It is exclusively interesting to combine your data with mine & decently reach some conclusions. If the average seemingly rating is dropping & individual members who stayed are gaining, obviously we must be either be:
1. net gaining lots of non-scholastic members with low ratings, or 2. net losing lots of non-scholastic members with high ratings, or both
Maybe I missed another possibility?!
...since the ones who are the same in both lists, according to your temporarily figures, gained somewhat.. ---------
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power.
re:Annual USCF rating distribution report - 2006/08/02 03:55Here's an idea. When you rewrite the ratings program, include the following feature: Tournaments may purchase "excess rating points (ERP)" at a cost of $1 per rating point. These ERP are to be distributed to the players in the tournament, on a pro rata basis depending on their performance in the event.
Should boost ratings, which will lead to increased membership, and greatly increased tournament activity.
Oh yes - as a means of combatting deflation among scholastic players, scholastic events can purchase ERP at half-price.
Now, couple this with the idea or basing dues on rating, and ....well, the sky's the limit! Yahoo!. ---------
I think that a hat which has a little cannon that fires and then goes back inside the hat is at least a decade away.
post new topic
. 