A new strategic plan for the Chess Federation of Canada

[Hans Jung]

Us old chess players need to hang together and youre not invited Pargat.

[Pargat Perrer]

Originally posted by Hans Jung
I also had a look at your rating and Im feeling alot better about my own personal rating travesty.

we have lots of company Hans. ….. :-(

But wait! This simple nighttime hack will restore your chess thinking to that of a 20-year-old IM!

And it will restore even the worst vision to 20/20 and bring back all your male libido and eliminate ugly skin tags!

Hearing loss? No problem, restored to youthful levels! So you can go to Judas Priest concerts and be right in front of the speakers with no problem!

Hair loss? No problem, dense patches of new hair roots magically appear overnight!

Diabetes? No problem, eat anything you like when you wake up!

Excessive belly fat? No problem, inches melt away as you sleep!

For details on this nighttime hack ....

<insert "I'm a loser idiot" button here>

[Roger Patterson]

I also had a look at your rating and Im feeling alot better about my own personal rating travesty.

we have lots of company Hans. ….. :-(

[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.

[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' ...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Hans Jung]

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

[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.

[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!

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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.