ICU Ratings site

Pete Morriss

Does anybody know what is happening to the ICU Ratings site?

On 23 May I received an email from the Ratings Officer, which was sent to all tournament organizers, saying that the special facilities on the site for tournament organizers were being rescinded pending an overhaul of the site. They have still not been restored. This has not only had the effect that tournament organizers cannot upload tournament results to the site, but we also cannot access the information about players that we need to run a tournament.

One might have thought that the ICU would have kept its members informed about what was happening – either here, on the main ICU site or on the ICU ratings site - but they haven’t bothered to do so. Indeed, the information links on the ratings site haven’t been updated, and tell tournament organizers to do things that now cannot be done.

I wrote to the Ratings Officer some time ago to ask whether the facilities would be restored, and received a reply saying that they were working on it. But three months is surely far too long for the ratings site to be not functioning, and some communication to members is long overdue.

cdeb

I would imagine it is to do with GDPR.

Pete Morriss

cdeb wrote: »

I would imagine it is to do with GDPR.

No doubt. But that doesn't explain why the website has been dysfunctional for three months, with no word of information to ICU members. And GDPR was known about two years or more in advance (there was a query about its implications posted on this forum last October).

HaraldSchmidt

Pete,
it would appear that all user's who used to be tournament reporters have had their rights removed. I presume this is due to GDPR.
If you want to upload a tournament file, you could send it to the webmaster.

Pete Morriss

HaraldSchmidt wrote: »

Pete,
it would appear that all user's who used to be tournament reporters have had their rights removed. I presume this is due to GDPR.
If you want to upload a tournament file, you could send it to the webmaster.

So will tournament reporters' "rights" be restored (as the Ratings Officer has said they will be) or not? These "rights" are simply essential facilities for running tournaments.

As I said in my initial post, the problem is not mainly that tournament organizers cannot upload results, but we cannot access the information about players which we need in order to run a rated tournament. Thus we cannot know the current rating of any entrant who is not at present a paid-up ICU member. Also, the rating lists now available do not include a player's ICU ID, which is required information in submitting results and essential for identifying entrants.

This really is an unacceptable shambles, and GDPR is no excuse: other rating systems (e.g. FIDE and the ECF, to give just two) seem to have been able to continue functioning. And the lack of communication is just treating tournament organizers with contempt.

cdeb

Given the amount of work the ICU exec have put into the game in the past three years, I think it's unacceptable to accuse them of being a shambles or of treating people with contempt.

GDPR is a real thing, whether you like it or not.

Have you tried asking the committee? (Not necessarily the ratings officer; there's others on the committee)

I don't think an uninformed rant on a public forum can really help resolve the matter in any way tbh.

Pete Morriss

cdeb
FYI I am not uninformed: I thought that there was a code on this forum not to attack posters. I think it is important that ICU members should know that the ICU Ratings Site has not been providing tournament organizers with essential information for more than the last three months. Nobody here has denied this, or indeed addressed the issue. Problems do not disappear by being ignored - bringing them to light is one of the main functions of forums like this.

cdeb

I'm not asking you to ignore it. On the contrary, I've suggested you contact the committee directly.

I find it ironic that you can accuse me of a personal attack while accusing the ICU exec of contempt. Double standards, no?

pawntof4

Pete Morriss wrote: »

This really is an unacceptable shambles, and GDPR is no excuse: other rating systems (e.g. FIDE and the ECF, to give just two) seem to have been able to continue functioning. And the lack of communication is just treating tournament organizers with contempt.

I'm not sure FIDE is an organisation I'd pin my hopes on being compliant with GDPR.

Perhaps a follow-up email to the ICU would produce a more desirable result than going back on forth with cbeb on the rules of boards.

Pete Morriss

I have not attacked a poster: you have.

But I don't want you to side track this discussion from the very important one which I raised and which nobody has answered: what is happening to the ICU Ratings site, and will it be restored to give tournament organizers what they need (and if so, when)?

reunion

You are wrong about the ICU rating site being a "shambles" or "dysfunctional". 
I can see events have been rated so clearly it is working. It's working perfectly fine. It just works differently now. 

You haven't mentioned WHY you need access? Are you running a tournament? If you are, the system works for other tournaments so there is clearly a solution for people running a tournament. 

