A new strategic plan for the Chess Federation of Canada

[Vlad Drkulec]

I agree with many of John's points. I don't play as much as most people, but when I do, the two things that are most important to me are: 1) a very competitive matchup (which requires that we both have semi-accurate ratings, and where rapidly improving Juniors [understandably] often have quite inaccurate ratings?!). I'm not sure of the solutions, but John's right, we should think about this.

And 2), I just LOVE having a good postgame with my opponent. This significantly adds to my tournament experience! This seems much more likely to happen with a more mature player like myself. For example, even though I was away for this year's Veterans/Seniors, that's ALWAYS a perfect environment for both entertaining competitive chess, and a thoughtful exchange-of-ideas postgame!

Maybe an Organizer reading this might consider trying some age sectioning?!

To have a good postgame analysis you need time between rounds. Piling rounds on top of each other with unrealistic timelines means no time for the analysis which I also enjoy. The online platforms mean that you can stay semi-sharp between tournaments but since you tend to play faster time controls, you collect bad habits that may hurt you in tournaments. Also online chess is different from over the board chess.

Many people don't like the idea of a rating floor but I think the USCF has had one for many years and it has kept certain people playing later in life as the tyranny of ratings becomes irrelevant. If you are at the floor you can't lose rating points, you can only gain them.

I think that where the juniors have an advantage are that they are actively working on and studying chess. Older players for the most part tend to coast. If as an older player, you are actively studying chess, I think the underrated juniors will be less of a problem. Experience and guile can overcome youth and energy though you need to be very sharp and execute properly. For the most part playing underrated juniors means you get a better game. You just can't take anyone for granted and assume you will have an easy game until it transpires that you do. Chess is really a lot like the movie "Groundhog Day" and its time loop variants. If you always learn from your setbacks, your trajectory will be more smooth because when you are faced with the same situation, you will be able to apply lessons learned in previous encounters.

[Hans Jung]

Please initiate a rating floor before my rating dwindles down to nothing. (Fwiw I think your post is very wise Vlad)

[Vlad Drkulec]

Please initiate a rating floor before my rating dwindles down to nothing. (Fwiw I think your post is very wise Vlad)

Thank you Hans. Such a compliment means a lot coming from you.

So if there was a rating floor, who would be inclined to play more?

In the USCF if your peak rating is over 2200, you have a floor of 2000. I know for myself, I will occasionally play in a nearby tournament even when not in the mood to play because even if the wheels fall off my tournament performance, I can currently only lose a maximum of 58 points. I have never hit the floor though I have flirted with it on occasion. It has been more of a slow decline though occasionally I show flashes of being able to perform at a higher level.

In Canada, I have dropped below 2000 many times but at that altitude, it seems that it is easier to climb into the more comfortable hights of being a 2000 player again.

I haven't had a big problem with juniors as they have mostly nicked me for a draw here and there and in each case it was because I moved too fast and overlooked a continuation that won or at least gave me a significant advantage. I think that since I spend a lot of time teaching kids how to play, I can usually hold my own against them. Occasionally I get blown away but it only ever happens in a particular opening, once or twice before I do a deep dive on the reasons that I lost and those experiences tend to be a one-off. Usually, especially where a dubious opening was played I study the opening and the next ten times I punish my opponent until memory starts fading. If every loss is a learning experience you can soon minimize your losses.

Doing game reviews on chess.com helps put situations quickly into perspective. There are many openings where I feel uncomfortable but then chess.com says you have played this opening x times and you have a ridiculously high win rate which is 20 points above what you think it is. I also wonder about the single game rating calculations. I occasionally get numbers like 2800 or 2700 and often 2500 usually when my opponent made a mistake in an opening which I prepared with a student or studied for my own purposes. Their engine often criticizes moves that I played following the theory presented by a grandmaster in a camp or online course.

[Don Parakin]

This discussion is timely. The current CFC ratings program is about 25+ years old and is in need of replacement. Still early stages, probably won't be completed in 2023, but now's the time for ideas.

One idea is to include "decelerators" to slow down a player's drop in ratings. After a tournament, new ratings would be calculated as usual but then if a player is, say, 200+ points below his all-time high, the loss would be reduced to 50% (and if he is 400+ below his all-time, reduce the loss to 25%).

This idea seems to reflect reality. Say you have two 1500 players who have a bad tournament and so would lose 50 rating points. If one had an all-time high of 1500 and the other 1800, it's probably not real to say they both had the same drop in ability (in general, that is, infinitely debatable in specifics). The player who has proven in the past to be 1800 is probably more capable than other who peaked at 1500 so far and so their new ratings should reflect that.

This might be better than an absolute impenetrable ratings floor. You can skyrocket up fast (we have bonus points to help with that). But can parachute back down slowly.

[Vlad Drkulec]

This discussion is timely. The current CFC ratings program is about 25+ years old and is in need of replacement. Still early stages, probably won't be completed in 2023, but now's the time for ideas.

