Just What We Need... Another Opinion About Ratings...
Just What We Need... Another Opinion About Ratings...
Just What We Need... Another Opinion About Ratings...
I guess you would find it a bit ironic that the author of this web site, a site which is partially intended to expdiate the current SUBJECTIVE based rating system, is actually in favor of a 100% PERFORMANCE based rating system.
I guess you would find it a bit ironic that the author of this web site, a site which is partially intended to expdiate the current SUBJECTIVE based rating system, is actually in favor of a 100% PERFORMANCE based rating system.
I guess you would find it a bit ironic that the author of this web site, a site which is partially intended to expdiate the current SUBJECTIVE based rating system, is actually in favor of a 100% PERFORMANCE based rating system.
If tournament results could be collected from designated tournaments across the US and Canada, a point system could be used to determine ratings. In the case of Computer Peas tournaments, those tournament results would include not only the winners of each event, but details of every match that had been played. Non-Computer Peas tournaments would submit just the event winners (unless it was conceiveable to submit the breakdown of 1st through last place (walking through the chart - not fun).
If tournament results could be collected from designated tournaments across the US and Canada, a point system could be used to determine ratings. In the case of Computer Peas tournaments, those tournament results would include not only the winners of each event, but details of every match that had been played. Non-Computer Peas tournaments would submit just the event winners (unless it was conceiveable to submit the breakdown of 1st through last place (walking through the chart - not fun).
If tournament results could be collected from designated tournaments across the US and Canada, a point system could be used to determine ratings. In the case of Computer Peas tournaments, those tournament results would include not only the winners of each event, but details of every match that had been played. Non-Computer Peas tournaments would submit just the event winners (unless it was conceiveable to submit the breakdown of 1st through last place (walking through the chart - not fun).
Rater strategies fall into 3 basic categories. (1) A rater rates on a player's skill level; his/her physical stoke and board-play/strategy, (2) Performance ONLY is considered. If you win a tournament or 2, your rating jumps, and finally (3) Some combination of the two.
I believe these diverse methods of rating players is an essential part of the inconsistancies produced by the current rating system.
I also believe that a document of guidlines will not solve the problem. Subjective is subjective and though Mahlon almost had me convinced, I think moving towards a performance based rating system is the way to go.
Practically speaking, if we were to go in this direction (say for 2009 or 2010), we would have to seed the ratings with the currently generated Bowers ratings.
Mahlon, I'll be expecting some email soon.
Rater strategies fall into 3 basic categories. (1) A rater rates on a player's skill level; his/her physical stoke and board-play/strategy, (2) Performance ONLY is considered. If you win a tournament or 2, your rating jumps, and finally (3) Some combination of the two.
I believe these diverse methods of rating players is an essential part of the inconsistancies produced by the current rating system.
I also believe that a document of guidlines will not solve the problem. Subjective is subjective and though Mahlon almost had me convinced, I think moving towards a performance based rating system is the way to go.
Practically speaking, if we were to go in this direction (say for 2009 or 2010), we would have to seed the ratings with the currently generated Bowers ratings.
Mahlon, I'll be expecting some email soon.
Rater strategies fall into 3 basic categories. (1) A rater rates on a player's skill level; his/her physical stoke and board-play/strategy, (2) Performance ONLY is considered. If you win a tournament or 2, your rating jumps, and finally (3) Some combination of the two.
I believe these diverse methods of rating players is an essential part of the inconsistancies produced by the current rating system.
I also believe that a document of guidlines will not solve the problem. Subjective is subjective and though Mahlon almost had me convinced, I think moving towards a performance based rating system is the way to go.
Practically speaking, if we were to go in this direction (say for 2009 or 2010), we would have to seed the ratings with the currently generated Bowers ratings.
Mahlon, I'll be expecting some email soon.
That all said, my real interest is not especially in this area. My desire is only to produce software that accomodates whatever people are doing. SIMS is the foundation of a system that would let us grow in many different directions. If we stay with the subjective rating system, great. If we eventually go with a performance based system, an automated system like SIMS would be essential for submission, gathering, and compilation of the data. Attmpting to do a performance based system without strong computer tools would be extremely difficult. Again, software such as this simply opens doors to more options.
That all said, my real interest is not especially in this area. My desire is only to produce software that accomodates whatever people are doing. SIMS is the foundation of a system that would let us grow in many different directions. If we stay with the subjective rating system, great. If we eventually go with a performance based system, an automated system like SIMS would be essential for submission, gathering, and compilation of the data. Attmpting to do a performance based system without strong computer tools would be extremely difficult. Again, software such as this simply opens doors to more options.
That all said, my real interest is not especially in this area. My desire is only to produce software that accomodates whatever people are doing. SIMS is the foundation of a system that would let us grow in many different directions. If we stay with the subjective rating system, great. If we eventually go with a performance based system, an automated system like SIMS would be essential for submission, gathering, and compilation of the data. Attmpting to do a performance based system without strong computer tools would be extremely difficult. Again, software such as this simply opens doors to more options.