I have independently created a United States Chess League rating system that takes into several elements that other rating systems do not. Most importantly, the USCL ratings take into account that players are part of a team, and their strategy about how to conclude their individual games depend on the games situations of their teammates.
Here is an overview of the USCL rating system.
1. Modified Glicko
Rating calculations are based on the Glicko system, with some minor modifications. These modifications are as follows:
(a) Maximum RD is 100 (not 350);
(b) Ratings are updated after every game;
(c) At the end of each season, each RD is modified by increasing it 1/2 its distance to 100. For example, if a player's RD is 40, then the new RD is 40+((100-40)/2) or 40+(30) or 70. This eliminates step 1b in the Glicko process.
2. Initial Ratings Based on Board
Initial ratings for each player are based on which board they played the first time they played in a USCL match. Players who were Board 1 start with an initial rating of 2550; Board 2, 2450; Board 3, 2350; Board 4, 2250. All are set with an RD (ratings deviation) of 100.
3. Expected Score Depends on Color
Expected score from each game is modified by the color each player has. An initial investigation showed that, in the USCL, the performance rating of a player with the White pieces is about 72 points higher than the performance rating of a player with the Black pieces. Therefore, when calculating expected score of a games between two players, we temporarily add 36 points to White's rating, and subtract 36 points from Black's rating.
4. All Games Rated with Equal Weight
All games, including playoff games and blitz tiebreak games, were given equal weight in the ratings.
5. Scores for Draws Depend on Team Result
In team chess, where the goal of the team is to win the match (with 2.5/4 points or more, or 2/4 in a match with draw odds), individual results can be skewed by the circumstances of the match situation. For example, if it looks like your team is about to win two games and lose one game, winning the match comes down to what happens on your board. Suppose that in your game you have a moderate advantage, but the position is dynamic and unstable. In such a case, you might decide to trade all your pieces to reach a dead drawn endgame, so that you will draw the game and clinch the match for your team. This is fundamentally a good result for your team, as your will win the match.
Therefore, the result of the team match is considered when assigning scores for individual players' draws. If the final team match is drawn, each player who drew gets 1/2 point. If a team wins, all the players on the winning team who drew their games get 2/3 point each. Conversely, all the players on a losing team who drew their games get 1/3 point each. (Wins are still 1 and losses are still 0, regardless of the team match score.) Note that these point assignments are only for rating calculations only.
Final 2007 United States Chess League Rating List
- Every game in every season of the USCL was rated, not just 2007.
- Only players who were played at least one game in 2007 (i.e., active) are included in the list.
- Players must have played at least three games in the history of the USCL to be included in the list.
- While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, re-rating might occur to correct any mistakes.
1 | 2591 Sergey Kudrin |
2 | 2589 Vinay Bhat |
3 | 2586 Patrick Wolff |
4 | 2581 Larry Christiansen |
5 | 2580 Hikaru Nakamura |
6 | 2579 Jorge Sammour-Hasbun |
7 | 2576 Joel Benjamin |
8 | 2571 Drasko Boskovic |
9 | 2569 Gregory Serper |
10 | 2566 Julio Becerra |
11 | 2543 Davorin Kuljasevic |
12 | 2523 Jacek Stopa |
13 | 2522 Eli Vovsha |
14 | 2519 John Donaldson |
15 | 2505 Pawel Blehm |
16 | 2495 Josh Friedel |
