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.
Class B and under are those who have 1799 and under.
Taking stats from the file mentioned in this thread, after deleting those with 0 rating (active players), deleting "FO" and "US" members/players:
Total count: 36647
Rating 2199 starts at 470
Rating 1999 starts at 1495
Rating 1799 starts at 3526 (36647-3526)/36647 ~ 90% are under Class A (or Class B and under)
Rating 1499 starts at 9151
Rating 1199 starts at 14745
Rating 399 starts at 33940
Bottom 36647
Membership expiry is not taken into account!!!
Hi Egis:
One request if you have a bit of time to do it - here is the bottom breakpoints you used:
Rating 1499 starts at 9151
Rating 1199 starts at 14745
Rating 399 starts at 33940
Could you redo this one:
Rating 1599 starts at ?
Rating 1399 starts at ?
Rating 1000 starts at ?
Thanks.
Bob A
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Thursday, 23rd June, 2016, 02:22 PM.
I wondered if one of our bean counters (Paul??) might help me with a statistic I'm interested in:
Of all current (so not a longitudinal stat; just a one-off snapshot of today...or whenever it may last have been done) CFC members (regardless of type), what percentage are Class B and Under?
I'm afraid I don't know of any easy way to find this out. I did google:
Canadian - Chess - Ratings - CFC Membership - Percentage Class B & Under
But the only hits were the CFC website and general sites on FIDE and rating system explanation.
ps: I should add that this is old data. One important change since then is that a large number of scholastic players who had had regular ratings are now scholastic ratings so the large number of low rated players would not be there in a distribution calculated today.
Last edited by Roger Patterson; Thursday, 23rd June, 2016, 02:56 PM.
I think a better study would be to keep the expiry date criteria (although probably set it at exactly one or two years ago), but remove the provisional players.
I would expect juniors to be more toward the bottom end of the rating pyramid. They may be rapidly improving, but a lot of them will disappear and/or never become adult members for any length of time, and those coming on-stream will include a lot of beginners.
Unfortunately the raw data from the TDList file can't provide what I think you want to know. If somebody plays in a few tournaments and then never plays again should they be included? You would have to winnow out players like that, players that have been inactive for a considerable time, etc. And that data would require more than just the TDList dump.
I recall reading (somewhere) many years ago that the median rating for adult players was around 1600 (not sure which federation it was talking about). So yes, at least half the chess-playing public are patzers.
You would probably get a better idea by taking a look at the ratings of regular members of the many chess clubs (like the SCC) and breaking the numbers out to show the average, median, etc. for both adult and junior members (and combined of course).
I would expect juniors to be more toward the bottom end of the rating pyramid. They may be rapidly improving, but a lot of them will disappear and/or never become adult members for any length of time, and those coming on-stream will include a lot of beginners.
Unfortunately the raw data from the TDList file can't provide what I think you want to know. If somebody plays in a few tournaments and then never plays again should they be included? You would have to winnow out players like that, players that have been inactive for a considerable time, etc. And that data would require more than just the TDList dump.
I recall reading (somewhere) many years ago that the median rating for adult players was around 1600 (not sure which federation it was talking about). So yes, at least half the chess-playing public are patzers.
You would probably get a better idea by taking a look at the ratings of regular members of the many chess clubs (like the SCC) and breaking the numbers out to show the average, median, etc. for both adult and junior members (and combined of course).
Steve
Hi Steve:
What I really want is a one-day snap-shot of the rating breakdown of all "Current" CFC members of any kind......if they are a member of the day chosen, they are in. So I want both adults and juniors. But they must be "fully paid up" on the determination date.
So I want everyone dead out; all with expired CFC memberships out; those who only paid a tournament playing fee, out.
What I want is a breakdown of the different class sizes of all CFC members on a certain day.
Egis in his second calculation came up with the answer for me that 77% were B Class and Under (1799 & Under). But were the sorting criteria that he used, those that I have wanted used? I'm not good on the stats manipulation, and am not sure who is in and who is out when a calculation is done.
Bob A
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Sunday, 26th June, 2016, 10:55 PM.
Average rating of all players rated over 1200 who were active in the past 12 months: 1728
Average rating of all players who were active in the past 12 months: 1352
Statistics as of 31 March 2016.
Average rating of all players who were active in the past 12 months: 1352
Statistics as of 31 March 2016.
Hi Paul:
Interesting rating average - lower than I thought.
This is of "all players active" - but are all of these players full members (Of any kind) of the CFC on March 31, 2016? Or is it just that at some point during the past 12 months, they were members?
Secondly, if someone's rating changed during the 12 months, what rating did you use to get the average?
Lastly, do you know the number of players in your sample who were 1799 and Under?
Of the 872 current adult members as at May 1, 2016.
Rating distribution:
2200and over 57
2000-2199 115
1800-1999 140
1600-1799 165
1400-1599 150
1200-1399 89
1000-1199 60
under 1000 46
unrated 50
total 872
average rating = 1661
median rating = 1684
I used to track these numbers back in 2008-2009,
always using the current adult members as the most stable group.
Back in 2008/2009, the average was around 1710.
I recall seeing the average drop by about 1 point per month.
I see that has continued.
Of the 872 current adult members as at May 1, 2016.
Rating distribution:
2200and over 57
2000-2199 115
1800-1999 140
1600-1799 165
1400-1599 150
1200-1399 89
1000-1199 60
under 1000 46
unrated 50
total 872
average rating = 1661
median rating = 1684
I used to track these numbers back in 2008-2009,
always using the current adult members as the most stable group.
Back in 2008/2009, the average was around 1710.
I recall seeing the average drop by about 1 point per month.
I see that has continued.
Hi Bob G:
Thanks....this helps.
So, if CFC member juniors, and unrated adults, as of May 1, 2016, are left out of the calculation, and the calculation uses only May 1, 2016 CFC member rated adults, then 60% of rated adult CFC members were B Class or Under on that date.
Given the low starting ratings of the majority of junior CFC members then, the percentage of ALL rated CFC members (Adults & Juniors) who are Class B & Under, will be much higher than 60%.
Bob G, do you think that figure will be more like 75-80%?
Tweet
Comment