To note: my understanding is that a rated individual should pay their ICU fees (and would appear on the ratings site). Otherwise they shouldn't be accepted into the tournament. So this is really an issue for unrated players?

FYI attachment shows how to get ICU ID of available rating lists.

Pete Morriss

Reunion
No events are shown as having been rated since 30 June, but that is not my main complaint.

Of course tournament organizers need access so that they can run tournaments. I thought it made sense to flag this up before the start of the season, when many tournament organizers will be starting tournaments.

reunion wrote: »

To note: my understanding is that a rated individual should pay their ICU fees (and would appear on the ratings site). Otherwise they shouldn't be accepted into the tournament. So this is really an issue for unrated players?

So is that what this is really about? Is it a back-door way of preventing tournament organizers from accepting entries from people who haven't (yet) paid their fees? If so, introducing such a change without having the courage to announce it is sneaky, to put it mildly. And, if so, why were people who weren't paid-up members allowed to play in the Irish Championship earlier this month?

Also all tournament organizers have been saved a lot of time by being able to download the rating info and enter it directly into their pairing software, rather than entering each one by hand. (It's also far more accurate, as there is no possibility of introducing typos.) The instructions on how to do that are still up on the ratings site, even though the facility has not been there for over three months. If you have ever had to enter 150 or 200 entries - or deal with a dozen last minute entries - you will certainly appreciate the significance of this loss.

reunion

Pete Morriss wrote: »

Of course tournament organizers need access so that they can run tournaments. I thought it made sense to flag this up before the start of the season, when many tournament organizers will be starting tournaments.

I think by emailing the ICU you flagged it with them. I don't see how any posts or posters here could solve an issue that the ICU have known and researched.

Pete Morriss wrote: »

So is that what this is really about? Is it a back-door way of preventing tournament organizers from accepting entries from people who haven't (yet) paid their fees? If so, introducing such a change without having the courage to announce it is sneaky, to put it mildly. And, if so, why were people who weren't paid-up members allowed to play in the Irish Championship earlier this month?

Who wasn't a member? They should be members but let's not derail a thread.

Pete Morriss wrote: »

Also all tournament organizers have been saved a lot of time by being able to download the rating info and enter it directly into their pairing software, rather than entering each one by hand. (It's also far more accurate, as there is no possibility of introducing typos.) The instructions on how to do that are still up on the ratings site, even though the facility has not been there for over three months. If you have ever had to enter 150 or 200 entries - or deal with a dozen last minute entries - you will certainly appreciate the significance of this loss.

No it's not about that... I was making the note that technically rated players should be members of the ICU.

My opinion here:
1. Anybody who is thinking about possibly organising a tournament in the future should let the ICU know in advance. It's only an issue WHEN someone organises a tournament and closer to the start date of said tournament. That's when the information should be available.

2. There are solutions to this issue without the ratings site. With an AGM coming up, it's not pressing.

3. Doesn't the online payment method provide all the information to the organisers? If that is the case there is no need to allow anyone to download all the ICU information. If you don't want to use the new method to organise a tournament, then it'll have to be done by hand.

sodacat11

I have no idea who is right and who is wrong in this argument but I don't think that Pete is being unreasonable in asking for an explanation from the Rating Officer or someone in the know.
I expected the Irish Championship to have been rated by now.I entered a number of tournaments this week (four actually) and had to use my old rating which is at least 35 points below my next one.

cdeb

sodacat11 wrote: »

I have no idea who is right and who is wrong in this argument but I don't think that Pete is being unreasonable in asking for an explanation from the Rating Officer or someone in the know.

I agree.

So why not ask?

Tim Harding

Rather than write in this thread, I emailed the ICU chair privately within minutes of Pete's first post appearing. He said they are aware of the issues, but the ratings officer was away last week and should be dealing with matters now.

I know before he went away the ratings officer had processed many tournaments but the Glorney/Gilbert results from July had not reached him and these had to be put in the system first.

I agree that there are issues here which will need to be addressed at the agm and said that in my email to the chairman.

GDPR is of course an EU thing so FIDE does not have to be compliant.

