Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Council meeting
I’ve no issue with the ‘squad’ idea for selection either way but the proposed 're-inventing' of the rating system (as coined by Phil I think) is a worry!

Some good points already made in the posts here. What basis is there for only considering the highest tournament results and ignoring the low ones? This seems to defeat the purpose of ratings. Is it the role of selectors to weigh up factors outwith the grading data, or to try to ‘improve’ the rating system itself by trying to squeeze more information out of the data? I thought it was the former.

One new point though, about those TPR’s - which I always thought were just for fun, or should be. This paragraph illustrates the thinking in the parts of the ‘squad’ motion that discuss ratings:

“TPR: Tournament Performance Ranking is a measure of a players performance over the number of games played at a particular tournament. The TPR can reflect the current form of a player more accurately than the players live grade. This indicator is a valuable indication of a player’s progress from one tournament to another.”
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ...</a><!-- m -->

These statements are not correct. The TPR doesn’t ‘measure’ performance. The rating (change in) is the indicator of progress over the period, but individual tournament results jump up and down (for various reasons) and such variations do not indicate progress. That’s looking too close.

To be fair, the actual point being made in the cited paragraph is about the further effect of games with rating difference outwith the 400 gap – but the motion does propose and discuss “the use of a combination of live grade, Scottish congress TPR and selector assessment..”

I’m no expert in the ratings system and I’m aware there are one or two areas of the rating system where I’m not fully conversant with what actually happens – but this philosophy does seem to be at odds with the principles of the system, or rather its statistical basis.

As I understand it, the mathematical meaning of a tournament performance rating is that it’s the rating which would, IF you had already that rating, make your tournament result right on average. Or something like that.

This, even although I like to think that way myself (if I have good one that is :-) ) is NOT the same as the level of rating performance that is the most likely given a player’s results! In fact for a particularly good or bad tournament, especially of shorter duration, it’s usually rather unlikely. For example, in a single game, if one 2000 rated player beats another the ‘performance ratings’ would come out at 2400 for the winner and 1600 for the loser. Not likely! Or even if they played four games and a player won 3-1 the TPRs would be about 2200 and 1800 – still not as likely as that one player played slightly above 2000 and one below. As 400 is the difference where the system predicts almost a 100% score, why should it also be the actual difference when two players with the same rating play?

I'm not criticizing what selectors do. As various people have said, it is right to consider other factors on top of the rating – but that should means factors that are not already included in the data!? Selectors tend to be quite good at that. I appreciate part of the rationale might be trying to firm up policy, make selection more objective etc. But there is sound statistical reasoning for preferring at least 30 games! (Or nearest offer…) Scrutinizing sub-sequences of five games or so would surely just undermine it!?

Where are the council reports ? How can I prepare for the meeting ?
Garry has left Russia because of censorship and concerns for personal safety. I don't advise him to come here. Steve Mannion Snr & Paul Roberts- please come to meeting to protect us.
Council reports are in the announcement!

Andy, we need to be defusing this situation. The in fighting at the moment is not healthy and is preventing good people do work.

My hope is that we can put most of this to bed at todays council meeting but given what has happened in the last 48 hours I am beginning to lose confidence that it will happen.

The real issue is we have several "factions" entrenched in their positions and have to find a way to get everyone working together. That is going to be the challenge we face in the future.

I have a few ideas at the moment but the key thing is going to be to get the main protagonists together talking to resolve their differences.

To do that, we are going to need the patience of a saint, the wisdom of Solomon and the luck of the Irish!

This is as bad as I can ever remember it and we are literally tearing ourselves apart.

I am open as always to ideas on fixing this!
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"
My idea on fixing this is getting Steve Mannion Snr to mediate.
Perhaps invite him to AGM along with any other relevant parties to address the meeting.
Andy Howie Wrote:Council reports are in the announcement!

Not all of them are there Andy. I would like an explanation please as to why my statement, in support of the Child Protection item that I asked to be added to the agenda for today's Council meeting, has not yet been published on the CS website alongside all of the others. To remedy this I posted a link to the document on the forum yesterday but it was removed. Why?
Steve Mannion Snr turned up at meeting and successfully mediated. No-one resigned!
How many dents in the hard hat?
I certainly said my piece in the 5 hour hearing - Hamish Glen & Michael Hanley battled away gamely - and it was good to see some constructive proposals
i thought the council meeting was very peaceful and well chaired by the President. I also thought that the main participants (protaganists is too strong a word) acted in the spirit of conciliation and much good will come of it i'm sure. It is also heartwarming that 2 "old" members have requested to re-join. Given their collective strengths they will be a brilliant addition to our (relatively) happy group. Well done all. Big Grin
I feel a special mention should go to Linda McCusker, given her vested interest in some of the discussions i felt that she was generous in spirit and very conciliatory in her approach. I'm sure this helped greatly to heal some of the wounds that existed prior to the meeting. =)

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)