2021 US Championship

[Peter McKillop]

Neil, the system degrades men, not women. It allows women to play for all of the money but men for only some of it. I am astonished that this is not recognized as sexist. Imagine if a certain race was allowed to play for all of the money, but other races were only allowed to play for some of it?

Hi Brad. There are two things I don't follow in your comments above:

1. It seems to me that the 'separate but parallel' system, to which Bob Armstrong refers, exists primarily because of the douchebaggery of boys and men. Therefore, to blame women for a system that was, in effect, forced upon them by men, seems sexist; i.e. sexist men force something on women and then turn around and call women sexist because that something exists? No.

2. If there is no sep. but par. system for women then men still might not benefit because some/most/all of the women's prize money probably comes from sponsors who *want* to support the women's section; i.e. no additional money for the open section. And women don't usually get to play for all of the money, at least not in international tournaments. They have a choice: play in their own, separately-funded section or play in the open, separately-funded section.

[Pargat Perrer]

Junior girls now play equally with boys in open tournaments all the time......at least in the GTA.

Because the women-only title system continues to exist, we see these junior girls tending to migrate out of the open system, and into the women-only system, to the detriment of the development of their full talent.

Bob A

Doesn't the CFC hold separate girls' and boys' championships for different age groups? Or did they stop that and combine them together now?

You keep digging your grave deeper, Bob!

"junior girls tending to migrate out of the open system and into the women-only system, to the detriment of the development of their full talent" is about offensive to women as you can get.

[Pargat Perrer]

Neil, the system degrades men, not women. It allows women to play for all of the money but men for only some of it. I am astonished that this is not recognized as sexist. Imagine if a certain race was allowed to play for all of the money, but other races were only allowed to play for some of it?

Brad, if a woman plays in an open section, and finishes 2nd, does she win BOTH the 2nd-place money AND the top woman money (assuming a man finished overall first)?

[Pargat Perrer]

2. It is my error to have said that women must play "men" to improve their ratings. What I should have said is that the women-only title system should now be abolished (It has served its "incubator" purpose), and then women will play in the "Open" tournaments (Where, at the moment, and likely not for long if what I want happens, the top players are all men). When women enter the top echelons of ratings, then other women will be playing them as well as top men and will thus raise their ratings.

No one will raise their ratings if they are already at their proper Elo level and they are not improving at chess. For ratings to improve, chess knowledge and ability must improve. This doesn't come "automagically" by playing against higher-rated players. When one is a Junior, yes it happens, but Juniors who have talent are studying chess exhaustingly each and every day, getting lessons, learning online and with the use of chess engines. That is the majority part of how their ratings improve; they take their new knowledge and use it in rated games.

If you, Bob, were allowed to play one rating section up and you did do that consistently, would your current rating get better? More than it would if you played in your proper rating section? I doubt it because your chess knowledge and ability has already peaked. Judging from your photo, since I haven't met you, you are a senior and seniors don't really get better at chess in any major way.

3. You are going to find out from Bob G, that I do very well grasp the fundamentals of the international ELO system.

No, and if Bob G. tries to tell me such a thing, I will take it as him being a friend of yours and sticking up for you. But if Bob G. really thinks about my points and your points, he will make the correct assessment.

This is the fundamental part of Elo rating that you don' t get: ratings increase or decrease in proportion to one's own chess knowledge AND mental ability to visualize and calculate. And to some degree, your physical stamina to endure long struggles at the board. Everyone peaks at their proper level, no matter who they play. They just have to play rated games period, not rated games against superior players. If there is a Carlsen among the current rated women, she is already progressing and will achieve Carlsen's rating even if she only plays against other women.

If a woman whose rating is already at its proper level starts playing higher-rated men, she will lose and win in just the right proportion predicted by the Elo system for her rating. Elo doesn't add "bonus points" for playing some higher rated than you. Although I can't speak for the CFC rating system, which might do such a thing, and maybe that is what you are referring to. I'm just talking about Elo formula itself, not any modifications the CFC might be doing.

