NEW Rating System?

NEW Rating System?

Post by Christopher P Parr » Wed, 18 Oct 1995 04:00:00


I was just at the Atlanta Open this past weekend, and one of my teamates said
that she noticed a posting on the wall about a new USFA rating system based on
points.

I don't always read every post on this news group so I may have missed an
earlier discussion about it.  If any one could point to a web site with the
information I desire or if the USFA is sending the information to ALL member
clubs and mine just hasn't received any yet that will do.  (I've noticed that
it seems like the division chair gets access to all the rule changes and then
occasionally we find out what they are from him about the time they take
effect. Oh, well could just be an isolated incident.)

Thanks

 
 
 

NEW Rating System?

Post by AMcBa » Thu, 19 Oct 1995 04:00:00



Quote:
>I was just at the Atlanta Open this past weekend, and one of my teamates
said
>that she noticed a posting on the wall about a new USFA rating system
based
>on
>points.

>I don't always read every post on this news group so I may have missed an
>earlier discussion about it.  If any one could point to a web site with
the
>information I desire or if the USFA is sending the information to ALL
member
>clubs and mine just hasn't received any yet that will do.  (I've noticed
that
>it seems like the division chair gets access to all the rule changes and
then
>occasionally we find out what they are from him about the time they take
>effect. Oh, well could just be an isolated incident.)

George Masin's numeric rating system was approved for a one year TRIAL --
to be run in parallel with the current A, B, C, etc. system, to make sure
that it is feasible to track points that way before everything switches
over (besides, no way would we make that major a change in an Olympic
year).

The details were published in the Board agenda for the October meeting --
these should be available from your division chair. I will try to get a
copy to David Sapery so he can post them on the USFA web page, but work is
eating into my time more and more these days, as my printing deadline
approaches.

Ann McBain Ezzell
USFA Secretary (the not-running-for-any-office-whatsoever kind)


 
 
 

NEW Rating System?

Post by NanHoffm » Tue, 24 Oct 1995 04:00:00

I heard from my division secretary in CT two week ago that the USFA is
thinking of adopting a new rating system in '96. This would be a point
system similar to the one used in Chess competitions. This system would
take into account the number of tournaments you enter, the number of
participants in those tournaments and where you placed. It is my
understanding that this method would require each division to appoint
someone to run this ystem on computer as the ratings are tabulated
nationally thoughout the season. I think it might create a more acurate
picture of how you compare to other fencers vs. the system in place now.
Any Comments?

 
 
 

NEW Rating System?

Post by Randell Jesu » Wed, 25 Oct 1995 04:00:00

Quote:

>I heard from my division secretary in CT two week ago that the USFA is
>thinking of adopting a new rating system in '96. This would be a point
>system similar to the one used in Chess competitions. This system would
>take into account the number of tournaments you enter, the number of
>participants in those tournaments and where you placed. It is my
>understanding that this method would require each division to appoint
>someone to run this ystem on computer as the ratings are tabulated
>nationally thoughout the season. I think it might create a more acurate
>picture of how you compare to other fencers vs. the system in place now.
>Any Comments?

        Well, chess ratings (really Elo ratings, named for the person who
did the serious mathematical work on chess rating systems) should work fairly
well.  Simplified, the idea is that everyone has a rating.  If you beat
someone, you gain points and they lose points.  The number gained and lost is
equal and is proportional to the result "expected" from the rating difference.

        Once the ratings have settled down, comparing two people's ratings
should also tell you the approximate chances of each fencer winning.  It's
great for seeding tourneys as well, and makes it much easier to compare
yourself against other fencers - certainly better than the current A, B, etc.

        Example: say you have two fencers rated 1400 (which we'll define as
the rating of an "average" fencer.  The actual values are fairly arbitrary;
differences between ratings are all that have an real meaning.)  If they
fence, the expected outcome is 50-50, and the winner will gain (say) 16 points,
and the loser lose 16 points.  If they fenced again, the difference in rating
would be 32 points (1416 vs 1384), and the expected result might be 55-45.
If the higher-ranked fencer won again, he'd gain (say) 14 points and
the lower-ranked would lose 14.  If the lower-ranked upset the higher, he'd
gain (say) 18 points, and the higher-ranked would lose 18.

