CFC Cross Rating of FIDE Rated Events

[Eric Gedajlovic]

Over on the CFC site, the governors are currently voting on the following motion...

"436. Rating Non-Residents. If a non-resident player or new Canadian resident has a USCF or FIDE or FQE rating, the rating system in which the player has played the most recent games will be used to determine his first CFC rating. If a non-resident is inactive in Canada for a year but has a change in his/her USCF or FIDE or FQE rating, his/her CFC rating will be adjusted accordingly. [Leblanc/McKim, Oct 2013]A Canadian may have a foreign FIDE-rated tournament count for their CFC rating by sending a letter to that effect in advance to the CFC. (And include $25 in advance with the letter sent to the CFC office. The letter should be received by the CFC office not less than 1 month before the start of the event, and include the $25 flat rating fee. - CFC Office policy effective December 1st, 2003) The CFC will rate the event only to the extent that FIDE does. Results must be reported within one month after the tournament is completed. Failure to submit a crosstable after registering an event bars the player from registering a tournament participation for three years. [see Motion 78-15; GL, April 1978, p. 39]"

Only governors can comment on that site, so I am posting some feedback and questions here.

It seems that there is a provision allowing CFC members to apply to have a specific foreign FIDE rated tournament cross rated as CFC, but this requires that someone sends a letter 30 days ahead of time and enclose $25.

These provisions seem a bit onerous and work against the intent of the regulation. While I appreciate the logic behind having to provide some advance notice (to prevent people from only submitting their good results), why is 30 days necessary and why does the request have to be in the form of a letter? Why not just require an email requesting the cross rating anytime before play begins? Further, the $25 fee also seems a bit burdensome both financially and in terms of logistics. Is it really necessary?

Doing a bit of research, I discovered that the USCF handles this issue in a different way.

For players with FIDE ratings 2200 and above, all foreign FIDE rated events are cross rated automatically. The player has no choice, whether he/she wants it or not, their FIDE results are cross rated.

For players rated below 2200 FIDE, USCF members can "opt in" to have their FIDE results cross rated, but once they "opt in" they can never opt out again and this seems sensible as it prevents people from cherry picking the results they want cross rated. Importantly, these USCF procedures require no specific applications on a tournament by tournament basis and involve no fees.

One additional thing the USCF does is to adjust the FIDE rating to make it USCF rating equivalent. For players rated above 2000, FIDE ratings are multiplied by 1.02 and 20 points are added. So, for example 2000 FIDE is treated the same as (2000 * 1.02) + 20 = 2060 USCF.

The USCF approach seems much fairer in the sense that it is applied uniformly and does not depend on players deciding whether or not to apply for a specific tournament. It also seems more workable for both players and administrators rather than the ad hoc one that is being proposed.

Does anyone else have a perspective on how or whether foreign FIDE rated should be CFC cross-rated?

[Paul Leblanc]

Re: CFC Cross Rating of FIDE Rated Events

Eric, to start with you have copied an incorrect version of my motion. Not your fault but my motion was "editorialized" and is in the process of being restored to its original form which does not refer to FQE members as non residents.
I am quite interested in your idea and look forward to this discussion. At the moment, many of our strong players have large differentials between their CFC and FIDE ratings, in most cases CFC being considerably higher. I have been unable to come up with a protocol to address this and perhaps putting their FIDE events into the CFC rating system would help.

A consideration is complexity and manpower. The USCF has many more resources than the CFC and I have to be careful about policies that increase office workload. We have a good E.D. but his staff is himself.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: CFC Cross Rating of FIDE Rated Events

Over on the CFC site, the governors are currently voting on the following motion...

"436. Rating Non-Residents. If a non-resident player or new Canadian resident has a USCF or FIDE or FQE rating, the rating system in which the player has played the most recent games will be used to determine his first CFC rating. If a non-resident is inactive in Canada for a year but has a change in his/her USCF or FIDE or FQE rating, his/her CFC rating will be adjusted accordingly. [Leblanc/McKim, Oct 2013]A Canadian may have a foreign FIDE-rated tournament count for their CFC rating by sending a letter to that effect in advance to the CFC. (And include $25 in advance with the letter sent to the CFC office. The letter should be received by the CFC office not less than 1 month before the start of the event, and include the $25 flat rating fee. - CFC Office policy effective December 1st, 2003) The CFC will rate the event only to the extent that FIDE does. Results must be reported within one month after the tournament is completed. Failure to submit a crosstable after registering an event bars the player from registering a tournament participation for three years. [see Motion 78-15; GL, April 1978, p. 39]"

Only governors can comment on that site, so I am posting some feedback and questions here.

