More Tab in MSA

All Things Chess
1

Hey Guys,

I don’t know how long the more tab has been on the MSA page but I have a question about it.

First off, I LOVE IT!!! I like that it tracks my milestones and since I didn’t play before 1991 it is accurate for me.

But, I don’t understand the the Catagory Title’s. It says that I achieved one in a tourment but I don’t know what that really means and then I looked up another play who achieved the titles in the following order:

2nd Category Title, then
1st Category Title (1st and 2nd were at the same event I should note)
Candidate Master Title, then
3rd Category Title

Does this have something to do with the Norm stuff that the USCF is working on?

Thanks,
~charlie

2

Yes, those are the norms-based titles. What it shows is when the final norm (the 5th one) was earned. Since it is possible to earn norms for more than one title level at the same event, it is possible to earn more than one title at that event.

(I was wondering how long it would take for someone to notice that they are up, they went live at 8:30 AM this morning.)

It will take a while to make the details on norms earned available, that will require refreshing the entire crosstable database, a process that normally takes a month.

I still need to do some cleanup on the titles earned data to eliminate superfluous ones, dealing with archival data back to 1991 produced some interesting oddities.

Update: the ‘More’ tab on the MSA page that was encapsulated into the website yet (ie, from the left menu section) will now redirect to the ‘standalone’ page at msa.uschess.org so that the milestones page is available from both MSA sources.

3

Could you provide definitions for what 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc mean? I think they refer to Expert, A, B, C player?!

4

I just added a link to the USCF Titles specs to the Milestones page.

Candidate Master is essentially Expert, 1st Category is essentially Class A, etc.

5

So following line in my more tab means I made my 1st category title at the tournament listed?

2008-05-06 1st Category Title 200805068481 1

If that’s the case I better try harder to stay off my 1700 floor. :blush:

6

The latest refresh of the milestones data should have corrected the issue with lower level titles being awarded after higher level ones. They may still be awarded at the same event.

Yes, Polly, that does show the event at which your 1st Category title was awarded, ie, when you got the 5th norm at that level.

It is possible that a title might be awarded immediately, because the 4th through 1st Category titles require the player have an established rating and the Candidate Master, Master or Senior Master title include a minimum ratings requirement.

As far as I can tell, there have not yet been any instances of someone earning a 5th norm at any level without also having already achieved the necessary rating.

7

This new tab is really cool! Thanks for putting it together!

Can you put together the statistics of the USCF population as a whole? For example, how many players are 4th category, 3rd category, etc?

8

Highest Title Earned:

[code]Level Number

4 7974
3 7384
2 6130
1 4187
C 2112
M 658
S 201[/code]

9

This is very nice!

Just so I can better understand: what were my “norm events” towards the CM title?

main.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMile … p?10152763

I’m amused that I earned the norm in an event which (besides one nice upset) I consider a dismal failure.

And what (if any) Master norms have I earned? (I understand that I may never earn the title in this lifetime because of the minimum rating requirement, but holding out that possibility may increase member activity.)

The unattained title is the carrot that motivates more play! So as good as this is, I do think there needs to be some feedback given to members on “distance to next norm.” (Marketing is good.) Ditto for the “number of wins” milestones.

It would be cool to market to ex-members saying “You’re only x away from a y norm.”

10

I expect to have the details of which events players earned norms at available over the next few weeks.

11

Mike do you think there could be somekind of glitch in the more tab info?

Mine stops at 2007-05-26 50 Quick/Dual Rated Wins 200705268361 1

I checked my stats on my MSA program to see if it was still working and actually expected my
numbers to be less if anything on some individuals because the MSA program as written doesn’t check for reentries.
Instead for example with my program I come up with the following.

243 Opponents Total Rated Games = 657 —> 329 Wins 65 Draws 263 Losses

But this is data up to basically last Monday.

I spot checked a few others and it seemed like their data was ending to soon also.

???

12

I show 329 regular rated wins and 74 quick/dual rated wins, Wayne, which is consistent with the milestones page. (A dual rated event can count as both regular rated and quick rated, of course.)

My regular rated draw and loss totals also agree with yours.

The win milestones are at 25, 50, 100, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, etc.

13

Cool. I do think the “in progress” ones should get preference in the display over the historical ones.

14

Perhaps you meant y title or wins milestone?

As to promoting it, there are obviously multiple things that could be done including sending emails to players when they earn a title or reach the next wins milestone. (Sending letters could be too expensive.)

Similarly, we could email lapsed members letting them know how close they are to their next title level or wins milestone, along with a list of upcoming events in their area. (We already send such a list with renewal emails.)

15

Exactly!

16

My confusion was that for some reason I expected 300 to be a milestone.
I don’t know why. It is nice that our totals match. :slight_smile:

17

There’s a link on the milestones page to show a player’s norms history now.

18

Beautiful! Thank you for your hard work, Mike. This is absolutely wonderful!!

I do have a quibble about the formula. It’s great for short events: cheap norms are denied. But I think the formula sets unreasonably high expectations for long events.

For example, a player can have a 2500+ performance rating in a 12-round event and not even come close to scoring a Life Senior Master norm. To me, this is counterintuitive.

Example:

Albert C. Chow
MSA 11299083
1994 US Open - Calculation of Life Sr Master Norm

Note: Chow’s pre-event rating was 2383

Ri Y ∆i Ci Si Si - Ci

1771 2400 629 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000
2006 2400 394 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000
2100 2400 300 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000
2164 2400 236 1.0000 0.5000 -0.5000
2186 2400 214 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000
2656 2400 -256 0.1800 0.5000 0.3200
2651 2400 -251 0.1863 0.0000 -0.1863
2154 2400 246 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000
2225 2400 175 0.9375 0.5000 -0.4375
2217 2400 183 0.9575 1.0000 0.0425
2488 2400 -88 0.3900 1.0000 0.6100
2323 2400 77 0.6925 1.0000 0.3075

	Cr	9.3438		
	Sr		9.5000	
	Sr - Cr			0.1563

Chow failed to earn a norm because Sr - Cr was not > 1.0

But Chow scored 8-1 against the “rabbits” under 2400 (perf. rating something like 2467) and 1.5-1.5 against the players > 2400 (all of whom were GMs - perf. rating in those 3 games of 2598). His performance rating for the event (12 rounds!) is around 2500. One could toss out the Class B player in round 1 and get similar results for the 11-rd event.

One may reasonably argue that 9.5 points wasn’t enough, given this field, but 10.5 points? Jeepers, that’s hard.

Setting Si for the rabbits at 1.0 is fine for short events, but it should not be impossible to earn norms at US Opens, World Opens, etc. - in these longer events, a performance rating 100+ points above the norm level is more meaningful than the norm system reflects.

But as I said, this is a quibble. Thank you very much!

19

Your report was chopped off, Bill.

I didn’t develop the formulas, that was the work of the Ratings Committee.

20

I sent something more legible by snail mail.

The Ratings Committee did a great job, too. It’s easier to come up with fixes for longer events (if they deem it necessary–I may be offbase) than to cheapen the norms by making them too easy to earn.

But one wants to particularly encourage folks to play in the longer events, I’d think.