New Year's Chess Resolutions

[Kevin Pacey]

Here's my New Year's Chess Resolutions [as posted on the stagnant OCC message board]:

Posted on January 1, 2010 at 02:54:12 PM by Kevin Pacey

Here's my 3 resolutions from last year, as posted on this msg board:

"Posted on January 2, 2009 at 01:35:26 PM by Kevin Pacey

...[I have 3 resolutions, all arguably chess related]:

1) Save money;
2) Lose weight;
3) Improve my chess rating.

#1 & #2 go together if I don't spend as much on food and drink.

#2 helps #3 by my becoming a leaner, meaner player

#3 helps #1 if I win money more often at cash prize events..."

Alas, at the end of 2009 I only managed to achieve resolution #3 (improve my [regular CFC] chess rating). It started at 2308 and finished at 2340 (it would have been higher had the 2009 RA Autumn Frost been submitted for rating in a timely fashion).

For a while it looked like I would moderately succeed at resolutions 1 & 2 as well, but summer expenditures and Xmas holiday indulgence left me right about where I started at the beginning of 2009.

So, lengthy (but ultimately temporary) success with resolutions 1 & 2 throughout 2009 may have helped my moderate success with resolution 3, as I reasoned that they may. Success with resolution 3 may have come as much or more from steady chess study as well.

What are my chess resoltions for 2010? Why, the same 3 as for 2009, of course. It may be harder to improve my chess rating by the end of the year, however (though it did reach 2362 earlier in 2009).

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: New Year's Chess Resolutions

3) Improve my chess rating.

I assume you want to rise it. Otherwise, it would mean you are preparing a huge project how to improve the CFC rating system ;) On other hand, this might be true, as you spend a lot of time in same tournaments as the CFC Rating Auditor W. Doubleday :)

Let your resolution don't be interfered by the Rayleigh criterion :D

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: New Year's Chess Resolutions

I assume you want to rise it. Otherwise, it would mean you are preparing a huge project how to improve the CFC rating system ;) On other hand, this might be true, as you spend a lot of time in same tournaments as the CFC Rating Auditor W. Doubleday :)

Let your resolution don't be interfered by the Rayleigh criterion :D

Not at all sure what your last sentence means .

I'd like to improve my Active rating too, but for that I have to wait for the Rating Auditor to finish looking at the Active rating system, as I gather he currently is. Because I know that, and I wanted to collect a prize cheque for a weekend event, I played in the last club Active event before Xmas, breaking my boycott of Active events for once. Unprincipled, I know, but the season helped my mood too.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: New Year's Chess Resolutions

Not at all sure what your last sentence means .

That was to be a physicist joke - the Rayleigh criterion is a criterion when two things are resolved by a measuring system. e.g.,

Unprincipled, I know, but the season helped my mood too.

The active rating system is flawed by the lack of activity. Thus, please play more often and encourage your TDs to organize more active tournaments.

[Patrick Kirby]

Re: New Year's Chess Resolutions

We only need one CFC rating system. Active tournaments should be CFC rated, but only 50% of the rating change applies. Blitz tournaments should be the same but 10%. Bullet tournaments 1%. This will give a fully integrated rating system.

[David McTavish]

Re: New Year's Chess Resolutions

That was to be a physicist joke - the Rayleigh criterion is a criterion when two things are resolved by a measuring system. e.g.,




The active rating system is flawed by the lack of activity. Thus, please play more often and encourage your TDs to organize more active tournaments.

If Player A has true strength RA and Player B has true strength RB, the exact formula (using the logistic curve) for the expected score of Player A is

Similarly the expected score for Player B is

This could also be expressed by

and

where and . Note that in the latter case, the same denominator applies to both expressions. This means that by studying only the numerators, we find out that the expected score for player A is QA / QB times greater than the expected score for player B. It then follows that for each 400 rating points of advantage over the opponent, the chance of winning is magnified ten times in comparison to the opponent's chance of winning.
Also note that EA + EB = 1. In practice, since the true strength of each player is unknown, the expected scores are calculated using the player's current ratings.
But, if 'bonus' points were added for the time period that the CFC Auditor did so for the regular rating system (thank you to Hamilton?), and(not thank you to Hergott?), one point per victory minimum for that same time period, my active rating would exceed 2900 right now. Not kidding.
egidijus.zeromskis@ff.vu.lt
Your name only seems to exist in cyberland when regarding Canadian chess. Is this a mistake for someone whom physics only limits 'hjis' existence to this world?

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: New Year's Chess Resolutions

I've played in another Active event (the 2010 RA Spring Open). Had to collect another cheque at my club :D.

One thing that I noticed afterwards was that the current CFC rating system for regular ratings:

http://chess.ca/ratings_system.htm

appears to be being also currently applied to CFC Active ratings, i.e. both participation and bonus points are being awarded, as the crosstable for the 2010 RA Spring Active seemed to reveal when I checked the pre- and post-event Active ratings for just Joey Qin and I:

http://chess.ca/xtableSQL.asp?TNum=201003056

so one might say my little boycott of Active events was much ado about nothing (in the interest of transparency I am prepared to seemingly have to eat some humble pie :o).

However that still leaves the matter of Active rating points that had/have been lost due to deflation.

For the regular CFC ratings, a ratings committee a few years ago did adjust the rating system AND add in 'free' activity points for games played in what the committee deemed to be the deflationary period of approx. 2004-2006. However the committee did neglect to add such activity points to the Active ratings of players who played in that period (or any other such period).

The current Rating Auditor W. Doubleday is still looking intently at correcting the Active ratings, I happen to know.

Taking all this into account, and the fact that I may need to continue to collect cheques at the RA club, I am happy to formally end my one man boycott of Active events :).

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: New Year's Chess Resolutions

There are cash prizes in the active events at the RA? Does one have to be a member of the club to collect them? ;-)

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: New Year's Chess Resolutions

No cash prizes for Active (or regular) events held by the RA club at the club on regular club days (I wish). I got cheques firstly for a weekend event, and secondly for an article I wrote for the CFC newsletter (hand delivered to me by a member of the CFC exec). Hope to get more cheques in future for similar reasons :).

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: New Year's Chess Resolutions

I've played in another Active event (the 2010 RA Spring Open). Had to collect another cheque at my club :D.

One thing that I noticed afterwards was that the current CFC rating system for regular ratings:

http://chess.ca/ratings_system.htm

appears to be being also currently applied to CFC Active ratings, i.e. both participation and bonus points are being awarded, as the crosstable for the 2010 RA Spring Active seemed to reveal when I checked the pre- and post-event Active ratings for just Joey Qin and I:

http://chess.ca/xtableSQL.asp?TNum=201003056

so one might say my little boycott of Active events was much ado about nothing (in the interest of transparency I am prepared to seemingly have to eat some humble pie :o).

However that still leaves the matter of Active rating points that had/have been lost due to deflation.

For the regular CFC ratings, a ratings committee a few years ago did adjust the rating system AND add in 'free' activity points for games played in what the committee deemed to be the deflationary period of approx. 2004-2006. However the committee did neglect to add such activity points to the Active ratings of players who played in that period (or any other such period).

The current Rating Auditor W. Doubleday is still looking intently at correcting the Active ratings, I happen to know.

Taking all this into account, and the fact that I may need to continue to collect cheques at the RA club, I am happy to formally end my one man boycott of Active events :).

For what many might consider further revelations about the CFC rating system and the rating adjustment/boon that occured a few years ago, here's a link to a thread in the CFC Discussion Board:

http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...=5876#post5876