It seems that there is a provision allowing CFC members to apply to have a specific foreign FIDE rated tournament cross rated as CFC, but this requires that someone sends a letter 30 days ahead of time and enclose $25.

These provisions seem a bit onerous and work against the intent of the regulation. While I appreciate the logic behind having to provide some advance notice (to prevent people from only submitting their good results), why is 30 days necessary and why does the request have to be in the form of a letter?

That regulation was written at a time that no one had email so it is not mentioned. I don't think anyone has used that rule in many years.

Why not just require an email requesting the cross rating anytime before play begins? Further, the $25 fee also seems a bit burdensome both financially and in terms of logistics. Is it really necessary?

It is probably not necessary but such a request imposes a burden on the office which probably should require a fee. If fifty people asked for this service it would probably become unmanageable fairly quickly.

Doing a bit of research, I discovered that the USCF handles this issue in a different way.

For players with FIDE ratings 2200 and above, all foreign FIDE rated events are cross rated automatically. The player has no choice, whether he/she wants it or not, their FIDE results are cross rated.

For players rated below 2200 FIDE, USCF members can "opt in" to have their FIDE results cross rated, but once they "opt in" they can never opt out again and this seems sensible as it prevents people from cherry picking the results they want cross rated. Importantly, these USCF procedures require no specific applications on a tournament by tournament basis and involve no fees.

One additional thing the USCF does is to adjust the FIDE rating to make it USCF rating equivalent. For players rated above 2000, FIDE ratings are multiplied by 1.02 and 20 points are added. So, for example 2000 FIDE is treated the same as (2000 * 1.02) + 20 = 2060 USCF.

The USCF approach seems much fairer in the sense that it is applied uniformly and does not depend on players deciding whether or not to apply for a specific tournament. It also seems more workable for both players and administrators rather than the ad hoc one that is being proposed.

Does anyone else have a perspective on how or whether foreign FIDE rated should be CFC cross-rated?

The USCF has several people working in their office solely on ratings. They have mathematicians on staff. They have a yearly budget of several million dollars. They are a registered charity and are able to issue tax receipts for donations.

We could probably do it if we had the USCF administer our rating system though there are questions of sovereignty and costs. I had some brief discussions with Ruth Haring on this topic before the FIDE election but we never got down to specifics.

[Andy Shaw]

Re: CFC Cross Rating of FIDE Rated Events

They are a registered charity and are able to issue tax receipts for donations.

Is the CFC a registered charity?

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: CFC Cross Rating of FIDE Rated Events

Is the CFC a registered charity?

It used to be. It hasn't been in some years now.

[Andy Shaw]

Re: CFC Cross Rating of FIDE Rated Events

It used to be. It hasn't been in some years now.

And why is that...

[John Coleman]

Re: CFC Cross Rating of FIDE Rated Events

CRA changed its definition of a charity a few years ago, and started looking at the 88,000 charities in Canada to see who met the new definitions. The CFC perhaps could have fought harder at the time to avoid being delisted, but (presumably) felt that the cost of the fight, compared with the chance of success, wasn't worth it. I believe that Canada is now down to "only" 85,000 charities.

from a CRA publication:
Registered charities are charitable organizations, public foundations, or private foundations that are established in Canada and are resident in Canada. They must have charitable purposes that fall into one, or more, of the following four categories:
•the relief of poverty;
•the advancement of education;
•the advancement of religion; or
•other purposes that benefit the community in a way the courts have said are charitable.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: CFC Cross Rating of FIDE Rated Events

Does anyone else have a perspective on how or whether foreign FIDE rated should be CFC cross-rated?

