Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

ICU Ratings site

  • #1
    Registered Users Posts: 184 ✭✭ 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sent to all tournament organizers, saying that the special facilities on the site for tournament organizers were being rescinded pending an overhaul of the site.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.


«1

Comments



  • I would imagine it is to do with GDPR.




  • 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).




  • 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,
    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.




  • 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.


  • Advertisement


  • 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.




  • 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?




  • 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.




  • 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)?




  • 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.


  • Advertisement


  • 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.




  • 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.
    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.
    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.




  • 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.




  • 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?




  • 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...




  • 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.




  • 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 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.




  • 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.


  • Advertisement


  • Ratings updated now..........




  • 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?




  • 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.




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




  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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).




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




  • 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.


  • Advertisement


  • 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.


Advertisement