17 | 2494 Alex Stripunsky |
18 | 2491 Lev Milman |
19 | 2487 Georgi Orlov |
20 | 2487 Dean Ippolito |
21 | 2484 Pascal Charbonneau |
22 | 2481 Eugene Perelshteyn |
23 | 2477 Irina Krush |
24 | 2466 Jay Bonin |
25 | 2463 Vince McCambridge |
26 | 2460 Bryan Smith |
27 | 2454 Tegshsuren Enkhbat |
28 | 2453 Dmitry Schneider |
29 | 2449 Denis Shmelov |
30 | 2441 Eric Tangborn |
31 | 2440 Ron Burnett |
32 | 2433 Marcel Milat |
33 | 2432 Slava Mikhailuk |
34 | 2428 Sam Shankland |
35 | 2423 Oleg Zaikov |
36 | 2415 John Bartholomew |
37 | 2415 Robert Hess |
38 | 2411 Richard Costigan |
39 | 2407 Dmitry Zilberstein |
40 | 2406 Jonathan Schroer |
41 | 2405 Keaton Kiewra |
42 | 2402 Irina Zenyuk |
43 | 2399 William Kelleher |
44 | 2397 Blas Lugo |
45 | 2389 David Pruess |
46 | 2389 Francisco Guadalupe II |
47 | 2388 John Readey |
48 | 2387 Andrei Zaremba |
49 | 2386 Aviv Friedman |
50 | 2382 Mikhail Zlotnikov |
51 | 2381 Marcel Martinez |
52 | 2380 Todd Andrews |
53 | 2366 Parker Zhao |
54 | 2365 Elvin Wilson |
55 | 2361 Bruci Lopez |
56 | 2360 Chris Williams |
57 | 2358 Katerina Rohonyan |
58 | 2354 Larry Kaufman |
59 | 2354 Vadim Martirosov |
60 | 2353 Daniel Yeager |
61 | 2343 John Rouleau |
62 | 2334 Mackenzie Molner |
63 | 2333 Eric Rodriguez |
64 | 2327 Bayaraa Zorigt |
65 | 2322 Victor Shen |
66 | 2319 Miguel Espino |
67 | 2314 James Critelli |
68 | 2311 Marc Arnold |
69 | 2309 Michael Thaler |
70 | 2307 Peter Bierkens |
71 | 2304 Luis Barredo |
72 | 2303 Loren Schmidt |
73 | 2301 Evan Ju |
74 | 2301 Gregory Young |
75 | 2300 Matthew Herman |
76 | 2297 Alejandro Moreno Roman |
77 | 2295 Craig Jones |
78 | 2287 Michael Lee |
79 | 2279 John Timmel |
80 | 2276 Ralph Zimmer |
81 | 2265 Daniel Naroditsky |
82 | 2264 Udayan Bapat |
83 | 2263 Ilya Krasik |
84 | 2261 Tsagaan Battsetseg |
85 | 2258 Josh Sinanan |
86 | 2239 Matthew Bengtson |
87 | 2228 Peter Bereolos |
88 | 2211 Jerry Wheeler |
89 | 2209 Gerald Larson |
90 | 2183 James Wu |
2 comments:
Interesting system though I must say it wouldn't be near the top of my choices to use if we were going to modify the way we did it. While your system makes a lot of sense statistically, I really don't like any MVP type system which makes it completely impossible for the lower boards to be at the very top.
This is something I've argued with Greg about as well in our MVP system as it seems very unlikely for a Board 3 or Board 4 to ever win league MVP under our system either (which is the reason I made him change the Board 3 from 2 points to 2.5 points this year, but it's obviously still pretty unlikely for a Board 3 to win). To a point I think that's good, as the top superstars should generally be the ones to win an award of that sort, but certainly someone who goes like 9-1 on Board 4 probably is the most deserving person and yet they likely still wouldn't win (that score wouldn't have been enough to win this year anyway). Of course that's a matter of opinion as to whether they should, and my feeling that they should could have something to do with my personal prejudice since the Board 4 players are the league players closest to myself in strength (gotta stick up for the family!).
I'm assuming you're referring to the way of initial estimated ratings based on board played. I equated this with the initial assignment of rating by age in the USCF system. However, it will all work out in time as the players play one another. Note that this inital rating is done once, prior to the player's first USCL game.
That being said, I agree with you about the MVP scoring system being too biased toward to top boards, and I mentioned to Greg too -- I'm not sure what the solution is.
In any case, I'm not proposing the USCL rating system as a way of doing MVP voting or assessment, although I'm sure you could come up with ways of using it.
Post a Comment