Later I will add to this argument by showing you a graph someone posted on Quora. It shows just what I'm talking about.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Neil:

When misogyny was totally rampant in the sex culture, and in society, it made sense to have an entirely separate, parallel, women's only title-system, in order to encourage women to play chess - they would play in a women-only culture, where it was too uncomfortable to play in open tournaments, chess clubs, etc. The goal was that they would get more confident, and feel more comfortable with the open chess culture, and then start playing in the "open" system (Thus the "incubator" term - to assist women to break into chess, advance in the women-only system, and then "graduate" to the open system, where there were more players and more highly rated players.)

I think the purpose of the system no longer applies.

Junior girls now play equally with boys in open tournaments all the time......at least in the GTA.

Because the women-only title system continues to exist, we see these junior girls tending to migrate out of the open system, and into the women-only system, to the detriment of the development of their full talent.

Bob A

[Brad Thomson]

Neil, the system degrades men, not women. It allows women to play for all of the money but men for only some of it. I am astonished that this is not recognized as sexist. Imagine if a certain race was allowed to play for all of the money, but other races were only allowed to play for some of it?

[Neil Frarey]

Hi Pargat:

1. A woman of Carlsen's talent may well be buried in the separate, parallel, women-only title system. But to date, no woman has streaked ahead of her peers in the women-only system. Hou Yifan got to top ranking for women because for a while she refused to play in the women-only system, and began playing only in "Open" tournaments (Not "men-only"). Then her rating began to rise.

2. It is my error to have said that women must play "men" to improve their ratings. What I should have said is that the women-only title system should now be abolished (It has served its "incubator" purpose), and then women will play in the "Open" tournaments (Where, at the moment, and likely not for long if what I want happens, the top players are all men). When women enter the top echelons of ratings, then other women will be playing them as well as top men and will thus raise their ratings.

3. You are going to find out from Bob G, that I do very well grasp the fundamentals of the international ELO system.

4. I appreciate that despite my argument "appearing" sexist to you, you have taken note that I am far from sexist. My whole argument is for the purpose of benefiting women's chess internationally (Despite the fact that high-rated women, being in a conflict of interest position, will not support my project, because a good portion of their income comes out of the FIDE women's title system, and they do not want the system to disappear).

Bob A

(It has served its "incubator" purpose),

Bob A

WOW simply WOW!

"incubator" purpose? "incubator" purpose of what Bob A. ... the "incubator" purpose of degradation of women?

...

Bob A. ... Your kind goes along to get along ... I've seen your kind before. I well understand your kind.

I abhor your kind.









.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Pargat:

1. A woman of Carlsen's talent may well be buried in the separate, parallel, women-only title system. But to date, no woman has streaked ahead of her peers in the women-only system. Hou Yifan got to top ranking for women because for a while she refused to play in the women-only system, and began playing only in "Open" tournaments (Not "men-only"). Then her rating began to rise.

2. It is my error to have said that women must play "men" to improve their ratings. What I should have said is that the women-only title system should now be abolished (It has served its "incubator" purpose), and then women will play in the "Open" tournaments (Where, at the moment, and likely not for long if what I want happens, the top players are all men). When women enter the top echelons of ratings, then other women will be playing them as well as top men and will thus raise their ratings.

3. You are going to find out from Bob G, that I do very well grasp the fundamentals of the international ELO system.

4. I appreciate that despite my argument "appearing" sexist to you, you have taken note that I am far from sexist. My whole argument is for the purpose of benefiting women's chess internationally (Despite the fact that high-rated women, being in a conflict of interest position, will not support my project, because a good portion of their income comes out of the FIDE women's title system, and they do not want the system to disappear).

Bob A

[Pargat Perrer]

Hi Pargat:

In a rating pool, studying and playing a lot does NOT increase your RATING.

What happens is that a good woman player of 2300 is stuck with her rating at the top of the pool with other women of 2300, though her strength may well be, outside of the pool, higher.

So she goes to play in an open tournament, and lo and behold, though 2300, she is beating men with 2400 ratings! She will pick up points.

Then when she returns to the women's pool, she will contribute these new additional points to the pool, and the average top rating can then rise a very little bit.

For the top woman in the woman's pool to pull away from her peers in the group, she must be exceptionally more talented than the rest at the top. Then she can raise her rating by regularly beating her top peers, and taking points from them. This is why Magnus Carlsen was able to get such a gap in his high rating, as against the ratings at the top of his peers.