In the past ICU has not usually removed people's ratings when they haven't paid membership dues, as in the early season that would mean almost nobody's rating would be available. Generally they wait until the end of the year/January before getting tough?

The debate in this thread has also confused quite a few different matters:

a) What changes exactly does GDPR enforce?

b) Will we ever again be able to see the full range of rating data about players other than ourselves?

c) What facility will be made available to arbiters/TOs to get player data for entrants to their events? And how soon will this be available? (Pete's main issue)

d) Will the new ratings be posted soon, and obviously this is urgent with the City of Dublin imminent (not to mention the leagues) as otherwise many players will be in the wrong sections and/or grading prizes awarded to the wrong players.

e) Probably other issues too...

sodacat11

That GDPR really is a nonsense no matter how well intentioned. It reminds me of previous E.U directives concerning the curvature of bananas and the banning of home made cheese industries that had been flourishing for hundreds of years. Over paid bureaucrats trying to justify their fat cat existences yet again.

cdeb

sodacat11 wrote: »

That GDPR really is a nonsense no matter how well intentioned.

I think your ICU number and rating are potentially considered personal data, and so there are restrictions on having that info publicly displayed.

GDPR has its genuine reasons, but if the above is an issue, then yeah, it's strayed way, way beyond what it should be covering.

pawntof4

Tim Harding wrote: »

GDPR is of course an EU thing so FIDE does not have to be compliant.

This is not true. FIDE must comply with GDPR

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/25/gdpr-us-based-news-websites-eu-internet-users-la-times

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rules-business-and-organisations/application-regulation/who-does-data-protection-law-apply_en

Tim Harding

pawntof4 wrote: »

This is not true. FIDE must comply with GDPR

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/25/gdpr-us-based-news-websites-eu-internet-users-la-times

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rules-business-and-organisations/application-regulation/who-does-data-protection-law-apply_en

Oh really? Realistically how can this be enforced if FIDE elects a non-EU president in Batumi? It has not changed anything yet so far as I can tell.

pawntof4

Tim Harding wrote: »

Oh really? Realistically how can this be enforced if FIDE elects a non-EU president in Batumi? It has not changed anything yet so far as I can tell.

It looks like it will be hard to enforce but FIDE's headquaters are in Athens. If large US companies are cutting off European user's access to their websites, the EU must have some sort of mechanism. After a quick google I found this which seems interesting.

Enforcement Outside EU: Chapter 5 of the GDPR relates to handling of data by non-member countries or organizations. The relevant text relating to enforcement of fines is from Article 50, titled "International cooperation for the protection of personal data":

(1) In relation to third countries and international organisations, the Commission and supervisory authorities shall take appropriate steps to:

a) develop international cooperation mechanisms to facilitate the effective enforcement of legislation for the protection of personal data;

b) provide international mutual assistance in the enforcement of legislation for the protection of personal data, including through notification, complaint referral, investigative assistance and information exchange, subject to appropriate safeguards for the protection of personal data and other fundamental rights and freedoms;

c) engage relevant stakeholders in discussion and activities aimed at furthering international cooperation in the enforcement of legislation for the protection of personal data;

d) promote the exchange and documentation of personal data protection legislation and practice, including on jurisdictional conflicts with third countries.

Vampslayer

Ratings updated now..........

Tim Harding

Vampslayer wrote: »

Ratings updated now..........

Not fully I think. As of 11pm I can see the July and August tournaments with players' rating changes from the events but they have not yet been applied.

Probably Andrew has to submit the tournaments for FIDE rating next. It is very close to the deadline for these to be included in the FIDE September list which surely is very important especially for players going to the Olympiad. As of a few minutes ago the FIDE rating site was still showing the Stillorgan events as not submitted.
Or maybe he has but there is a time-lag before the website flags them as submitted?

Tim Harding

Astonishing gain of 221 points by Peter Carroll. What K coefficient is that based on?
His FIDE gain will presumably be rather less but still impressive.

zeitnot

Maybe the “Bonus rating points” stuff kicked in? It’s hard to see how it wouldn’t.

sodacat11

Tim Harding wrote: »

Not fully I think. As of 11pm I can see the July and August tournaments with players' rating changes from the events but they have not yet been applied.

