CFC Ratings Auditor

[Tony Li]

Hi All,

I am running for CFC Ratings Auditor. I would like to hear your thoughts on these 2 ideas below or through email at kwchessclub@gmail.com.

1. Increase the maximum number of regular rated games per day to 6 for U1200. This is a necessary condition for double round U1200 in the common 3 games Saturday / 2 games Sunday format.

Most potential CFC members are U1200 today. U1200 players don't tend to use their time, justifiable so - it is debatable whether they could make better decisions in 2 hours than in 1. Furthermore, the playing hall empties with an hour. Double rounds of 1 hour sudden death will be a huge increase in the value proposition for this group.

I believe a valid concern is fatigue. But professionalism at the board is everyone's own responsibility. Adults show up at weekday tournaments after long working days, and the CFC rates those tournaments as Regular.

Recently, the 2nd COVID adjustment acknowledged that U1200 is a different group of customers. Hopefully, we can provide this group more playing time and more scoresheets to analyze by rating up to 6 regular rated games per day.

2. Increase the junior U2200 k factor to 48 while maintaining the master k level at 16 for everyone.

The CFC recognizes that players under 2200 could improve quicker than players over 2200, by having double the k factor (32 vs 16). However, this is a zero-sum game and will lead to rating deflation in an improving player pool. Given that OTB may be down for a year while many children have lower schoolwork and some "turning pro", it will be a huge issue in 2021.

The performance bonus system will help a lot of players in an open tournament. But in sectioned tournaments, only a few players will get the bonus. A higher k-factor such as 48 for juniors may be an answer.

FIDE has had a higher k factor for juniors for a number of years, and the only loud criticism came from a misunderstanding. A junior had two outstanding tournaments during a rating period, and the rating gain from both tournaments were calculated based on his initial rating. Had the second tournament been rated reflecting his participation in the first event, the final result would have been reasonable.

Regardless of age, improvement beyond 2200 rarely happens away from OTB tournaments and a common k factor seems reasonable.

[Roger Patterson]

Hi All,

I am running for CFC Ratings Auditor. I would like to hear your thoughts on these 2 ideas below or through email at kwchessclub@gmail.com.

1. Increase the maximum number of regular rated games per day to 6 for U1200. This is a necessary condition for double round U1200 in the common 3 games Saturday / 2 games Sunday format.

Most potential CFC members are U1200 today. U1200 players don't tend to use their time, justifiable so - it is debatable whether they could make better decisions in 2 hours than in 1. Furthermore, the playing hall empties with an hour. Double rounds of 1 hour sudden death will be a huge increase in the value proposition for this group.

I believe a valid concern is fatigue. But professionalism at the board is everyone's own responsibility. Adults show up at weekday tournaments after long working days, and the CFC rates those tournaments as Regular.

Recently, the 2nd COVID adjustment acknowledged that U1200 is a different group of customers. Hopefully, we can provide this group more playing time and more scoresheets to analyze by rating up to 6 regular rated games per day.

2. Increase the junior U2200 k factor to 48 while maintaining the master k level at 16 for everyone.

The CFC recognizes that players under 2200 could improve quicker than players over 2200, by having double the k factor (32 vs 16). However, this is a zero-sum game and will lead to rating deflation in an improving player pool. Given that OTB may be down for a year while many children have lower schoolwork and some "turning pro", it will be a huge issue in 2021.

The performance bonus system will help a lot of players in an open tournament. But in sectioned tournaments, only a few players will get the bonus. A higher k-factor such as 48 for juniors may be an answer.

FIDE has had a higher k factor for juniors for a number of years, and the only loud criticism came from a misunderstanding. A junior had two outstanding tournaments during a rating period, and the rating gain from both tournaments were calculated based on his initial rating. Had the second tournament been rated reflecting his participation in the first event, the final result would have been reasonable.

Regardless of age, improvement beyond 2200 rarely happens away from OTB tournaments and a common k factor seems reasonable.

I believe the reason for rule about maximum number of games is to stop junior organizers from running events where there is no intention of meeting the requirements for a regular rated game. It seems that juniors want a regular rating just like adults but don't want to play just like adults. There is a rating system for those who want to play quickly and it's called an Active rating. It's not out of concern for fatigue but to protect the integrity of the regular rating system. There are those of course who don't see why kids who play 15 minute games shouldn't be regular rated but there you are.

Regarding your second proposal - implementing that would require recalculating the bonus point system - otherwise it would destabilize the rating system. That's doable of course, but more is implied than just changing the K factor for certain players. The issue of rapidly improving juniors is addressed in some systems with a higher K factor but I haven't heard any noise for a number of years about under rated juniors and it seems to me the current bonus system is working as intended. As for worrying about rating deflation - the current rating auditor monitors that carefully and reports on it regularly to the voting members (formerly governors) and there is no apparent inflation or deflation.