Other way is to rate all CFC tournaments in FIDE (and discard the CFC rating system.)

[Eric Gedajlovic]

Re: CFC Cross Rating of FIDE Rated Events

Hi Paul,

Thanks for replying to my original post. Statistical theory suggests that more accurate estimates of a player's strength for the purposes of pairings, awards, qualifications and "top x" lists will be obtained by considering a greater number of data points. As a result, there is an important benefit to including foreign, FIDE rated tournament results in the calculation of our national ratings (as the USCF does). One additional wrinkle concerns how to make the data comparable because of the systematic deflation of FIDE ratings relative to CFC ratings, but this issue seems quite tractable and my original post indicates how the USCF deals with this issue.

The issue of manpower is outside of my purview and field of vision, but I think its useful in the first instance to consider what is the best approach to the calculation of ratings and then see the extent to which practical considerations allow for its implementation. Since the USCF currently automatically cross-rates for those about 2200 and others who opt-in, perhaps they can offer some guidance regarding the practicalities and availability of information systems to help with such an approach.

Eric, to start with you have copied an incorrect version of my motion. Not your fault but my motion was "editorialized" and is in the process of being restored to its original form which does not refer to FQE members as non residents.
I am quite interested in your idea and look forward to this discussion. At the moment, many of our strong players have large differentials between their CFC and FIDE ratings, in most cases CFC being considerably higher. I have been unable to come up with a protocol to address this and perhaps putting their FIDE events into the CFC rating system would help.

A consideration is complexity and manpower. The USCF has many more resources than the CFC and I have to be careful about policies that increase office workload. We have a good E.D. but his staff is himself.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: CFC Cross Rating of FIDE Rated Events

One additional thing the USCF does is to adjust the FIDE rating to make it USCF rating equivalent. For players rated above 2000, FIDE ratings are multiplied by 1.02 and 20 points are added. So, for example 2000 FIDE is treated the same as (2000 * 1.02) + 20 = 2060 USCF.

Eric, please elaborate on this statement. What do you mean the USCF adjusts the FIDE rating to it's USCF equivalent?
Are they actually changing their USCF ratings to equal that formula, FIDE x 1.02 + 20.
Are they really amending their USCF ratings to equal something higher that FIDE? In effect, guaranteeing an "inflated USCF rating"

Or, are they simply acknowledging the difference between USCF and FIDE?

Have I misunderstood something?

[Eric Gedajlovic]

Re: CFC Cross Rating of FIDE Rated Events

Hi Vlad,

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my original post. Here are some additional thoughts...

1. As I noted in my follow-up to Paul, its important to get the most accurate estimates of playing strength for the purposes of pairings, awards, qualifications and "top x" lists and the inclusion of data from foreign FIDE rated tournaments as is standard practice at the USCF would be helpful in that regard.

2. Even without any other changes to the CFC's policy regarding the cross-rating of foreign FIDE rated tournaments, could the regulation be updated to reflect the widespread use of email? That is, could the regulation be changed to ask simply for an email before the start of play in the Foreign FIDE rated tournament?

3. I understand that not many have made use of the provision to have foreign FIDE rated events cross-rated and I believe that this is due to many factors including the difficulty and cost in exercising the provision to cross-rate (i.e. the need to apply on a tournament by tournament basis, 30 day advance notice by mail, receipt of fee) and the fact that FIDE ratings are treated at par for cross-rating purposes despite the fact they are systematically deflated relative to CFC ratings. I imagine that more people would exercise the option to cross-rate their Foreign FIDE tournaments if these issues were addressed.

4. It may, or may not make sense to charge a $25 fee for cross-rating depending on whether the CFC wants to promote or retard such applications. However, even if it decides that a charge is in order, could it be made easier to remit the fee, though a credit card or paypal transaction for instance.

5. Your suggestion that the USCF might be able to carry our some of the computational tasks associated with CFC ratings is interesting. Provided policy decisions and rating formulas are still determined by the CFC, such an approach need not adversely affect CFC sovereignty. In this regard, given the manpower constraints noted by Paul, it may make sense to have an organization with a larger critical mass of staff handle regular updates and computational tasks if this allows the CFC to implement an enhanced system of player ratings in a cost effective manner.

