CFC Ratings Auditor

[Paul Leblanc]

It's been an interesting discussion. I can contribute a little on CFC rating stability. I examine the health of the system every three months and have been doing so for about ten years. I have access to a great diagnostic program built by Vincent Chow which in turn replaced a similar program built by Roger Patterson.

Starting with the average rating of our strong players: Since the introduction of the bonus point formula in March 2012, the average rating of the top 100 players started at 2356 and stood at 2358 at the end of June 2020. During this period, the high was 2370 and the low was 2336. No evidence of strong players benefiting from the bonus formula.

Moving to the intermediate players, I monitor all players rated above 1200 active in the preceding year. This group started in March 2012 at 1732 and stood at 1710 at the end of June 2020. During this period the high was 1750 and the low was 1690. There might be a tiny bit of deflation there, but not enough to warrant action yet.

The situation when considering all players shows more volatility as expected because we now include the lower end - beginners and fading players. This group started in March 2012 at 1210 and stood at 1292 at the end of March 2020. I used March in this case as there seems to be a data anomaly for June 2020 (a jump to 1373). This group has gained rating points whichever way you look at it.

The first conclusion is that the top 100 are stable. This is very important for players competing in outside Canada.
The second conclusion is that the lower rated players have moved up a bit compared to the 1200+ players. The bonus formula may have had a role in this but there are other factors at play that make it difficult to form a conclusion. We used to turn a blind eye, for example, to junior events submitted for regular rating that did not meet the necessary conditions. The elimination of this practice may have had a role in keeping very low rated players out of the system until they have more experience.

[Aris Marghetis]

That is impressive dedicated work.

[Tony Li]

Adult Player	Province	Rating Jan 1 2013	Rating Current	Games Played	Bonus Points Earned	Average Bonus Per Game	Comments
Bob Armstrong	ON	1618	1604	545	622	1.2	Active player added to sample
Paul Leblanc	BC	1829	1739	397	532	1.3
John Brown	ON	1586	1450	257	294	1.1	Half of bonus came from a 10-round tournament
Roger Patterson	BC	2084	2085	227	82	0.4	Primarily low seed in Premier section
Fred McKim	PEI	1918	1984	167	131	0.8
Vlad Drkulec	ON	2041	2020	140	189	1.3
Tony Li	ON	1902	1981	85	88	1.0
Erik Malmsten	ON	1892	1926	70	13	0.2	Infrequent player
Aris Marghetis	ON	1893	1869	41	0	0	Infrequent player
Totals				1929	1951	1.0

I didn't expect this, but looking at the tournament histories of the players who posted here (plus Bob Armstrong) suggests that the current bonus system acts similar to participation bonus.

• The players are all stable adult players, possibly in slight decline (see current rating vs Jan 1 2013)
• The average bonus point per game is 1.0, with the main exception being Roger who is primarily the low seed in the Premier section. We know from statistics that the players in the middle of a section have the most volatility. Since bonus points are substantial and occasional, infrequent players like Erik and Aris also have different averages.
• The bonus per game only rises slightly based on number of rounds. Once the database is available, I would be interested to look more into this for juniors.

Roger

1. I think you are taking the word crossover too seriously. There is a substantial bias - the underdog is favored at every rating difference. This cannot statistically arise naturally since the spread will close itself over time.
2a. I understand the circularity agree that an adjustment would be not reasonable. However, scaling down the bonus system would. Also, I believe you mentioned there is no better spread than 400 in the provisional rating calculation. I disagree and believe the actual spread of 600 is better.
2b. The prior bonus system had a direct participation bonuse which would also increase the spread.
3. See above chart. You appear to be quoting personal experience. You play primarily as a low seed in the Premier section of tournaments. Noise is driven by volatility, and the highest volatility comes from being in the middle of a section.