Probably Andrew has to submit the tournaments for FIDE rating next. It is very close to the deadline for these to be included in the FIDE September list which surely is very important especially for players going to the Olympiad. As of a few minutes ago the FIDE rating site was still showing the Stillorgan events as not submitted.
Or maybe he has but there is a time-lag before the website flags them as submitted?

FIDE received the Irish Championship results TODAY??? Why on earth was it left so late to submit them? It will be interesting to see if FIDE are efficient enough to use them for tomorrow's rating list.

Tim Harding

sodacat11 wrote: »

FIDE received the Irish Championship results TODAY??? Why on earth was it left so late to submit them? It will be interesting to see if FIDE are efficient enough to use them for tomorrow's rating list.

Indeed. The ratings officer does tend to leave this to the last minute but I guess he knows the deadlines.
You can always check the status by going to the FIDE rating site, click Tournaments, then select country=Ireland + GO, and see which events are scheduled to be submitted in a given month and whether this has been done or not.

As of 1155pm Thursday I can see that all the Stillorgan results are now marked as submitted but very late as some are dated 31/8.
Then I went to the Ratings/Advanced Search and search for all Irish rated players (sort by rating/descending). As of midnight, the rating changes for some Irish players had been applied, but none from the Stillorgan events. However we can hope that they will be applied in the next few hours, maybe by the time people read this posting.

I don't know how the process works but maybe it's semi-automated.

Tim Harding

All is well; the September FIDE ratings are up and include the Irish Championships including (I think) the subsidiary tournaments.
Peter Carroll has gained 147 FIDE points and is up to 1940.
David Murray gained 73 points and is above 2200 for the first time I think (2222).

Vampslayer

What has happened to the "Live" Rating list. Am I missing something as I do not see this on the Rating Site anymore?

Tim Harding

Vampslayer wrote: »

What has happened to the "Live" Rating list. Am I missing something as I do not see this on the Rating Site anymore?

Maybe this is a victim of GDPR? Or just the late publication of the August list for the reasons discussed earlier. I expect that will be completed over the weekend as it's needed in advance of the City of Dublin Championships and the Leagues.
Or will the ratings used for the Leagues be those calculated AFTER the City of Dublins and IM Norm League are completed?

Can somebody who really knows tell us?

Maybe we shall be given a full account at the agm of what the problems have been and what the plan is to ensure timely ratings publication for players and organisers in the new season.
If monthly lists on time is not an attainable goal, we should go back to quarterly.

Rathminor

Any word as to why the Glorney is not yet rated?
It was rated by Fide last month and a full cross table is available on the Glorney website.
It will need to be rated prior to the leagues starting to ensure the correct opening ratings are in place. It has a knock on impact on multiple players as it took place before the various Irish Championship events.
The Stokes, Robinson and Gilbert are included in this weeks rating uploads.

Tim Harding

Rathminor wrote: »

Any word as to why the Glorney is not yet rated?
It was rated by Fide last month and a full cross table is available on the Glorney website.
It will need to be rated prior to the leagues starting to ensure the correct opening ratings are in place. It has a knock on impact on multiple players as it took place before the various Irish Championship events.
The Stokes, Robinson and Gilbert are included in this weeks rating uploads.

The Glorney is actually shown as rated now.

Pete Morriss

Pete Morriss wrote: »

Does anybody know what is happening to the ICU Ratings site?

It seems that the answer to my question is that if anybody in the ICU does know, they are not saying: nobody from the ICU has posted an explanation here or on the ICU sites, and Tim reports getting the brush-off from the ICU chair (“we are aware of the issue and are dealing with it”). Further, the ICU documentation for the AGM has reports from officers – but no reports at all from either the Ratings Officer or the “web team”. The silence couldn’t be more deafening.

Meanwhile, the ratings are not being done properly. Thus in the recently rated Dublin Masters, both Alvaro Valdes Escobar and Michael De Verdier are treated as “Foreign player (rating is not tracked)”, though both have ICU ratings which should have been updated. Similarly in the Ulster Championship, rated last month, Steve Scannell is described as “New player (rating is not tracked)”, though he is not a new player and has an ICU rating; Ross Harris is treated as a player “with no previous rating”, though there is a player with that name who has an ICU rating. Of course, not only are the ratings of these four individuals affected, but the rating of everybody they play will be slightly wrong, and that affect cascades through the system. There are almost certainly other inaccuracies in other tournaments; I only did a very quick check. To be clear: this is not the fault of the tournament organizers or how the Ratings Officer has dealt with the tournament files submitted: it is an inevitable consequence of all support for tournament organizers being withdrawn last May.