One idea is to include "decelerators" to slow down a player's drop in ratings. After a tournament, new ratings would be calculated as usual but then if a player is, say, 200+ points below his all-time high, the loss would be reduced to 50% (and if he is 400+ below his all-time, reduce the loss to 25%).

This idea seems to reflect reality. Say you have two 1500 players who have a bad tournament and so would lose 50 rating points. If one had an all-time high of 1500 and the other 1800, it's probably not real to say they both had the same drop in ability (in general, that is, infinitely debatable in specifics). The player who has proven in the past to be 1800 is probably more capable than other who peaked at 1500 so far and so their new ratings should reflect that.

This might be better than an absolute impenetrable ratings floor. You can skyrocket up fast (we have bonus points to help with that). But can parachute back down slowly.

These are interesting ideas. I personally like the idea of a floor though a soft floor is a good alternative.

It would also be good to encourage older players to continue to study chess. You don't have to go crazy on chess books and courses like me but every little bit helps.

[John Brown]

There is a very simple way to stop decimation.. Just take away 16 points if you lose. give the winner 16 points and give the winner bonus points based on the rating difference based on a standard chart. DO NOT take extra points away from the loser. That way established players would still play as their ratings don't get decimated as fast and underrated players will move up to the point that their ratings would reach normality. If the higher rated wins they would get a very small bonus but not as much as a lower rated player.

[Don Parakin]

If my rating is at its fixed floor, then my games become like un-rated games. I have no skin in the game and won't care if I lose and so might play some trash (but, then again, I play trash already).

[Bob Gillanders]

Please initiate a rating floor before my rating dwindles down to nothing. (Fwiw I think your post is very wise Vlad)

Hans, don't panic. Can you keep a secret?
Not everyone knows about this, but the CFC rating program already has a rating floor. 799.
If your established rating is below 800, it will not drop any further. Shhhh!!!

My rating has dropped a staggering 690 points in the last 24 years.
According to my calculations, I should hit the floor in 2046.

Help, I've fallen and I can't get up!

[Bob Gillanders]

If my rating is at its fixed floor, then my games become like un-rated games. I have no skin in the game and won't care if I lose and so might play some trash (but, then again, I play trash already).

Don, I have a great idea for a supplementary rating, the Geezer Rating.
Just kidding, call it the Adult rating.

But seriously, with a new rating program, I think we should add:

Adult rating, where only games between 2 adults are counted.

Problem solved.

[Hans Jung]

Maybe I should get ambitious, Bob. Just think a Fide master with a rating of 800 - that will be an eye popper!

[Roger Patterson]

Please initiate a rating floor before my rating dwindles down to nothing. (Fwiw I think your post is very wise Vlad)

The effect of a rating floor is that the affected individuals will no longer be rated. Strange to propose this as part of the rating system. Other effects are that seniors can no longer win class prizes (as their strength is below the rating floor) and can no longer play in a section according to their strength (as the rating floor will force them to play in a higher section).

Personally, being forced to play in a section where I am out classed is more likely to make me not play.

And if your pride demands a high rating, get the title certificate from the CFC corresponding to your peak ability and leave the rating system (a measure of current strength) alone.

[Peter McKillop]

.... leave the rating system (a measure of current strength) alone.

Yes indeed! Can't imagine how distorted and inaccurate the rating system would be if it contained a large chunk of ego ratings rather than elo ratings. Ability in most things declines with age for a multitude of reasons. Keep playing the game you love or retire.

[Victor Plotkin]

As far as I know, USCF uses rating floor mostly for financial reason - against sandbagging. Rating should reflect the current strength. From my experience, 2000 player with the top rating of 2050 is usually stronger than 2000 player with the top rating of 2300.

I am nor sure about the idea of rating floor.

The problem is that we have deflation in FIDE rating system right now and FIDE tries to address this issue. Likely, the decision will be made by the end of this year. Perhaps, we should wait for FIDE and make our rating rules adjustment after them.

[Dilip Panjwani]

As far as I know, USCF uses rating floor mostly for financial reason - against sandbagging. Rating should reflect the current strength. From my experience, 2000 player with the top rating of 2050 is usually stronger than 2000 player with the top rating of 2300.

I am nor sure about the idea of rating floor.

The problem is that we have deflation in FIDE rating system right now and FIDE tries to address this issue. Likely, the decision will be made by the end of this year. Perhaps, we should wait for FIDE and make our rating rules adjustment after them.

I agree.
But Don's idea of accelerating the rise and decelerating the fall sounds good, as it will make the seniors play more games and 'with care' ...

[Hans Jung]

The effect of a rating floor is that the affected individuals will no longer be rated. Strange to propose this as part of the rating system. Other effects are that seniors can no longer win class prizes (as their strength is below the rating floor) and can no longer play in a section according to their strength (as the rating floor will force them to play in a higher section).

Personally, being forced to play in a section where I am out classed is more likely to make me not play.

And if your pride demands a high rating, get the title certificate from the CFC corresponding to your peak ability and leave the rating system (a measure of current strength) alone.

I had a long think about what you wrote Roger and Ive swung my thinking to agree with you. I also had a look at your rating and Im feeling alot better about my own personal rating travesty.