Editor’s column
from the Bridge Bulletin
October, 2019
Records, titles and ratings
Our cover feature this month is a congratulatory nod to the ACBL’s
youngest Grand Life Master, Zach Grossack of New York
City, who recently earned the title at the record-breaking age of 22 years and
3 months. Much of Zach’s success on the
tournament scene has been achieved playing with his older brother, Adam, who
also became a Grand LM last month, although he did so at the hoary old age of
27 years and 7 months.
For those who know the Grossack brothers, the occasion of their mutual promotion
to Grand LM status is a cause for celebration, as they are well-regarded not
only for their skill, but also for their pleasant deportment. They are an ornament to our game.
To earn the Grand Life
Master title, a player must accrue 10,000 masterpoints and win an unrestricted
NABC event. Zach has four open NABC
titles, Adam three, so the limiting factor for them in becoming Grand LMs was
the acquisition of the 10,000th masterpoint, and it is this part of
the title requirement that I wish to focus on.
In chess, the player who
holds the record for becoming the youngest grandmaster in history is Sergey
Karjakin of the Ukraine, who earned the GM title in 2002 at the age of 12 years
and 7 months. Since then, others have
come close to breaking the age record without succeeding. Regardless, there are some three dozen chess
players in the world who acquired the GM title before the age of 15. This is not possible in bridge because of the
time required to amass 10,000 points.
It’s not possible in the ACBL because we still conflate masterpoint
acquisition with skill. It’s not possible because we don’t have a rating
system.
In chess, players who score
a certain percentage against already titled players over the course of several
events can earn titles themselves. The
process is not dependent on how frequently someone plays, but rather how well
someone plays against top-level competition.
If bridge had had a rating system in place, the Grossacks
(and other young, talented players) would have become Grand LMs much
sooner. It is my view that our top
classification should no be linked to masterpoint totals.
Although attaining the rank
of Grand LM is an admittedly narrow topic, the lack of a rating system is
negatively impacting our game in much broader ways, primarily in the manner
that current stratification and flighting rules work against longtime players
whose MP totals outweigh their skill level.
The rationale for a rating system has been explored in this column
before, as well as in a host of letters from members, including some new ones
this month on the following page.
An ACBL Board committee is
actively working on this topic, and particular interest is being paid to the
possibility of adopting some of the existing systems in use by freelancers who
have decided to move forward with their own rating methods. Let’s hope some tangible progress happens
soon.
Paul Linxwiler,
editor@acbl.org
Letters to the Editor on page 7
Editor’s column
from the Bridge
Bulletin
October, 2017
How good are
you at bridge?
The ability to honestly evaluate one's
game is important to many players, especially for those who enjoy the
competitive side of bridge. And since the birth of the ACBL 80 years ago, the tool
that players have used for this evaluation is the masterpoint. As experienced
players know, however, this measuring stick for progress has notable problems.
Even if we set aside the reality of
masterpoint inflation — masterpoints earned before, say, the mid-'70s were much
more difficult to come by - any system that is based simply on accumulation of
points eventually creates a problem. Members who play actively and/or those who
have played for decades will inevitably accrue lots of masterpoints even though
their skill levels may not have appreciably changed,
The effect of this accumulation —
which the late, great Paul Soloway jokingly dubbed "the attendance
award" — is felt acutely by these players late in their careers,
especially in the context of tournaments. Stratification and bracketing rules
are based on masterpoint holdings, forcing these players to compete in games
against top-level players. Some of those affected enjoy the challenge, but many
do not.
Despite membership totals staying
constant for years, attendance at regional tournaments has dropped. There are
likely many factors for this decline (some of which are location specific), but
members, tournament organizers and ACBL officials all suspect that players who
are "upside-down" in the skill-to-masterpoint department are choosing
to play less frequently (or not at all) in regionals.
Other games - chess, for example —
have rating systems that estimate a player's strength based on their recent
performances, A player's rating fluctuates based on how well they perform, and
it yields a much more accurate method of determining how good that player is.
Also, it allows players to compete in events with similar skill levels. Imagine
bridge tournaments that featured stratification and bracketing based on recent
performance instead of lifetime achievement, Advocates for a rating system
began making serious proposals to the ACBL Board of Directors 20 years ago, but
the momentum was not yet there for such a change. To be clear, no one wants to
get rid of masterpoints. The discussion now is whether there should be an
additional method for determining player strength.
See the Letters to the Editor on pg. 7
for a sample of the correspondence on this matter. The arguments for such a
change are persuasive.
Paul Linxwiler, Editor