Bob A

Hi Bob A.,

I know you have good intentions, but you really don't understand what you are implying. Because basically, you are implying that no such women's equivalent of Carlsen is possible.

Right now we have Yifan Hou at the top of the FIDE women's rating list, 2658. Let's pretend that Hou has never played a rated game against any men, and that she will only play against other women. In fact, all the women will only play against women. Let's also pretend that Hou's abilities are actually every bit as good as Carlsen's.

That means Hou will start beating all the other top women consistently, and her rating will eventually reach Carlsen's within some margin of error, say 1%. She would become the women's version of Carlsen. Her rating will get to be the same as Carlsens, and this means she will be much more dominant against the women than Carlsen is against the men, because her competition is not as strong. But here rating WILL still reach Carlsen's given enough rated games played.

Now let's pretend some new woman comes along who is every bit as good as Caruana in the men's group. So this new woman starts beating all the top women regularly, except she loses to Hou at the same rate that Caruana loses to Carlsen. This new women's rating will eventually reach Caruana's rating.

If there were an identical woman for every man in the mens' pool, then each identical woman would have the same rating as her identical counterpart in the men's group, again accounting for margin of error. This would happen once the women's group reaches the same size as the men's group. And all without women playing against men.

But you are saying no, this cannot happen. You are insisting women are equal to chess as men, but you are also saying women cannot have their own Carlsen, their own Caruana, etc. in terms of Elo rating and just by playing amongst themselves.

As I just explained to Bob G., the key is to make each group the same size.

Please stop telling women they must play men to improve their Elo ratings. This isn't true at all, and it comes across to them as sexist and so they label you as sexist. But I know you don't mean to be sexist, you just don't grasp the fundamentals.

[Pargat Perrer]

Honest, it was not intended as a gotcha question!
I like hypothetical questions because you can filter out variables and focus on a single key element.
Picking 1 year was just random, it doesn't matter.
The size of the pools, it doesn't matter.

The key element is the relative size of the 2 pools.

At whatever elite rating you pick, there will be more men achieving that rating than women.
It is simply a result of mathematics. Totally divorced from the skill level of Men vs. Women.

If we have Alice and George, equal skill levels.
You may end of with result:
Alice rating = 2700, George rating = 2800.

It is simply the math.......read Bob A. posts again.

Very good, Bob G., you have reached the correct key variable. And for the case where the women pool size < < men pool size, yes, the highest woman rating will almost certainly be below the highest man rating.

This does NOT make correct Bob A.'s assertion that to improve their Elo ratings women must play the higher-rated men.

Instead, the key is to grow the women's pool to be the size of the men's pool. Then you will have the women's equivalent of Carlsen, the women's equivalent of Caruana, the women's equivalent of everyone in the men's pool, if we assume that women's chess abilities and work habits are just the same as men's.

It is a sexist view to tell women that they must play men to get better at chess, even if you are just talking about Elo ratings. It would be more correct and not sexist at all to say they should encourage more women and girls to play competitive chess, and grow the women's pool. I know that Bob A. isn't sexist, he just doesn't realize that his view is sexist. He says he is being accused for years as sexist, and it is his view that is responsible for that. Women aren't dummies.

One of the ways to grow the women's pool is to offer women titles at lower rating levels than the men. They can still earn the men's titles under the same conditions as the men, but they have an additional enticement. It is only to get more girls and women into chess, nothing else. Bob A. feels that this additional enticement isn't needed any more, and i don't argue his view there, nor do I say that that view is sexist. He could very well be correct. I really don't know on that issue.

A lot of women are indeed playing against men in mixed tournaments, have been for many years. But here's the key thing: if women and men are both improving or getting worse at chess at the same rate (obviously some individuals in each group will improve or get worse randomly, but I am taking them each as a group), then women are not going to "steal" points from the men by playing against them. The only thing that would enable women to steal points from men as a group would be if women are improving at chess AT A GREATER RATE than men.

Bob, I believe you organize tournaments, is that correct? Would you have an opinion based on your observations that young girls improve at chess faster or slower than young boys? I would almost bet that you can't objectively say one way or the other.

I just think we men need to stop telling women they must play men to get better. We only turn them off with such statements, especially when the statements are entirely false.

