If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Alexander Donchenko may well be the highest rated IM on the planet after following up Groningen with a joint 1st, 5.5/7 (4 wins and 3 draws), at Basel 2015.
When he'll become a GM, he will be just an average GM if his rating stays the same. Maybe he should avoid GM norms then LOL
It seems clear that Gasimov's current rating is well above his playing strength.
I believe this happened not only because k= 40, but because FIDE uses published (monthly) ratings rather than live ratings to calculate pre-tournament player ratings. In this respect, Gasimov gained 40.80 points from his performance in the Abu Dhabi Chess Festival which was held in August 2014, but was not rated until January 2015. Another contributing factor is that Gasimov played a very large number games (85+!) between August and the January period - all of which probably used an inaccurate pre-tournament FIDE rating (due to the late rating of the Abu Dhabi tournament as well as the typical lag between live and published ratings for under-rated juniors).
Thus, Gasimov's rating appears to be out of line with his actual playing strength because he played so many games in such a compressed time period during which his published rating was much lower than his live rating. As Victor Plotkin wrote about in an earlier post, this can happen when a junior plays in many games in a month before his/her published rating is adjusted, BUT in this case, the number of games played by Gasimov was truly extreme. Further exacerbating matters is the fact that the Abu Dhabi tournament was not reflected in his published ratings until January.
So, it appears that the recipe for this sort of rating overshoot is for a junior under k= 40 to play in tournaments that are not rated in a timely manner and to play in as many games as possible before they are rated. More generally, as noted by Victor Plotkin in his earlier post, anomalous results can happen when a player’s rating is advantaged by the lag between published and live ratings. This was just a very, very extreme example of the general problem identified earlier by Victor.
One obvious loophole that may be closed is to mandate that tournaments which are FIDE rated be done so within a very circumscribed time period. A more encompassing solution to this problem of rating over shoot would be for FIDE to change to rating tournaments on the basis of live rather than published ratings.
This is my understanding of the situation with the curious case of Parviz Gasimov and his rating gain in the past few months. I apologize in advance if I made any inaccuracies in my analysis.
February ratings are now available and even more curious is the case of 13-year-old Shanti Nur Abidah who gained 426.4 FIDE points from a single tournament (evidently her first FIDE tournament in 6 months), leaping from 1823 to 2249, and is now the #1 ranked U14 female on the planet!
Not sure what your point is. I make his results as 22/30 average rating 2244 which includes a number of 2400 opponents. That's a performance rating of ~2430. Clearly stronger than his start rating of 2114. Maybe he has over shot (and would you really want to say a junior improving quickly is over rated?) but his new rating is much closer to his performance rating (more accurate) than if the traditional K=10 was used.
Calling him a CM is clearly wrong and is an attempt to be pejorative in discussing whether the rating change is appropriate.
Last edited by Roger Patterson; Friday, 10th April, 2015, 12:04 AM.
Reason: corrected his start rating
Not sure what your point is. I make his results as 22/30 average rating 2244 which includes a number of 2400 opponents. That's a performance rating of ~2430. Clearly stronger than his start rating of 2114. Maybe he has over shot (and would you really want to say a junior improving quickly is over rated?) but his new rating is much closer to his performance rating (more accurate) than if the traditional K=10 was used.
Calling him a CM is clearly wrong and is an attempt to be pejorative in discussing whether the rating change is appropriate.
I thought juniors below 2400 had K=25 before the switch to 40 and all adult players who have never reached 2400 have K=15. Only players who have ever been 2400+ have K=10, I think. In my opinion, K=40 should only apply up to some reasonably low rating, like 2000.
"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.
A couple of points about K=40 are sometimes misunderstood.
First, K=40 seeks to solve the problem of underrated juniors and this benefits all those who have to play a severely underrated player. Underrated juniors are often a source of frustration to those who have to play them, so K=40 is there as much for the benefit of the opponents of underrated players as it is for the underrated juniors themselves. More generally, it is an approach to solve the endemic problem of underrated juniors as juniors often improve quickly and their rating often lags behind their playing strength. K=40 is designed to shorten that lag period.
Second, it is often forgotten that k=40 cuts both ways and substantial rating losses can and do happen. What k=40 does is increase the volatility of one's rating and what goes up can come down just as quickly (if rating overshoot up to 2300 occurs). Notably, the double-edged nature of k=40 is different than the bonus system used by the CFC to address the problem of underrated juniors. In that system, bonus points are given for new all time highs, but additional losses for new all time lows are not employed. This means that the CFC approach will adjust upwards more quickly than downwards. On the other hand, the FIDE k=40 approach adjusts equally quickly upwards or downwards unless a rating overshoot involves a player's rating exceeding 2300 (in which case, their k factor will be reduced and any subsequent decline will be slower).
Third, the major problem with the k=40 system lies in how its being implemented and the possibility of significant ratings overshoot. Overshoot occurs because the basis for rating gains is one's published rather than live ratings and this means that if a player plays in many tournaments in a period it is possible for them to achieve a final rating that is higher than their performance rating. This problem could be resolved if K=40 were used in conjunction with live ratings. Another solution, would be to cap any rating gain a player might achieve to their performance rating for that period. A third solution would be to adjust a player's k factor to K=20 as soon as their live rating reaches 2300 and not wait until the next rating period. Any of these three solutions would avoid the sort of anomolous rating overshoot that occur very infrequently but generate a lot of attention and consternation.