Those are my thoughts for now. Thanks for listening.

That regulation was written at a time that no one had email so it is not mentioned. I don't think anyone has used that rule in many years.



It is probably not necessary but such a request imposes a burden on the office which probably should require a fee. If fifty people asked for this service it would probably become unmanageable fairly quickly.



The USCF has several people working in their office solely on ratings. They have mathematicians on staff. They have a yearly budget of several million dollars. They are a registered charity and are able to issue tax receipts for donations.

We could probably do it if we had the USCF administer our rating system though there are questions of sovereignty and costs. I had some brief discussions with Ruth Haring on this topic before the FIDE election but we never got down to specifics.

Hi

[Eric Gedajlovic]

Re: CFC Cross Rating of FIDE Rated Events

Hi Bob,

My understanding is that they use the formula noted in my original post to address what they see as a systematic deflation of FIDE ratings relative to USCF. So, for instance they will convert a FIDE rating of 2000 to (2000 *1.02) + (20) = 2060 for the purposes of subsequent USCF calculations.

In effect, I believe they are saying...FIDE ratings are too low estimates and we must first make them comparable to USCF ratings before we include them in our calculations.

This is just my understanding of how they convert and the rationale for it.

[Eric Gedajlovic]

Re: CFC Cross Rating of FIDE Rated Events

Other way is to rate all CFC tournaments in FIDE (and discard the CFC rating system.)

Hi Egidijus,

Moving to FIDE rating of tournaments and discarding our national rating system certainly offers some clear benefits.

However, the downside is that Canadians would lose some sovereignty regarding the rules and regulations under which tournaments take place. Additionally, Canadians would be at the mercy of FIDE with regard to rating services and this could result in increased costs and regulatory burdens both as they exist today and in terms of how they may be changed in the future.

Those are my 2 cents on a complex issue.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: CFC Cross Rating of FIDE Rated Events

Hi Vlad,

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my original post. Here are some additional thoughts...

1. As I noted in my follow-up to Paul, its important to get the most accurate estimates of playing strength for the purposes of pairings, awards, qualifications and "top x" lists and the inclusion of data from foreign FIDE rated tournaments as is standard practice at the USCF would be helpful in that regard.

It probably would be helpful though we would somehow need to get the tournament report and import it or the crosstable and then input that which seems labour intensive.

2. Even without any other changes to the CFC's policy regarding the cross-rating of foreign FIDE rated tournaments, could the regulation be updated to reflect the widespread use of email? That is, could the regulation be changed to ask simply for an email before the start of play in the Foreign FIDE rated tournament?

3. I understand that not many have made use of the provision to have foreign FIDE rated events cross-rated and I believe that this is due to many factors including the difficulty and cost in exercising the provision to cross-rate (i.e. the need to apply on a tournament by tournament basis, 30 day advance notice by mail, receipt of fee) and the fact that FIDE ratings are treated at par for cross-rating purposes despite the fact they are systematically deflated relative to CFC ratings. I imagine that more people would exercise the option to cross-rate their Foreign FIDE tournaments if these issues were addressed.

4. It may, or may not make sense to charge a $25 fee for cross-rating depending on whether the CFC wants to promote or retard such applications. However, even if it decides that a charge is in order, could it be made easier to remit the fee, though a credit card or paypal transaction for instance.

At the present time the CFC would accept notification by email and payments by Paypal for anyone seeking to use this rule.

5. Your suggestion that the USCF might be able to carry our some of the computational tasks associated with CFC ratings is interesting. Provided policy decisions and rating formulas are still determined by the CFC, such an approach need not adversely affect CFC sovereignty. In this regard, given the manpower constraints noted by Paul, it may make sense to have an organization with a larger critical mass of staff handle regular updates and computational tasks if this allows the CFC to implement an enhanced system of player ratings in a cost effective manner.

That is a step that I would only even think of undertaking with a great deal of consultation with the voting members, members and the executive director. Cost would be the key question. It would only make sense if we save money and time that could be used to more productive ends.

Those are my thoughts for now. Thanks for listening.

No problem. The more ideas that are generated the better we can serve the members.