Now Bob G., please tell me because I'm really wanting to know:

What is the range of numbers that the CFC program you just mentioned for the performance rating will accept for the average rating of the unrated group? I'm especially interested in the maximum number it will take.

Thanks!

[Bob Gillanders]

Also, your hypothetical question is loaded because you are limiting the time period to a single year. How about 100 years? Also, you are ignoring that each group of players will grow over time, new members joining.

But I would say that the distribution of ratings should be roughly the same in each group, accounting for margin of error and assuming men and women have equal abilities and work habits in chess. But in practical terms, if we say that the odds of any player in a normal distribution group of players reaching 2850 rating are 1 in 1000 (just to make it simple), the men could see a single member get over that rating while the women most likely won't. That doesn't demonstrate anything, because if the men began with 100,000 members and the women began with 10,000 members, then the men should have roughly 100 men over 2800 and the women should have about 10 members over 2800.

Honest, it was not intended as a gotcha question!
I like hypothetical questions because you can filter out variables and focus on a single key element.
Picking 1 year was just random, it doesn't matter.
The size of the pools, it doesn't matter.

The key element is the relative size of the 2 pools.

At whatever elite rating you pick, there will be more men achieving that rating than women.
It is simply a result of mathematics. Totally divorced from the skill level of Men vs. Women.

If we have Alice and George, equal skill levels.
You may end of with result:
Alice rating = 2700, George rating = 2800.

It is simply the math.......read Bob A. posts again.

[Bob Gillanders]

I wonder if you noticed that even if the provisional ratings had been just as you expected, the group as a whole lost rating points. When everyone began with 800 rating , total rating points were 6400. When the tournament ended, even with your expected results the total rating points only totaled 6253.

I did not notice that, but your comment caught my attention.
Yes, I would expect the total rating points to be 6400.

So, I gave it some thought. The cause is an effect from the byes.
If you do a weighted average of the performance rating based on number of games played,
you will see the average rating of 800 is maintained.

[Bob Gillanders]

I wasn't talking about basic questions on Elo rating system. But in going to your link, I did scroll way down and came across the section on Performance Rating.

And here is the interesting thing about this rating, that the CFC uses when an event is held between all-unrated players:

Example: If you beat a player with an Elo rating of 1000,

If you beat two players with Elo ratings of 1000,


So you beat the first 1000-rated player, you jump to 1400.
You beat the second 1000-rated player, you stay at 1400.
If you beat a million 1000-rated players, you stay at 1400.
What a ridiculous system.
This is not how FIDE does it. They use some kind of a look-up table.

This calculation is only relevant for the first 25 games. Once a player has played 25 rated games, his/her rating now is considered established.
Then the more standard ELO system kicks in.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Pargat:

In a rating pool, studying and playing a lot does NOT increase your RATING.

What happens is that a good woman player of 2300 is stuck with her rating at the top of the pool with other women of 2300, though her strength may well be, outside of the pool, higher.

So she goes to play in an open tournament, and lo and behold, though 2300, she is beating men with 2400 ratings! She will pick up points.

Then when she returns to the women's pool, she will contribute these new additional points to the pool, and the average top rating can then rise a very little bit.

For the top woman in the woman's pool to pull away from her peers in the group, she must be exceptionally more talented than the rest at the top. Then she can raise her rating by regularly beating her top peers, and taking points from them. This is why Magnus Carlsen was able to get such a gap in his high rating, as against the ratings at the top of his peers.

Bob A

[Pargat Perrer]

I haven't bothered to read the whole thread. It's my style to jump into the middle of a discussion with information that may be irrelevant or redundant. With that in mind, here is a link which may (or may not) be helpful:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

I wasn't talking about basic questions on Elo rating system. But in going to your link, I did scroll way down and came across the section on Performance Rating.

And here is the interesting thing about this rating, that the CFC uses when an event is held between all-unrated players:

Example: If you beat a player with an Elo rating of 1000,

If you beat two players with Elo ratings of 1000,


So you beat the first 1000-rated player, you jump to 1400.
You beat the second 1000-rated player, you stay at 1400.
If you beat a million 1000-rated players, you stay at 1400.
What a ridiculous system.
This is not how FIDE does it. They use some kind of a look-up table.