2021 US Championship

[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.

[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

[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.









.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[Bob Gillanders]

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

Hi Bob A.

You are amazing. I don't know anyone as patient as yourself.

I understand what you are saying, nothing sexist about it. The problem is not what you are saying, but what Pargat is hearing.
I have had the same problem with him. It can be exhausting trying to correct him comprehension.

And yes, I can verify statement #3, my friend.

[Pargat Perrer]

Hi Bob A.

You are amazing. I don't know anyone as patient as yourself.

I understand what you are saying, nothing sexist about it. The problem is not what you are saying, but what Pargat is hearing.
I have had the same problem with him. It can be exhausting trying to correct him comprehension.

And yes, I can verify statement #3, my friend.

Ah, so indeed it is the "Old Boys Club" here. Two old men telling women that they MUST play men to improve at chess!

So we have Bob G., the person who said he was going to teach all of us everything about the way the CFC does Elo ratings, and then when his initial experiment failed, he disappeared without answering any questions, and in fact had to ask for "math experts" to help him out.... and he is BACKING Bob Armstrong on Elo ratings knowledge!

Bob. G, who disparagingly calls me "young grasshopper", then gets upset when I give back as good as I got, now says I am not comprehending what he and Bob A. are saying! Why? Because I disagree!

I disagree, so I am not comprehending what they are saying! LOL

Bob doesn't even get his grammar right, to the extent he makes it seem that for provisional rated games in CFC, you should modify your opponent's rating and not your own, this guy says I don't comprehend! LOL

English is not my first language and I understand and comprehend better than him.

Yes, it's the old "don't attack the message, attack the messenger" trick by Bob G. I actually thought he had more character than that.

Neither of these dunderheads understand this: if there are

- 2 separate groups of Elo rated players,
- each group the same size, at least several hundred members and possibly into the thousands,
- each group member only plays rated games against the members of his or her own group,
- each group is equally proficient at chess, and works just as hard at improving their chess

then the 2 groups, after many years of rated games played within their group, will have a rating Bell curve matching to the other group's Bell curve almost exactly, with allowance for whatever margin of error is built into the Elo rating system.

That means if one group member has a 2850 Elo rated member, the other group will have a corresponding 2850 member, plus or minus the margin of error.

So much for these self-professed experts. I can see why women make such fun of men.

[Pargat Perrer]

Bob doesn't even get his grammar right, to the extent he makes it seem that for provisional rated games in CFC, you should modify your opponent's rating and not your own, this guy says I don't comprehend! LOL

English is not my first language and I understand and comprehend better than him.

I was silly enough to say that my correction to Bob G.'s grammar was nitpicky, but really, it wasn't nitpicky at all. The grammar was atrocious! He really made it out to be that you modify the opponent's rating and leave your own rating alone!

Keeping in mind that many of Canada's residents are not having English as their first language, this guy should NEVER write anything for the CFC that is for general public consumption!

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Pargat:

You -

"- 2 separate groups of Elo rated players,
- each group the same size, at least several hundred members and possibly into the thousands,
- each group member only plays rated games against the members of his or her own group,
- each group is equally proficient at chess, and works just as hard at improving their chess

then the 2 groups, after many years of rated games played within their group, will have a rating Bell curve matching to the other group's Bell curve almost exactly, with allowance for whatever margin of error is built into the Elo rating system."

What Bob G and I are trying to get you to understand is that it all depends on the rating configuration of the two pools of players (Let's say equal numbers of men and women in each group).

Pool A (20 players) - if there are an elite 10 players and are all in the 2400 range, they will indeed pick up points from the lower rated sacrificial lambs. Lets say each of the 10 is able to pick up 100 points from the bottom 10 when they beat them. They will raise the elite pool average rating to 2500. But then that becomes the ceiling to the pool, because all the top 10 will randomly beat each other, and just trade rating points, and stay at 2500...all the 10 elite. The only way this will not happen is if one of the elite happens to be a Magnus Carlsen, and can beat up on the other 9 elite players. Then that one rating will go much higher than the average rating of the other 9 elite in the end.

Pool B (20 players) - suppose the 10 elite players are all in the 2600 range. Same problem.......their cap will be set at their increase from the bottom 10; lets say 100 points again. So the ceiling for this group is 2700, and will never rise above this no matter how long they play in the pool, nor how long they study, and increase their actual playing STRENGTH. Strength only increases your rating when you go outside your pool and win points there, because you are in fact UNDER-RATED, because you've been stuck in your pool.

No need for personal attacks, or claims of bias, Pargat.......we are just discussing a very important issue, not understood by many chess players, and disagreeing. And it may be that in the end we will just have to agree to disagree, and remain chess friends.

Bob A

[Brad Thomson]

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)?

What has this to do with the price of tea in China?

[Brad Thomson]

Therefore, to blame women for a system that was, in effect, forced upon them by men, seems sexist...

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.

My inent is not to specifically blame women for the sexism, I am stating that the sytem is sexist. Perhaps true, but not justifcation for the continuation of sexism.