Note that particularly early (lower rating and less rating stability) you can see, volatility, drop/plateau, improvement, and it repeat. If you could highlight graph chunks (assuming there is sufficient underlying data) it would be interesting to look at.
You can do this for any player by simply copying their rating supplement history out of MSA, pasting it into an Excel spreadsheet and then creating a graph of any period you like. In the case of Shankland, he appears to have ratings updates in most supplements since he started playing in 2002, so my guess is that sufficient data exists to do reasonable yearly analysis.
FWIW, a recent change to the ratings graphs on MSA shows any period of inactivity (over 90 days between events) in green. This is particularly useful for spotting inactivity on Quick ratings graphs
There are many of us, Kevin, with different approaches, that have been, for a fact, highly
successful. I can see that your approach fits your style, probably to the benefit of your
students. Just as in chess, many have different styles, and approaches. The best response I have for you is this: results speak for themselves. Wishing you the best.
Even so, this doesn’t change the basic fact that while ratings reflect current performance, they are not necessarily a good measure of the process of improvement. It is easy to motivate without focusing on something that has such a downside.
We see this with young women, for example, where we now encourage them to focus on HEALTH rather than the number representing their WEIGHT because of the potential damaging effects.
So while there are different approaches, some ideas are still just bad. Stressing ratings is one of them.
Ratings while they most often are behind the curve of those active youngsters, are the best tool for
measurement that we have available. In this they are an EXCELLENT measure of the process of improvement. Further, it is merely your opinion, not shared by a great many others, that there is a
downside. I do respect that your thoughts, as thy are probably based on your experience, are very
real and valid for you. But, as stated before, many of us have used different concepts that have, over
time, proven themselves to be highly effective. Thus, we cannot share you opinion that “focusing on
something that has such as downside”.
Your example regarding women really is irrelevant, for the subject matter is quite different. And the
subject of weight and women does have a direct bearing on health.
And again, lets not confuse facts and opinion, understanding that “stressing ratings” is merely that,
an opinion.
Measurement of strength, not for tracking improvement. Direct observation by a coach is much, much better.
As already demonstrated, this is incorrect.
Actually, it is the opinion of many, and several spoke up in this forum. One can easily talk to strong instructors - GM’s, IM’s, Masters, etc. I suspect that the feeling is almost universal today that while ratings are a tool they should not be over stressed and are not the only nor necessarily even the best tool.
Just look at this thread Rob. Even people who often vehemently disagree with me expressed the same opinion in this very thread.
If you are stressing ratings then you are not teaching kids or developing them to the best ability. Ratings are not grades. They do not measure knowledge (not that grades always do, but they are closer than ratings.)
As does the subject of ratings. When over stressed, kids think like kids, and just as they do with weight they begin to attach the worth of people - both others and themselves - to a number. It’s a bad, bad idea that many of us have seen go wrong in the past.
Its an opinion shared by the best teachers; Given that there are no facts other than anecdotal information.
Again, while I am sure many good teachers do share your opinion, I also know many
just as excellent do not even come close to sharing your opinion. And further, that someones lofty title as a player, quite often means very little in regards to their ability
as a teacher, esp for beginning and intermediate level players. There simply is not
a necessary direct correlation between the two. For an example, some of the best
books I have seen written for the beginning and intermediate player were written by
those in the primary and secondary teaching field, not titled masters. The important
question at this level is not necessarily what the teacher knows, but the effectiveness
in communicating their knowledge to the average student in their charge.
Please name them. I’d like to discuss it with them because I currently know of no good reputable teacher that stresses ratings.
Besides the ones that are apparent in this thread, I could name a number of GM’s, IM’s, FM’s and top trainers in the U.S. who would disagree with your assessment, so I’d like to see just who thinks that its wise to stress ratings for kids. Kids already do enough to be too ratings conscious.
While I am aware this can be true, I am also aware that there are a good many strong players who can do quite well with with beginner and intermediate students. I have personal experience with a number of GMs, IMs, FMs, WGMs, etc. who do quite well in this respect.
While a strong player is not necessarily a good teacher, the best teachers are very often fairly strong players, because they have to have a mastery of the game to understand what is truly important.
I haven’t had that experience.
Both are important. You’re underplaying teacher knowledge. I’ve watched many an undirected B player send novices down the wrong path - I’ve watched few if any masters do so.
But even so, Rob, this is all off the track. Here is what you claimed:
I find this statement to be false for all of my students. I find it to be false in the best chess programs. I find that kids play because they enjoy chess, support each other and support their school team.
You stated:
I find that attitude to be irresponsible and harmful to kids, and I hope that you change that attitude soon.
One problem with stressing ratings is that kids see their ratings grow from 300 to 500 with some effort, then from 500 to 700 with a lot more effort, then only reach 850 with an even greater incremental effort. Some of those kids then get frustrated because the almighty rating number isn’t going up as fast. At least one coach has reacted to the extent of having students skip USCF rated play so that they don’t get caught up in ratings over-expectations.
First, you can “find” whatever you wish. For they are so far afield of reality, in the opinion, and let
me stress the word, once again, “opinion”, just as you have an “opinion”, of many including titled
players, that do not come close to sharing your “opinion”.
For starters, in regard to authors, Google this name-buy his books, for your students will prosper
JOHN A BAIN. I have known other talented writers, Al Woolum for another, that have
written very successful books. In fact, Bain’s books are the de facto text books for some
school-system wide chess programs that I know of.
DENTONCHESS wrote:
More than trophies, more than placement, more than cash, this is the key reason most of our advancing youngsters play. Nearly EVERY one of them want to see INSTANTLY at the end of the tournament what their rew ratings will be–if they have achieved new milestones.
Kevin you might not agree, or have seen this in many of the bright young players across our federation.
But, there are some outstanding chess clubs in DFW that could very well influence your opinion, if
ever visited.
And that is generally the coach who apparently lacks the ability to properly emphasize and use ratings.
But, a key here is that the major education process is very often with the parents. The coach
must be involved in explaining the K factors, and the increasing difficulty level. One cannot have
a hands off approach.
Even with a hands on approach, far to many parents get focused on little Johnny’s rating to little Johnny’s detriment. This is stuff that people have figured out for years, Rob. It’s a BAD idea.
Do me a favor. Write a description of the rating system here that you would give a standard parent.
We can focus the kids on:
a) ratings
b) trophies
c) winning
d) scoring at some level in a tournament
e) quality of the game
f) development of socialization skills
g) learning multiple thinking techniques
h) having fun
We can do some or all of the above. Some of the metrics we use have upsides and downsides. Each individual student has their own individual needs and what motivates them to learn. A chess teacher tries to push enough buttons to get the kids to study and play. We can influence them concerning what we feel is important. Ultimately, they will decide what pleases them and drives them to perform. I personally do not emphasize ratings that much. When the rating increase slows down, as will always happen, frustration on the part of the student and the parent rises. You have to explain the nature of learning and the obstacles. Some of the greatest rewards come not from watching a rating rise but from the growth of the student into a thinking person who understands his potential, his limitations, and how he copes with adversity. I certainly prefer to see a student who loves to play chess more than he/she loves their rating.
