Jump to content

Talk:Alexey Root

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Her current rating is floored at 2000, and has not increased since 1996. [1] Her current 'quick' rating is 1938. [2] In the past 18 months, she has played in seven tournaments and she consistently failed to play at a performance level higher than 2000. [3] In her most recent tournament held on September 13, 2009, she played three games, and lost to a Class A player (1822) and was forced to concede a draw to a Class B player (1638).[4] According to the USCF's official rating estimator, her performance during this tournament alone was equivalent to a 1600 Class B player.[5]

If Alexey Root is going to have an article which celebrates her chess rating twenty years ago, it should be objective and also mention the fact that her rating has plummeted. It is simply the truth that although she once played at the master level, she no longer even plays at an expert level. There is nothing libelous, inaccurate, or mean-spirited about acknowledging that she no longer plays competitive chess with the rigor which she once possessed.

No, nothing libelous, inaccurate, or mean-spirited perhaps, but what is wrong is that none of it is notable. Her past performances clearly were and therefore deserve mention. The recent edits, which do read more like a personal attack, are not really worthy of inclusion, so I would support removing them/reverting back to the much earlier version. If you feel strongly that she should not be regarded as a strong player today, then it is okay to briefly state that she is doing other things, or ceased playing in high level competition, or has latterly seen her rating drop to xxxx; however, telling us in detail about how she fared against a 1600 Class B (whatever that is) player is a step too far - who wants to know? That is my opinion, but others may wish to comment. Brittle heaven (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I have added such extra details, is because certain hostile editors have been reverting this article, instead of attempting to engage in collaborative writing in discussion. My original edit was merely one sentence in length, and I have been providing extra details to demonstrate that her decline in performance is well documented by the USCF. Once we all agree that her significant decline in ability merits mention, I will certainly agree that there is no reason to list every detail of her tournament history. As for not knowing what a "1600 Class B" player is, I suggest you read the article on ELO ratings before you get into arguments about ELO ratings. 68.191.222.229 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I personally think the following is sufficient: "Her current rating is floored at 2000, and has not increased since 1996. [1] Her current 'quick' rating is 1938. [2] In the past 18 months, she has played in seven tournaments and has consistently failed to play at a performance level higher than 2000." The point is simply that although she retains the honorific of 'master', she simply is not a genuine master who would routinely play at the 2200+ level. My addition of her recent 1600 level performance is simply to point out that she is not even coming close to even playing at a 2000 level. 68.191.222.229 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]


Say now, you don't exactly make friends by calling people "hostile". I repeat, I was the first to ask for discussion here, and you ignored that with a big series of edits. Then you accuse me (of not "attempting to engage in collaborative writing in discussion") of the very thing you yourself did, which is pretty dark stuff, in my view. Now, Brittle heaven, another uninvolved editor, agrees that your edits read like a personal attack, and you seem to be digging yourself in deeper and deeper here. You seem obsessed to prove a "significant decline in ability"... which, again, argues against casual interest in this article. I'll look into the whole thing again presently, but last I looked, her rating was 2025. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Best, Jusdafax 22:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry, but would you please stop making hostile personal attacks against me? You have called me a vandal several times, when all I have been doing is adding facts and backing every sentence up with references from the official USCF website. You are being hostile, and you are also violating one of Wikipedia's few rules, which is that you should assume good faith. You are also confusing USCF and FIDE ratings, which are given by entirely different organizations. I am sorry that you feel it is a "personal attack" to observe Root's "significant decline in ability", but dropping from 2200 to 2000 is certainly a significant decline, and it is equally clear that Root's actual ability is well below 2000, as indicated by her recent performance at the 1600 level. 68.191.222.229 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I am well aware of the Elo rating system (it is used worldwide) - I just have no need to learn the vagaries of the USCF version. Similarly, I would not expect Americans to be aware of the subtleties of the ECF rating system, here in the UK. Root's rating has actually been in decline since 1993, but that's pretty irrelevant, because I don't think this is really an argument about Elo ratings, is it? For example, Vasily Smyslov's rating has been in more or less constant decline since 1971 yet no-one is making a big issue of that, are they? Why? Because it's obvious that players peak and trough at different times; they age, they take it less seriously, they don't remain at the top of the game forever. It doesn't detract from their achievements. In this instance, Root has played little high level competitive chess since the mid-90s and that's really all that needs to be said about her decline ... anything more would be inappropriate in my view. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry, but if you are going to debate a USCF rating, you really need to have a different attitude than "I just have no need to learn the vagaries of the USCF version." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.222.229 (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can see you are keen to ignore, or else didn't understand my central point. I'm not debating the rating, it's actually irrelevant and non-notable, as I've tried to explain. At a risk of repeating myself, Anatoly Karpov has lost 150 rating points since his peak - is that notable? No, because he became world champion and that should be where the emphasis lies. Likewise with Root and her US Championship win. As User Jusdafax says, her FIDE rating is 2025 (we mostly use these in Wikipedia Chess articles as opposed to USCF), but the finer detail of her current ratings and decline are not of interest to the casual reader. Bear in mind also that she has played only 12 ratable games since January 2000; such a low level of activity means her current rating is fairly arbitrary and worthless as a guide to present strength - another reason why it is not needed here. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on Karpov and Smyslov do acknowledge their current ratings, so Im not sure what you are objecting to here. As for Root's FIDE rating, as you yourself acknowledge she is not an active FIDE player, but she does still play USCF tournaments and she is a USCF player with a USCF rating whose sole notable claim to fame was in a USCF tournament. In any case, both of her ratings have declined considerably. There are former women's champions whose ratings have subsequently increased by hundreds of points, and there are those whose ratings have declined by hundreds of points, Root is of the latter class. 68.191.222.229 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Indeed, the 1988 and 1990 US Women's Champions both still play chess, and both have ratings 3-400 points higher than Root. I think its notable to acknowledge who has continued to play chess at a competitive level, and who has allowed their abilities to decline. 68.191.222.229 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Your view is radically different to mine. There's no point in going round in circles, so I'll say no more. Hopefully others will comment. Suffice to say that I would support a rewrite along the lines I mentioned above. Brittle heaven (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is no different than the article on Smyslov, they both simply note that the players rating has declined by 2-300 points. What exactly is the problem here? 68.191.222.229 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://main.uschess.org/datapage/ratings_graphR.php?memid=10374651
  2. ^ http://main.uschess.org/datapage/ratings_graphQ.php?memid=10374651
  3. ^ http://main.uschess.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,181/
  4. ^ http://main.uschess.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,181/
  5. ^ http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7875/400/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexey_Root&oldid=1203729659"