Rated players under 1000

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Rated players under 1000

    Originally posted by John Brown View Post
    I think that everyone deserve there opinions but in the long term chess will dissolve and all your opinions will dissolve as well. You all created the problem . I do not like the results. I think the rating system is tainted. And will never be corrected until the cfc dies.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Rated players under 1000

      I think it escalated because Omar's initial response to John seemed, shall we say, a little condescending (to put it lightly).
      In any case, most threads on CT turn into a complete gong show sooner or later.
      ...Mike Pence: the Lord of the fly.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Rated players under 1000

        Hi John:

        I am not directly answering your question, but the Scarborough CC facts below may be interesting:

        1. The U 1400 Section (There are three sections) at SCC, has just this year become an exclusively junior section. As I understand it (I was not at last Thursday's SCC AGM where this was decided), now all adults under 1800 play in the middle U-1800 section (Even if their rating is 1399 or lower - even 800).

        2. Of the currently posted pre-registration list for the first new tournament of SCC's 2017-8 season, the Howard Ridout Memorial Swiss, starting tonight, of the 22 pre-registrants in the U 1400 junior section, I would bet 50% are rated 999 or lower or unrated (Not sure because ratings not given on the pre-reg list posted here on Ct). And I would expect when Rd. 1 starts tonight at 7:30 PM, the total juniors in the U 1400 section will be at least 30 registrations, and my 50% figure will still hold. I cannot report after the round on this, because SCC usually does not post the players rankings in the sections at the start of the round, including ratings.

        But I will advise once the standings have been posted on the SCC website later in the next week (They include current rating).

        Bob A
        Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Thursday, 14th September, 2017, 11:04 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Rated players under 1000

          All the CFC and the chess 'n math has to do is to start a junior at 1000 or higher and this U1000 problem would be solved, removed ,deleted and fixed.. Increase their rating systems for the lower than 1000 players and give them a proper rating. Or do not let U1000 players play in an U1600 section. This also works for a guy like me who is now 1496. I should not be able to play in a section higher than U1600. Can you consider if I played up and I played like my 1970 old
          20 years plus rating and I beat some
          U2000 players how much rating points they would lose????? that would start a new complaint. Get rid of the U1000 ratings. I don't care how much you rating guys feel that a poor player should be rated poor. Set your high jump level at 1000 as the lowest rating a Player can have and they can never go below that.
          The idea is simple you just don't want to change a system that is flawed because you don't want to admit that you were wrong setting the level so low. If I beat an U1000 I gain what about 2 points . Heh I won I should get 16 but oh no your opponent's rating is so low that he reaps 14 of those 16 so you gain 2. So get rid of this huge rating difference so people get their deserved rating points. Or make it so if your difference is 350 or more I get my 16 and I lose nothing but the lower guy gets 14 for playing me and does not effect my rating. Or you can give these lower rated players a rating of 1700 and then the U2000 would be complaining the way I'm complaining now. Lower rated players are the problem not juniors.

          The only main complaint I have about Juniors is they are unruly. The coaches and chess 'n math teachers do not teach chess manners as part of how to play chess. If the adults did the things juniors do I'd tell them off and embarrass them in public. "Do that to a Kid " and you are an abuser. What about elder abuse with these kids upsetting the older players. A new can of worms.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Rated players under 1000

            Originally posted by Walter De Jong View Post
            FWIW, I remember a lot of my friends having CFC ratings under 1000 in the late 1970s.

            In addition to juniors I've also noticed that seniors can play way above their current rating. They perform like a 1200 for a couple of rounds, but when paired with me, boom, they suddenly remember how they played when they were experts decades ago. I know I've seen you perform way above your rating in some games the last few years.

            Seems to me that what you really don't like is playing young kids. Understandable. Ratings less than 1000 aren't the real gripe. Have you got some friends nearby to play weekend round robins with? So you can play chess and drink a lot of beer at the same time?
            Actually Walter my friends don't provide beer to me at their places only I do at mine. Right now I'm 3-0 in our Nostalgia tournament 40/2 sudden death in 1hr.
            I play chess for fun now and I love tactics but chess is always what you make of it. When I play friends our ratings are all close together so we gain rating points but some have played against lower rated players so they become the catch all of our rating points. I'm not rich but if I was I'd run a tournament where all the lost CFC souls who have given up on the CFC could play with real established ratings and not deal with U1000 players.
            Last edited by John Brown; Thursday, 14th September, 2017, 08:51 PM. Reason: spelling

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Rated players under 1000

              Back in my day, kids would have ratings of 200, and sometimes they'd lose all their games and have negative performance ratings. Shit was wild.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Rated players under 1000

                Originally posted by Lucas Davies View Post
                Back in my day, kids would have ratings of 200, and sometimes they'd lose all their games and have negative performance ratings. Shit was wild.
                What? How is that even possible? Unless it's an arbitrary system where grade 2 kids get a 200 rating?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Rated players under 1000

                  Originally posted by Mathieu Cloutier View Post
                  What? How is that even possible? Unless it's an arbitrary system where grade 2 kids get a 200 rating?
                  I vaguely recall doing crosstable entry way back for the CFC and there were a few NF players with negative ratings. Not performance ratings, but actual ratings. That was why the 200 rating floor was introduced.

                  The CFC performance rating formula meant that if someone say scored 0-5 in their first tournament vs a field averaging less than 400, they would get a negative rating.

