Rated players under 1000

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

  • Rated players under 1000

    I was looking back at some of my older tournaments to see if some of the players are still active.
    I noticed (in my case) that U1000 players did not appear until 2005.
    How did it happen that U1000 players started increasing after that year?
    When I was unrated I was allowed to play only in the U1400 or the Open. Once I got a rating I was also not allowed to move up till my rating went over the section I played in before.
    I see now that with the playing up payments players can jump up into a section that maybe they do not even Qualify to be in based on their rating.
    Why do organizers allow this?

  • #2
    Re: Rated players under 1000

    Hi John,

    Are you being serious with this inquiry? Did the advent of Computers,Internet,Chess engines,Chess Boom in Indian and China pass you by?

    Why would organizers pass up a revenue stream? Times are changing and sometimes really fast.
    I rarely post on here other then results from SCC but your ignorance shocked me into replying.
    Perhaps, I might be missing some other elements that caused the boom of the U1000 and U900.

    Anyone else want to elaborate to shed some light or heat on this?

    Omar
    Last edited by Omar Shah; Wednesday, 13th September, 2017, 10:56 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Rated players under 1000

      Isn't that due to the large influx of kids who all start with very low ratings?

      Regarding jumping sections, I agree it's sometimes a problem. A player, especially a young one, should be allowed to jump up from time to time, just for the challenge. Problem is: it seems they're all doing it and even more. Sometimes we see guys rated in the 1500s or 1600s playing in the open, even though there's a -2000 section and a -1700 section.

      But some organizers are now adressing this issue.
      Last edited by Mathieu Cloutier; Wednesday, 13th September, 2017, 02:10 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Rated players under 1000

        In most cases jumping happen within 100 points of the section limit.

        While there are titles and classes for rating ranges; I puzzled what lets say 1000 means in chess knowledge - openings, middle, endings. Now go down to 400 and 200 (the CFC rating floor) with the same question of the chess knowledge. What kind of the exam would be needed to pass certain rating levels.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Rated players under 1000

          I also have a hard time figuring how you could maintain a rating under 1000...

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Rated players under 1000

            Originally posted by John Brown View Post
            I was looking back at some of my older tournaments to see if some of the players are still active.
            I noticed (in my case) that U1000 players did not appear until 2005.
            How did it happen that U1000 players started increasing after that year?
            When I was unrated I was allowed to play only in the U1400 or the Open. Once I got a rating I was also not allowed to move up till my rating went over the section I played in before.
            I see now that with the playing up payments players can jump up into a section that maybe they do not even Qualify to be in based on their rating.
            Why do organizers allow this?
            a) it actually started earlier around 2001-2002 basically due to the onset of scholastic chess. see:



            b) apparently your tournament experience is different from mine. My personal experience is that players were allowed to play in any section at their or higher rating. It was common to see 1200 players and lower in the top section. That organizers limit playing up a section nowadays and charge a fee is an attempt to reduce some of the absurbities of excessively optimistic players.

            c) It is quite difficult to enforce a hard rating limit on sections. Players will complain and argue. Someone whose strength is on the rating boundary goes up or down by a few points from tournament to tournament gets whipsawed. Having a playup range of say 200 points allows the organizer to say "no, your 1799 rating is not close to the over 2000 section." and the whipsawing does not need to occur.

            d) as someone else noted, play up fees form a surprisingly large portion of the budget. Although, at least for Victoria Chess, that is not why we have them. They are primarily meant as a means to encourage people to play in their section.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Rated players under 1000

              Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
              In most cases jumping happen within 100 points of the section limit.

              While there are titles and classes for rating ranges; I puzzled what lets say 1000 means in chess knowledge - openings, middle, endings. Now go down to 400 and 200 (the CFC rating floor) with the same question of the chess knowledge. What kind of the exam would be needed to pass certain rating levels.
              Yeah, I find it hard to imagine what it is a kid with a 500 rating knows. At one point I did a graph of results by rating. The percentage of draws goes down for lower rating level but bottoms out at around 800 and then starts to increase. From that I infer two things:

              1) probably below 800, players knowledge of how to do basic mates is shaky.

              2) The ratings of 800 and lower do measure something real about chess ability or there wouldn't be a variation by rating strength of draw percentage.

              (data is from about 2011)

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Rated players under 1000

                CFC ratings did not always go as low as they do now and that only changed when the CFC wanted to get into the scholastic space. I received a call from Troy Vail, CFC Executive Director at the time, asking questions on how Chess'n Math (CMA) was doing things. The CFC changed their rating system to accomodate youngsters. CMA has never charged membership and has always provided low rating fees. The CFC decided to follow suite for scholastic events in order to compete...as did the FQE.

                The Chess'n Math Association does not make money with rating scholastic events.

                Larry

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Rated players under 1000

                  Originally posted by Roger Patterson View Post
                  Yeah, I find it hard to imagine what it is a kid with a 500 rating knows. At one point I did a graph of results by rating. The percentage of draws goes down for lower rating level but bottoms out at around 800 and then starts to increase. From that I infer two things:

                  1) probably below 800, players knowledge of how to do basic mates is shaky.

                  2) The ratings of 800 and lower do measure something real about chess ability or there wouldn't be a variation by rating strength of draw percentage.

                  (data is from about 2011)[/IMG]
                  Roger, I find your analysis fascinating.

                  As Larry has already explained, it is the advent of scholastic chess and a healthy competition :) with the CMA ratings that led to an influx of lower-rated player in the CFC system.

                  Would it be possible for you to use your model in order to analyze games rated by the CMA in a given year? The CMA ratings presently go from 200 all the way to 2461, with a majority in a lower band. I'd venture to say that the number of CMA-rated games involving players below 1000 in any period would be at least an order of magnitude greater than a number of similar CFC-rated games. How much work would it be for you?