Fourth, the examples that are used in criticisms of K=40 are extreme and just not very common. They may represent conscious attempts at playing the system by some players or may just happen rarely by chance. However, in the vast majority of cases, K=40 does not lead to players overshooting their performance rating, but rather works effectively at bringing a player's FIDE rating closer to their performance rating quicker. Something that is beneficial to both the player in question and those that have to face them from across the board.
Last edited by Eric Gedajlovic; Friday, 10th April, 2015, 01:28 PM.
Second, it is often forgotten that k=40 cuts both ways and substantial rating losses can and do happen. What k=40 does is increase the volatility of one's rating and what goes up can come down just as quickly (if rating overshoot up to 2300 occurs).
It's necessary to be careful who a junior plays. With careful selection of events it's possible to do wonders for a rating.
Here's an example from the U.S. of how an average player can be rated very high.
I thought juniors below 2400 had K=25 before the switch to 40 and all adult players who have never reached 2400 have K=15. Only players who have ever been 2400+ have K=10, I think. In my opinion, K=40 should only apply up to some reasonably low rating, like 2000.
well, I think the problem here, if there is a problem that is, is that the player played an unusually high number of games. The higher the K, the fewer the number of games that should be used before adjusting the rating. E.g. for the CFC K=32, 25 games is an upper limit . For K=40, the upper limit should be something like 20 games. This guy played 30 before having his rating changed so he benefited unduly from using his low rating and consequently low expected score to max out his (w-e)*K
Last edited by Roger Patterson; Friday, 10th April, 2015, 02:56 PM.
A couple of points about K=40 are sometimes misunderstood.
First, K=40 seeks to solve the problem of underrated juniors and this benefits all those who have to play a severely underrated player. Underrated juniors are often a source of frustration to those who have to play them, so K=40 is there as much for the benefit of the opponents of underrated players as it is for the underrated juniors themselves. More generally, it is an approach to solve the endemic problem of underrated juniors as juniors often improve quickly and their rating often lags behind their playing strength. K=40 is designed to shorten that lag period.
Second, it is often forgotten that k=40 cuts both ways and substantial rating losses can and do happen. What k=40 does is increase the volatility of one's rating and what goes up can come down just as quickly (if rating overshoot up to 2300 occurs). Notably, the double-edged nature of k=40 is different than the bonus system used by the CFC to address the problem of underrated juniors. In that system, bonus points are given for new all time highs, but additional losses for new all time lows are not employed. This means that the CFC approach will adjust upwards more quickly than downwards. On the other hand, the FIDE k=40 approach adjusts equally quickly upwards or downwards unless a rating overshoot involves a player's rating exceeding 2300 (in which case, their k factor will be reduced and any subsequent decline will be slower).
Third, the major problem with the k=40 system lies in how its being implemented and the possibility of significant ratings overshoot. Overshoot occurs because the basis for rating gains is one's published rather than live ratings and this means that if a player plays in many tournaments in a period it is possible for them to achieve a final rating that is higher than their performance rating. This problem could be resolved if K=40 were used in conjunction with live ratings. Another solution, would be to cap any rating gain a player might achieve to their performance rating for that period. A third solution would be to adjust a player's k factor to K=20 as soon as their live rating reaches 2300 and not wait until the next rating period. Any of these three solutions would avoid the sort of anomolous rating overshoot that occur very infrequently but generate a lot of attention and consternation.
Fourth, the examples that are used in criticisms of K=40 are extreme and just not very common. They may represent conscious attempts at playing the system by some players or may just happen rarely by chance. However, in the vast majority of cases, K=40 does not lead to players overshooting their performance rating, but rather works effectively at bringing a player's FIDE rating closer to their performance rating quicker. Something that is beneficial to both the player in question and those that have to face them from across the board.
You do know that rating requirements are part of what's necessary to become a titled player, right? So, for example, this young man has met the rating requirement to become a GM. Looks like he doesn't even have an IM norm. Further, his inflated rating is going to make him eligible for certain tournaments, receive invitations, etc. These "anomalous" occurrences are, I predict, going to become more and more common as long as the status quo remains.
"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.
Yes, ratings are one criteria for IM and GM titles, but norm requirements are also in place. Regardless, these rare anomalous cases are probably detrimental and could be dealt with in one of the 3 ways I outlined in my third point...
"Overshoot occurs because the basis for rating gains is one's published rather than live ratings and this means that if a player plays in many tournaments in a period it is possible for them to achieve a final rating that is higher than their performance rating. This problem could be resolved if K=40 were used in conjunction with live ratings. Another solution, would be to cap any rating gain a player might achieve to their performance rating for that period. A third solution would be to adjust a player's k factor to K=20 as soon as their live rating reaches 2300 and not wait until the next rating period. Any of these three solutions would avoid the sort of anomolous rating overshoot that occur very infrequently but generate a lot of attention and consternation."
For K=40, the upper limit should be something like 20 games. This guy played 30 before having his rating changed so he benefited unduly from using his low rating and consequently low expected score to max out his (w-e)*K
K-40 looks to me like a nightmare. A player who gains a high rating under the current system shouldn't be too fast in losing the points once his K factor equals 10. In addition he'll qualify to play against higher rated players with ratings closer to what he has now.
Tweet
Comment