[Roger Patterson]

Adult Player	Province	Rating Jan 1 2013	Rating Current	Games Played	Bonus Points Earned	Average Bonus Per Game	Comments
Bob Armstrong	ON	1618	1604	545	622	1.2	Active player added to sample
Paul Leblanc	BC	1829	1739	397	532	1.3
John Brown	ON	1586	1450	257	294	1.1	Half of bonus came from a 10-round tournament
Roger Patterson	BC	2084	2085	227	82	0.4	Primarily low seed in Premier section
Fred McKim	PEI	1918	1984	167	131	0.8
Vlad Drkulec	ON	2041	2020	140	189	1.3
Tony Li	ON	1902	1981	85	88	1.0
Erik Malmsten	ON	1892	1926	70	13	0.2	Infrequent player
Aris Marghetis	ON	1893	1869	41	0	0	Infrequent player (enemy of Caissa?)
Totals				1929	1951	1.0

I didn't expect this, but looking at the tournament histories of the players who posted here (plus Bob Armstrong) suggests that the current bonus system acts similar to participation bonus.

• The players are all stable adult players, possibly in slight decline (see current rating vs Jan 1 2013)
• The average bonus point per game is 1.0, with the main exception being Roger who is primarily the low seed in the Premier section. We know from statistics that the players in the middle of a section have the most volatility. Since bonus points are substantial and occasional, infrequent players like Erik and Aris also have different averages.
• The bonus per game only rises slightly based on number of rounds. Once the database is available, I would be interested to look more into this for juniors.

Roger

1. I think you are taking the word crossover too seriously. There is a substantial bias - the underdog is favored at every rating difference. This cannot statistically arise naturally since the spread will close itself over time.
2a. I understand the circularity agree that an adjustment would be not reasonable. However, scaling down the bonus system would. Also, I believe you mentioned there is no better spread than 400 in the provisional rating calculation. I disagree and believe the actual spread of 600 is better.
2b. The prior bonus system had a direct participation bonuse which would also increase the spread.
3. See above chart. You appear to be quoting personal experience. You play primarily as a low seed in the Premier section of tournaments. Noise is driven by volatility, and the highest volatility comes from being in the middle of a section.

1) I was under the impression that you had claimed a crossover (based on a misreading of the link you provided) and thought it was important. My point was that as FIDE also shows the same behaviour (the underdog performing better than the theoretical curve) and so bonus points (which FIDE does not have) are not the reason for this behaviour.
2) Provisional ratings are calculated for the first 25 games. Most players do not play so many games of that with people 400 points beyond their strength. I am dubious that this is in any way an important factor in the rating system
2b) The spread of what? (you are apparently talking about spread of the theoretical and actual results in (1), call using the rating cuttoff for provisional ratings of 400 and your preference 600 as a spread in 2(a) and I see no connection between either of those and and bonus and/or participation points

3) You seem to be argueing something like:
- the Premier section is usually 2000+
- I am close to the rating bottom for the Premier section of most events
- therefore I am probably scoring few points
- people scoring 50% will have greater volatility in their results compared to low scoring players as a matter of statistics
- therefore I get fewer bonus points.
- therefore ...... (not sure what point you are trying to make)

but.....
- some events (e.g BC Open) the boundary is at 1900, in any case there are always lots of class A players in the section
- most events I am paired down (ie. am the higher rated) in the first round, although recently not always, so not near the bottom. I'm usually these days in the middle somewhere
- my scores in most events are +0, +1 , or +2 probably you don't know but I frequently take 0 point byes in the last round) so again, not near the bottom , actually in the middle, and hard to square with your statement about volatility.

so I don't think what ever argument you are trying to make works but maybe I misunderstand your argument.


You seem to be quite convinced that bonus points are the cause of a number of ills but provide no data to support this. By data, I mean a comparison between a system without bonus points and a system with bonus points. You repeatedly make statements like " bonus points increase the spread" with no actual evidence this is true.

Fortunately there is an answer for you if you are so convinced, Do what was done when the last bonus point system was set up. Run whatever calculation you want on the CFC data for the last 10 years and see what happens and if you are right. From my perspective, the current system is working well, there is no inflation to speak of, no one complains about under rated juniors any more, and generally, everything seems stable.

It is an interesting chart though. I'm not sure I would call something that varies from 0.2 to 1.3 with a standard deviation of 0,5 as being equivalent to a constant participation point bonus.

