Evaluation of the
DDDE Ratings Proposal


USCF Ratings Committee

The Ratings Committee has been requested by the Executive Board to perform an analysis to evaluate the recent DDDE ratings proposal, which was communicated to the Committee as consisting of the following three components:

1. For tournaments of three rounds or more, 2 points per game will be added to the ratings of players finishing all rounds. This will apply to regular ratings only.
2. Players with 2400 ratings at the start of the tournament will not receive additional points.
3. The proposed adjustments will be in effect for one year only, and will be prominently publicized.

The purpose of the proposal, as it was explained to the Committee, is to increase tournament activity. The rationale given to us was that players were discontinuing participation in USCF-run events because their ratings were deflating.

As we describe below, the Committee strongly recommends against this proposal's adoption. We conclude that, after one year beyond its implementation, a significant number of ratings would become nearly meaningless, and the rating system, one of the USCF's most important promotional tools, would cease to be functional.

Committee member Thomas Doan has recomputed all USCF ratings based on games played from January 1998 through September 1998 from archival data under two systems. First, he recomputed ratings using the new system that will be implemented at the USCF in the next month. In the discussion below, this will be termed the ``ordinary'' system. Secondly, he recomputed ratings using the new system with the addition of the DDDE proposal. A comparison of the two sets of resulting ratings provides information about the effect of the DDDE proposal. The following is a summary of the difference between the two sets of ratings.

• On average, players are 2.75 points higher per game played under the DDDE proposal. The players in the analysis played an average of 14.09 games in 9 months. The average rating increase over 9 months was 30.16. Many active players (686) had no rating difference with the DDDE proposal, but many (956) increased by 100 points or more. A list of the most inflated ratings appear in the appendix.
• 275 players would become masters under the DDDE proposal that would not under the ordinary rating system. This corresponds to 31% more active masters.
• 95 players would become senior masters under the DDDE proposal that would not under the ordinary rating system. This corresponds to 41% more active senior masters.
• Despite extra points not being awarded to players rated over 2400 under the DDDE proposal, these players still undergo substantial increases in rating from games against lower rated players. In particular, players that would be rated 2400 and over under the ordinary system are, on average, 14.3 points higher under the DDDE proposal. One player was 85 points higher, reflecting the large number of games played.
• One player, XXXXXXXXXXX, played 286 games from January 1998 through October 1998. His rating under the ordinary system would be 1868. Under the DDDE proposal, his rating would be 2366, a difference of 498 points. There were several players who competed in fewer than 300 rated games, yet their ratings increased by over 300 points. In particular, XXXXXXXXXXXX's rating would have increased from 1915 to 2257 under the DDDE proposal from playing 272 games, XXXXXXXXXXXXX's rating would have increased from 1866 to 2201 from playing 276 games, and XXXXXXXXXXXXX's rating would have increased from 1981 to 2301 from playing 295 games.

While the above analysis is based on actual tournament data, and only 9 months of game outcomes rather than 12 months, we need to stress that the effect of the DDDE proposal is likely to be much worse than the above analysis suggests. The DDDE proposal is an invitation to abuse. The preceding analysis demonstrates the effect of the proposal when players are not aware of the frequency-based rating additions (players in 1998 had no particular incentive to compete more often). If the DDDE rating proposal is prominently publicized, it is easy to imagine that some players will actively exploit the system, leading to enormous rating gains (worse than the type demonstrated in XXXXXXXXXXXXX's case).

The goal of the rating system is to provide an accurate measure of playing ability for the purpose of ranking, sectioning, prize-eligibility, and qualification to invited events. Any rating proposal that is at odds with these goals undermines its functionality. In particular, any proposal, such as the one generated by the DDDE committee, that awards rating points as a consequence of frequency of play, is in direct opposition to the goals of the rating system. We therefore strongly recommend against the specific proposal, and against similar proposals that award rating points as a consequence of playing frequency.

The new rating system, which has been tested extensively, has solid anti-deflationary mechanisms that will prevent ratings from declining over time. Under the new system, players who have exceptional performances will have their ratings increase quickly, so that improving scholastic players will reach appropriate rating levels faster than under the old system. For example, a player with an established pre-tournament rating of 1300 (based on 45 games) competing against players rated 1250, 1400, 1500 and 1550, winning 3 and drawing 1, will have a post-tournament rating under the new system of 1434. Under the old system, the post-tournament rating would have been only 1368. The Ratings Committee therefore suggests immediately marketing the anti-deflationary aspects of the new system.

Mark Glickman, Committee co-chair
Frank Camaratta, Committee co-chair, ANTD, NM, ICCF IM
Christopher Avery, NM
Harry Cohen,
Thomas Doan, STD
Bill Goichberg, NTD, FM
Albyn Jones
Larry Kaufman, IM
David Kuhns, NTD
Alan Losoff, NTD
Andrew Metrick, NM
Kenneth Sloan, STD
Christopher Yaure

Appendix

                              Ordinary       # of       DDDE  Rating
      ID             Player     Rating      Games     Rating  Diff
--------------------------------------------------------------------
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1868        286       2366  498
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1915        272       2257  342
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1866        276       2201  335
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1766        437       2096  330
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1981        295       2301  320
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1915        223       2210  295
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        2047        267       2330  283
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1615        152       1897  282
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        2106        232       2381  275
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1961        189       2235  274
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        2115        169       2388  273
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1739        175       2011  272
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        2040        121       2306  266
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1918        117       2176  258
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1452        155       1700  248
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1940        129       2184  244
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1912        125       2156  244
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1730        194       1974  244
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1812        205       2056  244
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        2132        166       2375  243
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1663        393       1905  242
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1696        185       1930  234
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1961        138       2191  230
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        2038        185       2266  228
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1805        186       2032  227
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1859        159       2084  225
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        2102        191       2326  224
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        2097        134       2319  222
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1671        118       1893  222
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1849        105       2069  220
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1762        159       1981  219
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1971        147       2190  219
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        2215        183       2433  218
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        2066        141       2283  217
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1992        174       2206  214
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1947        249       2160  213
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        2054        135       2266  212
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1761        200       1972  211
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1971        133       2182  211
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1827        144       2035  208
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1459        207       1666  207
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1929        128       2135  206
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        2175        152       2381  206
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        2094        237       2300  206
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1865        140       2070  205
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1942        131       2146  204
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        2191        284       2394  203
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        1913        186       2114  201
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        2089         94       2290  201