                  The easiest way to access the CMA tournament data in English is via this link.

                  Thanks in advance.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Rated players under 1000

                    Hi,


                    It is not clear to me that this is a problem.

                    Some questions would merit some evaluation...
                    Are the ratings deflated? -- I don't necessarily sense that. If a 1200 rated player regularly beats a 800 player, it seems normal.
                    Do these ratings exist in abundance now, because players who are truly beginners are now in the tournament scene? -- Perhaps beginners / small children would not play in tournaments, 10-20 years ago and now they do. Nothing wrong with that.

                    Until 10-20 years ago, defining a U1200 rating / playing strength was somewhat difficult and unclear, and a vast grey zone. But if these levels of play exist, it's only natural that there is a trickling effect. I don't see that this is necessarily deflating the whole pool. Far from it. The current bonus points systems combat this rather well. Then again, if you go further back, FIDE wouldn't even publish your rating if it wasn't a master level rating, not that long ago.
                    Also, ratings are simply a measure in relation to the competition. I see a lot of active (adult) players 1000 and up who more or less maintain their ratings.


                    The one thing I agree with this argument is... perhaps organizers are not adapting fast enough. As rating levels reach lower in the rating scale, while some organizers adapt quite quickly and create the U1300 or U1000 section, others are lagging behind. 10 years ago (maybe even 5) an U1300 section would be unheard of, nevermind a U1000 section. But why not? If the players' pool exist, we should evolve with it.

                    At Hart House we've definitely lagged behind a bit, only very recently creating a U1300 section. But it seems an additional U1000 may be in order. Different organizers deal differently with the "playing up option". At Hart House, we've maintained a section gap of 300 points, with possibility of playing up within 100 points of the section's floor. That allows for a maximum 400 point range (excluding top and bottom sections), which works perfectly within the rating system CFC uses. Players within 400 points of each other are expected to, if ratings serve justice, play competitive games within players of said range. Differentials above 400 points are expected to be completely one-sided. Needless to say, size of sections / number of players / approaches by different organizers make it possible or impossible to have such breaks in class-sections.
                    As for those who lose with any regularity to players 400+ points lower rated than themselves, I lack the sympathy. They should be rated lower than they are.


                    Alex Ferreira

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Rated players under 1000

                      Originally posted by Omar Shah View Post
                      Hi John,

                      Are you being serious with this inquiry? Did the advent of Computers,Internet,Chess engines,Chess Boom in Indian and China pass you by?

                      Why would organizers pass up a revenue stream? Times are changing and sometimes really fast.
                      I rarely post on here other then results from SCC but your ignorance shocked me into replying.
                      Perhaps, I might be missing some other elements that caused the boom of the U1000 and U900.

                      Anyone else want to elaborate to shed some light or heat on this?

                      Omar
                      Hi Omar
                      You have opened a Can A worms with your post.
                      I'm ticked off with the CFC rating players less than 1000 points and yes this is true. The CFC should not allow players less than 1000 points playing in established CFC Adult mixed tournaments . The older established players are insulted degraded and personally abused by this lower rated system. I looked back and 50% of my early players are no longer playing.
                      I'm willing to protest I told Alex I'll not playing in Hart House tourneys because he lets under rated move up Miguire students are an example . That is my statement and Ill stick by it. The CFC rates players Too low and I 'm personally not happy. The CfC Rates players too low and then they improve and take all our rating points . If I had not become a life member I'd never play chess again. The system sucks the pre rating sucks and the chess and math ratings sucks. Yes Larry you created a monster and now it is the works. Ban me from this site if you want but I won't sit back.
                      Last edited by John Brown; Thursday, 14th September, 2017, 10:54 PM. Reason: corrections

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Rated players under 1000

                        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


                        • #13
                          Re: Rated players under 1000

                          Originally posted by Vadim Tsypin View Post
                          Roger, I find your analysis fascinating.

                          As Larry has already explained, it is the advent of scholastic chess and a healthy competition :) with the CMA ratings that led to an influx of lower-rated player in the CFC system.

                          Would it be possible for you to use your model in order to analyze games rated by the CMA in a given year? The CMA ratings presently go from 200 all the way to 2461, with a majority in a lower band. I'd venture to say that the number of CMA-rated games involving players below 1000 in any period would be at least an order of magnitude greater than a number of similar CFC-rated games. How much work would it be for you?

                          The easiest way to access the CMA tournament data in English is via this link.

                          Thanks in advance.
                          the link is fine and well but it's not direct access to a database so no. Plus I don't have the same interest in the CMA rating system.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Rated players under 1000

                            Originally posted by John Brown View Post
                            The CFC rates players Too low and I 'm personally Pissed off. The CfC Rates players too low and then they improve and take all our rating points . If I had not become a life member I'd never play chess again. The system sucks the pre rating sucks and the chess and math ratings sucks.
                            You are right John, ratings suck and they will generally always suck. I think this blog explains the issue well (https://www.chess.com/article/view/d...-your-rating): ratings are just a shadow of your playing ability. There aren't enough data points for CFC players if they play 10 and under rated games per year. More data points is the only way to make the system better. I guess one solution would be increasing provisional K values and increasing the threshold for who is considered to have a provisional rating (ie based on games per year). Another solution may be to combine active ratings and just reduce the K value of fast time control games. Another would be to promote weekly rated games at chess clubs.

                            I think overall you can never be happy with your rating, just like you can never be satisfied with your playing ability. At the end of the day, hopefully the tournaments can provide you challenging and entertaining chess. If you are sandbagging U1000's because they are allowed to play up then that's not good. But if the players beat you then they deserve those "stolen" rating points so they aren't destroying "equally" rated opponents.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Rated players under 1000

                              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?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X