                  Found some info:

                  http://chess.ca/sites/default/files/98-99gl1.pdf (see page 10)
                  Last edited by Tom O'Donnell; Thursday, 14th September, 2017, 11:38 PM.
                  "Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Rated players under 1000

                    Originally posted by Tom O'Donnell View Post
                    I vaguely recall doing crosstable entry way back for the CFC and there were a few NF players with negative ratings. Not performance ratings, but actual ratings. That was why the 200 rating floor was introduced.

                    The CFC performance rating formula meant that if someone say scored 0-5 in their first tournament vs a field averaging less than 400, they would get a negative rating.

                    Found some info:

                    http://chess.ca/sites/default/files/98-99gl1.pdf (see page 10)
                    But then again, a beginner is always around 1000. Maybe a little bit below, but not much. Going 0-5 against a bunch of 1000 still grants you a 600 PR. And from there, you can hardly go down?

                    I just don't understand how someone could reach a 200 rating in the current system. Lowest current FQE players are all around 800 or 900. Which mean doing so-so against a bunch of 1000-1200. No shame in that, by the way. You love the game, you can play, whatever your level is!

                    But my question remains. Was there something fundamentally different back then? How many games do I have to lose to get to 200?
                    Last edited by Mathieu Cloutier; Friday, 15th September, 2017, 12:16 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Rated players under 1000

                      Originally posted by Tom O'Donnell View Post
                      I vaguely recall doing crosstable entry way back for the CFC and there were a few NF players with negative ratings. Not performance ratings, but actual ratings. That was why the 200 rating floor was introduced.

                      The CFC performance rating formula meant that if someone say scored 0-5 in their first tournament vs a field averaging less than 400, they would get a negative rating.

                      Found some info:

                      http://chess.ca/sites/default/files/98-99gl1.pdf (see page 10)
                      Wow, you wrote that instruction manual almost 20 years ago? That's incredible, nice job! Still looks great.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Rated players under 1000

                        It looks like it was changed so that performance ratings no longer show as negative, but here's an example of a tournament in which five different players got a rating of 200: http://chess.ca/crosstable?tournamen...021&key=170915

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Rated players under 1000

                          As Victor Plotkin pointed out recently, CFC ratings are already inflated compared to FIDE and USCF (not that this keeps me up at night).

                          Bumping up every low rated player, most of whom actually deserve their low ratings, to 1000 will add untold thousands of rating points to the pool. These new rating points will migrate up to the stronger players because the newly promoted 1000 level players will continue to lose almost every game, winning only against John Brown.

                          Result: massive rating inflation. That would keep me awake at night.
                          Paul Leblanc
                          Treasurer Chess Foundation of Canada

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Rated players under 1000

                            Originally posted by Paul Leblanc View Post
                            As Victor Plotkin pointed out recently, CFC ratings are already inflated compared to FIDE and USCF (not that this keeps me up at night).

                            Bumping up every low rated player, most of whom actually deserve their low ratings, to 1000 will add untold thousands of rating points to the pool. These new rating points will migrate up to the stronger players because the newly promoted 1000 level players will continue to lose almost every game, winning only against John Brown.

                            Result: massive rating inflation. That would keep me awake at night.
                            Well Paul if they don't want to change the rating bottom level then restrict U1000 players from playing up. When they obtain a rating higher than that section then allow them to play in the next section. That will surely stop this major loss of rating points to higher rated players.

                            One question;
                            How can increasing a 400 rated player to 1000 migrate them to stronger players? Don't let them play up until they go over say 1200. If they are good they'll move up faster. If they are bad players they stay in the U1200. I do not understand why you'd increase my rating just because you make the U1000's increase to 1000.
                            If a guy is only 985 why would you give them more than 15 points?
                            This is why your system fails you up everyone's rating when you should only up the U1000 to 1000.

                            Just one note I have won or drawn more juniors than have beaten me. But of course being 62 next week makes most players I play juniors.
                            Last edited by John Brown; Friday, 15th September, 2017, 05:28 AM. Reason: addition

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Rated players under 1000

                              Originally posted by Mathieu Cloutier View Post
                              What? How is that [negative performance rating] even possible? Unless it's an arbitrary system where grade 2 kids get a 200 rating?
                              Bonjour Mathieu,

                              The same thing happened, for intance, in the 2105 Ch. jeunesse du Québec. I found an old thread where you kindly explained me that there was no physical meaning to it, and then more people weighed in on advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to ratings.
                              Last edited by Vadim Tsypin; Friday, 15th September, 2017, 07:16 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Rated players under 1000

                                Originally posted by Mathieu Cloutier View Post
                                But then again, a beginner is always around 1000. Maybe a little bit below, but not much. Going 0-5 against a bunch of 1000 still grants you a 600 PR. And from there, you can hardly go down?

                                I just don't understand how someone could reach a 200 rating in the current system. Lowest current FQE players are all around 800 or 900. Which mean doing so-so against a bunch of 1000-1200. No shame in that, by the way. You love the game, you can play, whatever your level is!

                                But my question remains. Was there something fundamentally different back then? How many games do I have to lose to get to 200?
                                Ya it's pretty much impossible to start with a rating of 600 and drop it to 200.

                                However, if you run a tournament with a bunch of 600s and an unrated or two, and the unrateds score 0%, then you have one or two 200 players. Run a tournament with a bunch of these 200s and an unrated or two and ...

                                BTW, it's possible to do the opposite. Someone with a better memory than I can probably give details of the Timmins rating pyramid from 30(?) years ago.
                                "Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X