[Erik Malmsten]

Adult Player	Province	Rating Jan 1 2013	Rating Current	Games Played	Bonus Points Earned	Average Bonus Per Game	Comments
Bob Armstrong	ON	1618	1604	545	622	1.2	Active player added to sample
Paul Leblanc	BC	1829	1739	397	532	1.3
John Brown	ON	1586	1450	257	294	1.1	Half of bonus came from a 10-round tournament
Roger Patterson	BC	2084	2085	227	82	0.4	Primarily low seed in Premier section
Fred McKim	PEI	1918	1984	167	131	0.8
Vlad Drkulec	ON	2041	2020	140	189	1.3
Tony Li	ON	1902	1981	85	88	1.0
Erik Malmsten	ON	1892	1926	70	13	0.2	Infrequent player
Aris Marghetis	ON	1893	1869	41	0	0	Infrequent player (enemy of Caissa?)
Totals				1929	1951	1.0

I didn't expect this, but looking at the tournament histories of the players who posted here (plus Bob Armstrong) suggests that the current bonus system acts similar to participation bonus.

• The players are all stable adult players, possibly in slight decline (see current rating vs Jan 1 2013)
• The average bonus point per game is 1.0, with the main exception being Roger who is primarily the low seed in the Premier section. We know from statistics that the players in the middle of a section have the most volatility. Since bonus points are substantial and occasional, infrequent players like Erik and Aris also have different averages.
• The bonus per game only rises slightly based on number of rounds. Once the database is available, I would be interested to look more into this for juniors.

Roger

1. I think you are taking the word crossover too seriously. There is a substantial bias - the underdog is favored at every rating difference. This cannot statistically arise naturally since the spread will close itself over time.
2a. I understand the circularity agree that an adjustment would be not reasonable. However, scaling down the bonus system would. Also, I believe you mentioned there is no better spread than 400 in the provisional rating calculation. I disagree and believe the actual spread of 600 is better.
2b. The prior bonus system had a direct participation bonuse which would also increase the spread.
3. See above chart. You appear to be quoting personal experience. You play primarily as a low seed in the Premier section of tournaments. Noise is driven by volatility, and the highest volatility comes from being in the middle of a section.

Oh, my name in a list.

Missing from your table are, I guess inactive, Hugh Brodie 2100 to 1851, Frank Dixon to 2090 to 1864, Ken Craft 1785 to 1780.

Back in 2012 I found 100 Toronto players on both 1980 and today's database, but 28 of them are inactive Life members. 43 are now in a higher class, 49 have fallen back to the same class they were in 1980, and only 6 now are in a lower class than they were in 1980. However old-timers are past their peak years, only 13 are still in the same class as their rating high. Of the 60 still active players Scarborough has 7 while Hamilton has 4 plus 3 in Burlington.

Player Current CFC Rating /Highest Rating since 1995
1 Lawrence Day 2275 /2510
2 Brian Hartman 2438 /2487
3 Kevin Pacey (Ottawa) 2206 /2406
4 Michael Dougherty 2275 /2404
5 Doug Bailey 2268 /2400
6 Brett Campbell 2216 /2388
7 David Filipovich 2229 /2370
8 Vinny Puri 2320 /2350
9 Stephen Boyd (France) 2323 /2323
10 Andrei Moffat 2181 /2321
11 Ruperto Frilles 2034 /2302
12 Bill Evans 1989 /2300
13 Brian Fiedler 2045 /2300
14 Lorne Yee 2259 /2285
15 Nava Starr 2138 /2277
16 Fima Rakhinshteyn 2117 /2262
17 John Wright 2232 /2232
18 Greg Stavropoulos 1739 /2220
19 Ralph Gregorz 1997 /2218
20 Imtiaz Husain (USA) 2134 /2211

Since then Robert Morrison returned and his rating dropped from 2344 to 2276. And I thought Peter Murray 2289 had played, maybe only blitz.

[Bob Armstrong]

I tread very cautiously into this technical rating discussion.

But for me personally, I think the number of bonus points I garnered is not due to participation........it is due to my historically unstable ability to play!!

