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

2»

Comments



  • 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.




  • 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with the tournament files submitted: it is an inevitable consequence of all support for tournament organizers being withdrawn last May.




  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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?


  • Advertisement


  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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? ;)




  • mikhail wrote: »
    When has that ever worked in the past? ;)

    There is a first time for everything!




  • 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.


  • Advertisement


  • 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.




  • reunion wrote: »
    Again these are guesses.


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




  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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 :)




  • 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.


  • Advertisement


  • But you are not interested in the issues: just in dishing out abuse.
    As a mod note Pete, attack the post, not the poster. There has been no abuse here - there's been questions raised about your interactions with the ICU, around which your silence is telling, and there's been corrections about your interpretations of events, but no abuse - and I've advised on how to address the issues you have, so can hardly be said to be uninterested.

    If you still disagree with specifics in my posts, point them out. But blanket stuff like the above is not conducive to debate.




  • 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.


    Tournament Reporter status is now back, with access to the facilities that tournament organizers need, which is good. However, although all who were registered as tournament organizers were informed by email when the facilities were withdrawn, we have not been sent notification that they are now back: I stumbled across this by accident. Tournament organizers and arbiters therefore need to be aware that they need to reapply to the Ratings Officer to be accorded these facilities. When I did that, my application was granted within 15 minutes, so there shouldn't be any problem for bona fide applicants.




  • As developer of the ratings website, I'd like to mention the following:
    1. Yes GDPR forced us to hide certain pages from non-logged in members.
    2. The server we use to run the rating and main sites is a very small machine, with little disk space. Yesterday I found the disk was full, which means certain queries fail. We have a plan to move the system to another provider, where we will be able to have a much bigger disk, but this plan takes time, and it will involve no access, or sporadic access to the website for a period of 2 days.
    3. The main ratings page has a very complex query that seems to load a lot of data into memory, and this is more likely to break, as we rate more and more events. Possibly over the Christmas period, I will have time to fix this problem for good. In the mean time, I would recommend using the Live rating list, as the main page to go to. This is much more efficient.


Advertisement