I would also be concerned that the CFC does not always have good information as to wether a given player is a junior so that would lead to inconsistent treatment.

[Roger Patterson]

I believe the reason for rule about maximum number of games is to stop junior organizers from running events where there is no intention of meeting the requirements for a regular rated game. It seems that juniors want a regular rating just like adults but don't want to play just like adults. There is a rating system for those who want to play quickly and it's called an Active rating. It's not out of concern for fatigue but to protect the integrity of the regular rating system. There are those of course who don't see why kids who play 15 minute games shouldn't be regular rated but there you are.

Regarding your second proposal - implementing that would require recalculating the bonus point system - otherwise it would destabilize the rating system. That's doable of course, but more is implied than just changing the K factor for certain players. The issue of rapidly improving juniors is addressed in some systems with a higher K factor but I haven't heard any noise for a number of years about under rated juniors and it seems to me the current bonus system is working as intended. As for worrying about rating deflation - the current rating auditor monitors that carefully and reports on it regularly to the voting members (formerly governors) and there is no apparent inflation or deflation.

I would also be concerned that the CFC does not always have good information as to wether a given player is a junior so that would lead to inconsistent treatment.

I should add, there is some work about joining active ratings with regular ratings (in fact the Victoria Chess Club, for which I am responsible for, does so). The work that I have read suggests that if you do that, the faster play games should be given a smaller K factor. So your two ideas, faster play and a larger K factor, are somewhat in opposition to each other.

[Erik Malmsten]

Could the K factor be related to the initial rating? We have a lower k for above 2200. But could also have have higher k for under 1600 (or 1400) and even higher for under 1200 (or 1000). Under 1000 are very unstable partly due to the steep learning curve of enthusiastic students.

[Tony Li]

I would like to thank Paul for his many years of service to the CFC. I am not running against him. The CFC needs every current and future volunteer to work together in order to reach the 10,000 member goal.

Here are my ideals - The CFC rating system should do the following and no more:

• Track improvement or deterioration in playing strength.
• Be mathematically sound.
• Only as last resort, take inorganic action in order to avoid significant inflation/deflation.

The CFC rating system should not:

• Need to be protected except against unsound rating mechanics such as participation bonuses.
• Lag the strength of an improving player because that player should "earn it".
• Discourage participation with mathematically unsound clauses such as the maximum number of games per day.
• Need performance bonuses, when the organic mechanisms function well. In particular, the bonuses are excessive for tournaments with many rounds because the bonus threshold barely increases with number of rounds.

Issues With the Current System

1. Lack of a supporting anchor of stable adult players. We have fewer than 1000 active players, and most of them are improving juniors or declining seniors. Ratings will drift randomly until we get enough players with stable playing strength.

2. The bonus system is deflationary at the lower end and inflationary at the upper end. This is because it pumps the same number of points to players of all strengths to reflect their improvement (with a lower bonuses for over 2200 that is consistent with the lower k factor). However, improvement occurs much more at lower ratings. This has resulted in inflation at higher ratings (obvious by comparing CFC spread vs FIDE spread), and deflation at lower ratings.

3. The current rating system has no mechanism to deal with the improvement in the player pool's playing strength that happened and will happen while OTB chess is shut down for 1-2 years, and is not ready for the shock when OTB chess returns.

Proposed Solutions

1. Embrace the real core of the future CFC- adult players and stabilized juniors rated between 1200 and 1600. We can do this by the following:

• Provide them value for their weekend. 5 games is not enough. Segregating them into quick rated games is not enough. We should provide them double rounds - 10 games in a weekend, at 1 hour time time control. The current system does not allow this by arbitrarily restricting the maximum number of games per day to 4. We should discuss removing the restriction, particularly at lower ratings (e.g. 1200 or 1400 cutoff), as the 1 hour minimum time is enough for predicting players' strength.
• Allow them to see their improvement by starting them off at their real strength. Increase the maximum reduction in the provisional rating formula from 400 to 700 (a la FIDE). Right now a player with strength of 800 can walk into a club of 1400-1600s, lose all their games, and start with an 1100 rating. When they work hard and get to 1100 strength in a few years, their rating will barely change. Hard work and lack of visible improvement is hardly a recipe for membership renewal.

2. Remove the bonus system, and increase the k-factor for juniors. This means that points are only pumped into the system when juniors outperform adults relative to their ratings. Simple and organic. No need to calibrate the threshold for bonus or multiplier for number of rounds in a tournament.

3. Introduce a 12-month, 100-point rating floor when OTB reopens. Since a 100 point decline in playing strength is unlikely over a 1 year period, this should provide stable players protection against extremely underrated players when OTB returns. This will be a temporary measure to fight rating deflation.