Anyone who looks at my rating stats above will see that I have appeared to hold somewhat for 7 years (from 68 y.o. to 75 y.o.).

In fact I have, from time to time, gone down, and then regained, by going on a tear all of a sudden in some particular tournament.

Here are my peak/nadir ratings by year:
Year Peak Nadir

2013 - 1637 1516
2014 - 1674 1516
2015 - 1641 1511
2016 - 1727 1503
2017 - 1711 1503
2018 - 1669 1498
2019 - 1645 1447
2020 - 1631 1536
(March 12) (Feb. 5)

So I was always being pleasantly surprised whenever I'd do one of my very temporary comeback charges! Because I exceeded expectations by winning when I shouldn't have been (If my rating was true, I shouldn't have been doing what I was doing), I got BONUS POINTS! Then, almost immediately, I'd start distributing them back into the pool, to my opponents, for a year, until I'd resurrect from being brain dead again.

Love to have one of the stats wizards evaluate my analysis.......

Bob A

[Aris Marghetis]

Adult Player	Province	Rating Jan 1 2013	Rating Current	Games Played	Bonus Points Earned	Average Bonus Per Game	Comments
Aris Marghetis	ON	1893	1869	41	0	0	Infrequent player (enemy of Caissa?)

I don't see any upside to the petty insult-joke on my name. Just sayin' lol

[Tony Li]

I don't see any upside to the petty insult-joke on my name. Just sayin' lol

I apologize and have removed the comment. It was an unfortunate coincidence as I did not think of your name.

[Tony Li]

I am withdrawing from this year's election to the Ratings Auditor position.

I have not succeeded in generating meaningful discussion regarding the shock to the rating system due to the COVID shutdown. I will be investing my time instead on improving my communication skills.

[Tony Li]

I tread very cautiously into this technical rating discussion.

But for me personally, I think the number of bonus points I garnered is not due to participation........it is due to my historically unstable ability to play!!

So I was always being pleasantly surprised whenever I'd do one of my very temporary comeback charges! Because I exceeded expectations by winning when I shouldn't have been (If my rating was true, I shouldn't have been doing what I was doing), I got BONUS POINTS! Then, almost immediately, I'd start distributing them back into the pool, to my opponents, for a year, until I'd resurrect from being brain dead again.

Hi Bob,

If you gain 1 extra point per game, it works out to about 25 rating points (no matter how many games you've played!). So in the end, it has very little impact on your rating if your opponents are moving through the section quickly. If they are moving up sections, then they are exporting the bonus points to the higher sections.

I will find some later to analyze your results to see if you are actually a volatile player.

[Paul Leblanc]

I find that table very interesting. Like Bob, I generously gave away all those bonus points!
It would be even more interesting to include some fast rising juniors and see how many bonus points per game they have earned. Try Nicholas Vettese or Mark Plotkin or Jason Cao or Qiyu Zhou

[Tony Li]

Here are the bonus points for active players from the latest IM norm tournament, Veterans and Seniors championships. Guess the player!

Juniors: Eugene Hua, Jason Cao, Mark Plotkin, Nicolas Vettese, Qiyu Zhou
Veterans: Bob Gillanders, Brian Clarke, David Cummings, Ian Findlay, Michael Barron, Michael Dougherty, Tomas Krnan, Victor Plotkin
Seniors: Isai Berengolts, Richard Glew

For comparison purposes, bonus points over 2200 are multiplied by 2.

Player	# Games	Total Bonus Points	Bonus per Game
A	586	812	1.4
B	378	334	0.9
C	517	433	0.8
D	721	596	0.8
E	221	132	0.6
F	171	93	0.5
G	335	176	0.5
H	359	187	0.5
I	374	152	0.4
J	362	130	0.4
K	238	85	0.4
L	278	74	0.3
M	113	11	0.1
N	147	0	0
O	144	0	0

[Paul Leblanc]

After 10 years as CFC Rating Officer I will be stepping down this year. I will do my best to support my successor during the transition.

[Hans Jung]

Thanks for all the good work Paul. CFC volunteers usually do not get enough appreciation.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Paul:

You've been a stellar volunteer.......thanks from this member!

Bob