Tim Harding

I did not say I "got the brush-off" from John McMorrow; that is Pete's interpretation.

However I do intend to attend the agm in the hope of getting answers.
There I hope and expect that a lot of matters will be clarified and debated.

Also of course we would like to see the Ratings Officer's report published in advance, since this is perhaps the main area where many members are not happy with the ICU executive's otherwise impressive performance in the past 12 months.

cdeb

Pete Morriss wrote: »

It seems that the answer to my question is that if anybody in the ICU does know, they are not saying: nobody from the ICU has posted an explanation here

Nobody is obliged to reply on here. And in fairness, given your current interactions with the ICU committee, it may be understandable that they are reluctant to enter into public discourse.

Meanwhile, the ratings are not being done properly. Thus in the recently rated Dublin Masters, both Alvaro Valdes Escobar and Michael De Verdier are treated as “Foreign player (rating is not tracked)”, though both have ICU ratings which should have been updated.

This can happen; I've found that the ratings officer is very receptive to small errors being pointed out, and the ratings list can be adjusted very quickly if this is brought to his attention.

sodacat11

Tim Harding wrote: »

I did not say I "got the brush-off" from John McMorrow; that is Pete's interpretation.

However I do intend to attend the agm in the hope of getting answers.
There I hope and expect that a lot of matters will be clarified and debated.
.

I wanted to attend the AGM but am unwilling to waste another weekend trying to negotiate the ridiculous Dublin traffic layout. Perhaps you or someone else would be good enough to second my motion regarding rating floors for the Irish Championship?

Tim Harding

sodacat11 wrote: »

I wanted to attend the AGM but am unwilling to waste another weekend trying to negotiate the ridiculous Dublin traffic layout. Perhaps you or someone else would be good enough to second my motion regarding rating floors for the Irish Championship?

I can do it as a formality but you really need somebody to make an impassioned speech in support of the motion.

sodacat11

Tim Harding wrote: »

I can do it as a formality but you really need somebody to make an impassioned speech in support of the motion.

I haven't shut up about it for months. I think that the motion will be passed if only to keep me quiet before next year's championship.

mikhail

sodacat11 wrote: »

I haven't shut up about it for months. I think that the motion will be passed if only to keep me quiet before next year's championship.

When has that ever worked in the past?

sodacat11

mikhail wrote: »

When has that ever worked in the past?

There is a first time for everything!

Pete Morriss

Pete Morriss wrote: »

The silence couldn’t be more deafening.

Just an update on this. At the AGM on Sunday there were no Reports from the Ratings Officer or Webmaster; neither was present in person to answer questions; and the Chairperson claimed not to know anything at all about what was going on - he either hadn't bothered to get briefed on the issue, or the Officers concerned had failed to co-operate with him. Further, the outgoing Ratings Officer did not stand for re-election, and there were no nominations from the floor, so the ICU currently has no Ratings Officer. So the shambles has got even worse, and ICU members are still being kept entirely in the dark.

reunion

Pete Morriss wrote: »

Just an update on this. At the AGM on Sunday there were no Reports from the Ratings Officer or Webmaster; neither was present in person to answer questions; and the Chairperson claimed not to know anything at all about what was going on - he either hadn't bothered to get briefed on the issue, or the Officers concerned had failed to co-operate with him. Further, the outgoing Ratings Officer did not stand for re-election, and there were no nominations from the floor, so the ICU currently has no Ratings Officer. So the shambles has got even worse, and ICU members are still being kept entirely in the dark.

I would remember this is a VOLUNTEER organisation and "shambles" I feel is quite inappropriate. I wouldn't call this a "shambles" - at best it's a mild inconvenience to you - please treat it as such. You can still play chess, the games will be rated but not in a timely manner as you have come to expect - which shows how well the previous rating officer did their job. So we should thank him for his years of service and the help he provided.