[Paul Leblanc]

Tony, I think you should run so that the CFC voting members can make a clear choice. I have no problem stepping down if your ideas prevail.
As for me:
I feel that the Rating Auditor’s primary goal is to protect the integrity of the CFC’s most valuable asset, the Regular ratings.
If re-elected, I will not change the K factor as I believe that the rating bonus formula performs the function of identifying and rewarding strong results.
I will not introduce rating floors. I believe they are artificial and distort the correct allocation of rating points. I do not believe there is a problem with players intentionally losing games to lower their ratings.
I will not support a change to the maximum number of Regular rated games to be played in a single day. This is just not serious chess and is more appropriately rated as Quick chess.
The CFC Regular rating system has been in equilibrium since the introduction of the bonus point formula in 2012. If needed, there is provision to make adjustments to the bonus formula to counter inflation or deflation. This has not been necessary up to now.

[Lucas Davies]

What's the deal with ratings these days? I see people who are like 1900-2000 having one good tournament and just gaining like 200 points. That did not happen back in my day, no siree!

[Vlad Drkulec]

What's the deal with ratings these days? I see people who are like 1900-2000 having one good tournament and just gaining like 200 points. That did not happen back in my day, no siree!

Yes it did. Bonus points have been around forever. They had bonus points when I was in high school which was quite a while ago.

[Erik Malmsten]

3. Introduce a 12-month, 100-point rating floor when OTB reopens. Since a 100 point decline in playing strength is unlikely over a 1 year period, this should provide stable players protection against extremely underrated players when OTB returns. This will be a temporary measure to fight rating deflation.

I think some system of reverse bonus has merit. Decreasing the amount of rating points lost when losing to quick-rising underated juniors (that will exist after covid), For example, If Adult loses 0-5, and all five of his junior opponents gain bonus points in the event, then the juniors new after-bonus ratings could be used to calculate the rating lost of the adult. This would be inflationary, but may keep the adult participating more, not withdrawing, instead of being discouraged and quitting CFC chess after decades of playing and studying. Or a rating floor could be established for adults or seniors such as 50 points per event; those who play more often could still drop 100 points in a year. This would benefit only the people who are at the bottom of a crosstable.

[Roger Patterson]

I would like to thank Paul for his many years of service to the CFC. I am not running against him. The CFC needs every current and future volunteer to work together in order to reach the 10,000 member goal.

.......

1) you make a number of statements about the rating system and a hypothetical shock when OTB chess returns but provide no data. Offhand, I don't think many if any of your "Issues with the current system" are actually true. Statements about a rating shock due to vastly improved juniors in a year are completely hypothetical.

2) you propose a number of significant changes that amount to a complete and total rethinking of the rating system but do not propose significant analysis before disrupting the system. The rating system is the CFC's most valuable asset. Any tinkering should be done with a great deal of analysis and simulation. It is true that the governors (now VMs) have occasionally in the past allowed changes on the basis of hand waving arguements but that is not wise and has been destructive in the past.

3) You want to allow low rated and/or young players to have 6 games a day allowed for regular rating. This has nothing do do with unsound mathematics - it is simply the judgement of the CFC VMs that the regular rating should be separate from active play. Will you commit to enforcing the current rules until such time as the VMs agree with your views?

4) given your remark about "Increase the maximum reduction in the provisional rating formula from 400 to 700". I'm not sure you understand the mathematics behind calculating performance ratings. The CFC uses a linearized version of the rating formula which yes, caps out at a difference of 400 points. FIDE uses the full rating formula and caps out at a difference of 700 points but these are different formulas and are not inherently more accurate than each other. The real issue is that when your junior walks into a club of experienced players and loses every game, it is mathematically impossible to determine what the correct rating should be. Using 700 points a la FIDE or 400 a la CFC does not really change this problem.

[Hans Jung]

I support reverse bonus points as suggested by Erik Malmsten. I certainly need to reduce the amount of points lost to juniors.

[Fred McKim]

I would like to thank Paul for his many years of service to the CFC. I am not running against him. The CFC needs every current and future volunteer to work together in order to reach the 10,000 member goal.

Despite the wording, I think Tony is running for Rating Auditor, he is just saying he is not criticizing Paul's work.

[Lucas Davies]

Yes it did. Bonus points have been around forever. They had bonus points when I was in high school which was quite a while ago.

Bonus points existed, but they were very different before 2012. As I recall, you couldn't even get bonus points if you were over 2000 before then.

[Roger Patterson]

Bonus points existed, but they were very different before 2012. As I recall, you couldn't even get bonus points if you were over 2000 before then.

then your memory is faulty. One of the problems (of several) with the bonus points at that time is that they were not reduced for players over 2200 by the k factor. This resulted in some pockets of rating inflation among some of the top players

[Fred McKim]

Not to mention the "whacky" bonus points for winning a tournament !