        If the fencers were rated 1500 and 1300, you'd expect the higher-
ranked fencer to win about 80% of the time or so, and so the higher-ranked
fencer would get only a few points for a win (say 6), while the lower-ranked
would get a lot (say 26).

        All of this is pretty trivial to handle on computers, and isn't all
that hard by hand (it's been around for >30 years in chess).

        Note that the number of points at risk (32 in the above example) can
be adjusted to deal with the amount of variablility in performance seen in
the sport (i.e. how much the performance of an individual is likely to vary
on a given day).  This can be figured out fairly easily by seeing if the
predictions of performance match the expected results over a large number of
fencers and other mathematical tools.  I'd assume they've done this.

        There are various ways of dealing with newcomers to give them an
initial rating once the system is running.

--
Randell Jesup, Scala US R&D, Ex-Commodore-Amiga Engineer class of '94

#include <std/disclaimer>
Exon food: <offensive words censored by order of the Senate>

 
 
 

NEW Rating System?

Post by David Saper » Fri, 27 Oct 1995 04:00:00


Quote:
> George Masin's numeric rating system was approved for a
> one year TRIAL -- to be run in parallel with the current
> A, B, C, etc. system, to make sure that it is feasible to
> track points that way before everything switches over
> (besides, no way would we make that major a change in an
> Olympic year).

> The details were published in the Board agenda for the
> October meeting -- these should be available from your
> division chair. I will try to get a copy to David Sapery
> so he can post them on the USFA web page, but work is
> eating into my time more and more these days, as my
> printing deadline approaches.

I have the document, and I'm hurrying to convert it into HTML so
that I can make it available on the WWW site (http://www.usfa.org)

I won't have it done before I leave for Colorado tomorrow, but I
should have it available sometime next week.

Now, Ann, if I could just get my hands on the USFA rule book! :7)
(ducking)

But seriously, I'm meeting on Monday with George Masin and with
the M.I.S. people at the USOC, so we should be able to iron out
some details about just how the USFA and the divisions will
coordinate to update members' ratings from local events.
--
David Sapery
USFA Information Systems Coordinator


 
 
 

NEW Rating System?

Post by Christopher P Parr » Sat, 28 Oct 1995 04:00:00

Quote:

>I heard from my division secretary in CT two week ago that the USFA is
>thinking of adopting a new rating system in '96. This would be a point
>system similar to the one used in Chess competitions. This system would
>take into account the number of tournaments you enter, the number of
>participants in those tournaments and where you placed. It is my
>understanding that this method would require each division to appoint
>someone to run this ystem on computer as the ratings are tabulated
>nationally thoughout the season. I think it might create a more acurate
>picture of how you compare to other fencers vs. the system in place now.
>Any Comments?

Do you have any of the details of how the system is supposed to work?  I posted
a question about this earlier.  It doesn't sound bad conceptually, but its hard
to make any inttelligent comments without more information.
 
 
 

NEW Rating System?

Post by PHIL MARSOSUDI » Wed, 08 Nov 1995 04:00:00

:       Well, chess ratings (really Elo ratings, named for the person who
: did the serious mathematical work on chess rating systems) should work fairly
: well.  Simplified, the idea is that everyone has a rating.  If you beat
: someone, you gain points and they lose points.  The number gained and lost is
: equal and is proportional to the result "expected" from the rating difference.

:       All of this is pretty trivial to handle on computers, and isn't all
: that hard by hand (it's been around for >30 years in chess).

:       There are various ways of dealing with newcomers to give them an
: initial rating once the system is running.

As a former tournament chess player, I'll vouch for how well the system
works.  One clarification--the tournament organizers do NOT crank out the
numbers.  They take the results of the tournament and send them to the
national office (the USCF, or in our case, the USFA) that tabulates new
numberes.  The only problem I could see (and I don't know how they dealt
with it at the USCF, but they must have) is how you get rapid turnaround
on the results.  In the current system, you know you've earned your "C"
immediately, and can use the "C" next weekend at the next tournament for
seeding, etc.  This would be a lot harder if you're relying on a central
processing place for numerical ratings.

 --
Phil Marsosudiro


        or