20-06-2013, 08:43 PM
Phil Thomas Wrote:Going back to the maths. I hear from a reliable source than the tournament performance in the worked example for Murad the numbers used are not real tournament numbers - they are merely examples to show how the new system works.
That is the mathematical equivalent of Nick Park stating that the moon is made of Wensleydale cheese; and quoting as evidence his 1989 film.
Or, an alternative view is that it is an example... Not using data in the grading system... You know, that thing you complained about here.
Phil Thomas Wrote:The real question here is why are individual players and their results mentioned in the motion ??
You're unhappy when real data is used and unhappy when data is made up. Makes about as much sense as choosing the 10th highest rated player as an indicator of age group performance.
Phil Thomas Wrote:I respond with another question Why not? It could have been anyone from amongst the many notice board readers who is in the subset that feel competent enough to post on the mathematics of grading systems.
Firstly, I'm not sure how the general Chess Scotland public feel about this one. Do you really think the majority of people don't understand how using the mean as an average works??? Because that is exactly what the method is.
Secondly, why you? It was you, it wasn't anyone else. And it is always you. I've lost count of the amount of people you've fallen out with by directly attacking/criticising them. Considering you've shown blatant disdain towards Chess Scotland by withdrawing your membership, I'm amazed you find the will to come on the board and complain about things such as this.
If you don't want to help Chess Scotland move on as an organisation then leave the volunteers who are giving plenty of their time and effort to help. If you do, get a membership and say something positive about something for once. We recently had your wife ranting about how an extra £5 per head was bad value despite the new digs for the Liverpool tournament didn't have a tramp staying there and the beds had that added bonus of not being laced with the previous visitor's public hair. Trying to criticise everything is just a terrible policy and one we cannot have in a community that is trying to pull together to get the grant back.
Just as a little post script, do you not think it's deeply, deeply inappropriate to bring up this example considering the email that recently went around. The one you clearly know about considering the only person to be CC'ed into the original email was your wife?