There are also more than 2 options you suggested. Your post gives me flash backs to those stupid Irish Chess Leaks sites.

If you believe it's gotten so bad, why didn't you put your name forward to help? Or suggest someone who could?

How are ICU members kept entirely in the dark? We currently have no ratings officer and nobody nominated themselves at the AGM... doesn't seem like they are doing a good job keeping everyone entirely in the dark. Maybe the ICU are secretly hiding a rating officer and keeping it from the chess playing public :rolleyes:


I trust the ICU executive are working towards the betterment of Irish Chess, yeah maybe an area isn't as strong as it could be, but so what? Again it's a VOLUNTEER organisation.

I point to your original complaint (no flagging?) that people can't access the ICU database if they are thinking about possibly running a tournament at an unspecified time. If this is still your complaint, try contacting the organisers of the city of Dublin. How did they get it rated? My guess people paid online (so consented to their details being handed over) and the 1% that didn't pay online were put in manually. As for the "errors", my next guess is these players submitted their entries incorrectly or the database wasn't updated with these players.

Again these are guesses, probably not what happened, but more likely then a massive conspiracy theory and the ICU is actually a crumbling house of cards.

Pete Morriss

reunion wrote: »

Again these are guesses.

Quite, that is precisely my point: we are reduced to guessing.

cdeb

Yes, but you can make reasonable guesses or off-the-wall guesses.

I would imagine a good chunk of the membership would be more concerned by your own actions than by this issue.

sodacat11

The job of Rating Officer is an onerous one that must take up a huge amount of time and effort. We have been very lucky to have such good people do the job over the years. My opinion is that they should be immune from any criticism and instead should be praised for undertaking such a thankless task.

Rathminor

For many years the ratings website has been the best feature / component of our ICU fee. The two most recent ratings officers have performed a great service to all members, and their efforts are appreciated.
I would be optimistic that the new appointment will work out very well. It’s an area the new officer has an interest in, as he previously set up and operated a rating scheme for junior chess players for intra-schools and junior chess tournaments. Here’s to wishing him success in the role.

Pete Morriss

cdeb
You should try to curb your penchant for irrelevant personal attacks and, instead of showing your prejudice against the messenger, should learn to address the message. At the AGM on Sunday it was clear that there was considerable concern amongst ICU members about what has happened to the ratings system in the past twelve months. You would be unaware of that, as you weren't at the meeting.

That said, the ICU has now appointed a new Ratings Officer. I contacted him today with my concerns, and he replied near-instantly and positively. It will obviously take him a while to work on the issues - whatever they are - but I am more hopeful now than I was 24 hours ago that the ratings site can be restored to full functionality in the near future. It has indeed been excellent in the past, and I hope it will be again in the future.

cdeb

Nothing at all irrelevant about my comments in the context of you demanding that ICU exec members come on line and answer your excessive whines Pete. It shows a startling lack of awareness to think otherwise. This was always a minor issue - the ratings officer a victim of his own success effectively, as people now worry about a lack of instant rating updates when ten years ago we were quite happy with three updates a year.

cdeb

Incidentally, I wasn't at the meeting, but from what I've heard, there was no "considerable concern" on the matter, there was a brief discussion with two questions asked, one by you. Other matters were discussed for longer.

This, coupled with Tim's own correction of your interpretation of his words, lead me to believe you're not being entirely partial here.

sodacat11

Could someone please let me know the next time that cdeb and Peter Morriss are going to meet over the board? That's a game I really want to see

Pete Morriss

cdeb wrote: »

Nothing at all irrelevant about my comments in the context of you demanding that ICU exec members come on line and answer your excessive whines Pete. It shows a startling lack of awareness to think otherwise. This was always a minor issue - the ratings officer a victim of his own success effectively, as people now worry about a lack of instant rating updates when ten years ago we were quite happy with three updates a year.

Quite: there were huge improvements when Mark Orr was Ratings Officer up to 2015. If you'd bothered to read my posts, you would see that my concern was entirely about changes since May (2018). And whilst others were concerned about slowness in rating events, I was not. But you are not interested in the issues: just in dishing out abuse.