Possible Disruption

Request amendments or pass comments on this free service.
User avatar
Ben Purton
Posts: 1618
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:53 am
Location: Berks

Re: Possible Disruption

Post by Ben Purton » Wed Dec 03, 2008 6:19 pm

Are you totally missing the plot here mate? There 150's but get 165 on the new system.
I love sleep, I need 8 hours a day and about 10 at night - Bill Hicks
I would die happy if I beat Wood Green in the Eastman Cup final - Richmond LL captain.
Hating the Yankees since 2002. Hating the Jets since 2001.

Sean Hewitt

Re: Possible Disruption

Post by Sean Hewitt » Wed Dec 03, 2008 6:37 pm

Ben Purton wrote:Are you totally missing the plot here mate? There 150's but get 165 on the new system.
No, I dont think so! What I am saying is that there is something wrong with your maths. If you played 150 (old grade) players and nearly always beat them (I assumed that to be scoring 90%) then you would yourself be graded 190 (old grade). But you're not. So either the average grades of your opponents is lower than 150, or you dont win nearly all of the time.

Either way, if the actual average grade of your opponents and your score against them was properly known, I think you would the new system grading performance would look far more accurate.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16915
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Possible Disruption

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Dec 03, 2008 6:59 pm

If you played 150 (old grade) players and nearly always beat them (I assumed that to be scoring 90%) then you would yourself be graded 190 (old grade). But you're not.
From what Ben has said earlier, he has recently graduated and moved to a new area. This is his first season playing for Hayes, presumably in the Hillingdon, Thames Valley or Middlesex leagues. So he didn't have any last season results against opposing 150s for comparison. By contrast his current grade (176/179) would have been mostly earned in the 4NCL and international tournaments.

Sean Hewitt

Re: Possible Disruption

Post by Sean Hewitt » Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:57 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
If you played 150 (old grade) players and nearly always beat them (I assumed that to be scoring 90%) then you would yourself be graded 190 (old grade). But you're not.
From what Ben has said earlier, he has recently graduated and moved to a new area. This is his first season playing for Hayes, presumably in the Hillingdon, Thames Valley or Middlesex leagues. So he didn't have any last season results against opposing 150s for comparison. By contrast his current grade (176/179) would have been mostly earned in the 4NCL and international tournaments.
Fair enough - in which case three games this season against 150 opposition is of course not enough info to draw any meaningful conclusions.

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 5606
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: Possible Disruption

Post by Carl Hibbard » Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:17 pm

Struth I only asked about the "performance" of the grading web site

:roll:
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

Nick Thomas
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:56 pm

Re: Possible Disruption

Post by Nick Thomas » Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:31 am

Seems to be working fine and a little quicker, thanks Carl :D :wink:

Mick Norris
Posts: 6824
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Possible Disruption

Post by Mick Norris » Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:25 am

Carl Hibbard wrote:Is this looking any faster to anyone who uses the service regularly :?:
Yes
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Locked