Which rating to use?

[Hal Bond]

Re: Which rating to use? FIDE Ratings

I used to think that a national rating system was more important because its updates were more frequent and the floor was not set. These days though, FIDE publishes the list every two months, rates events almost immediately for viewing, and has lowered its floor to 1200. So I have taken a more positive view of FIDE ratings. The CFC controls FIDE rating activity in Canada exclusively, yet we dilute its meaning with several other systems.

I don't think I am betraying any confidences when I say that the CFC Executive has had preliminary discussions about this subject without any clear concensus. Any move to FIDE ratings would have to be the result of a broad debate. There are many issues to reslove. One is conversion from CFC ratings to FIDE, another is the loss of control to address regional disparities - just because we start using FIDE ratings doesn't mean all problems disappear. For starters though, I like the idea of FIDE ratings becoming more prevalent in Canada.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: World Rankings

... And if FIDE is corrupt, as it may very well be, then it should be held accountable and/or morphed into something new; an open and transparent chess federation that can honestly represent the game and the players who participate in rated tournaments throughout the world. ...

I agree with you but I also had to chuckle a bit when I read the above part of your post. Look at the problems that we're having with our own little CFC that we can't seem to fix. Trying to fix something on a world-wide scale looks like trying to climb Everest without out oxygen tanks. :)

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Which rating to use? FIDE Ratings

I used to think that a national rating system was more important because its updates were more frequent and the floor was not set. These days though, FIDE publishes the list every two months, rates events almost immediately for viewing, and has lowered its floor to 1200. So I have taken a more positive view of FIDE ratings. The CFC controls FIDE rating activity in Canada exclusively, yet we dilute its meaning with several other systems.

I don't think I am betraying any confidences when I say that the CFC Executive has had preliminary discussions about this subject without any clear concensus. Any move to FIDE ratings would have to be the result of a broad debate. There are many issues to reslove. One is conversion from CFC ratings to FIDE, another is the loss of control to address regional disparities - just because we start using FIDE ratings doesn't mean all problems disappear. For starters though, I like the idea of FIDE ratings becoming more prevalent in Canada.

Is the (one-time?) conversion of CFC ratings to FIDE ratings part of the proposed solution? I had not heard that idea before (perhaps it is just a presumption rather than an obvious initial step). If a National Federation decided to switch to FIDE ratings exclusively, I would worry about the effects of introducing a massive number of otherwise unrated folks into the pool - especially since that large number of people are not really 'unknown strength' as might be the case when a previously unrated person shows up for a weekend Open tournament...

I can imagine a lot of room for arguments about the rating conversion process - especially from people who already have FIDE ratings earned 'the hard way'. I am also not certain that other FIDE country members would blindly accept the conversion "formula" without similar complaints from them.

I am not sure (please anyone jump in here - as if an invitation was ever needed), but if an individual from Canada started playing in a FIDE-rated tournament right now, I presume that individual would start with an unknown status and would require moving through the provisional ratings until enough FIDE-rated results accumulated? If that is the case, the national rating of that person would be ignored...

[Hal Bond]

Re: Which rating to use? FIDE Ratings

A one time conversion would be a possible negotiation with FIDE, and it could also be rejected out of hand. As for those who earned theirs the hard way, a FIDE rating would be easier to maintain of more people had them. We may be experiencing inflation with CFC ratings but Canadians have a reputation internationally for being under rated on the FIDE scale (if I am to believe what I hear on the subject).

You are right about a new FIDE player. You start with a player ID and accumulate ratable results (minimum 3 games at a time) until you have 9 games.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Which rating to use? FIDE Ratings

Is the (one-time?) conversion of CFC ratings to FIDE ratings part of the proposed solution? I had not heard that idea before ...

Neither have I. Whether its part of FIDE's plan or just an Hal Bond idea it is not likely to go very far.
The CFC should keep its rating system and try to reach an agreement with the FQE to have one common rating system all across Canada. The timing looks great with the FQE being friendly to the point of making donations to the CFC.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Which rating to use? FIDE Ratings

Neither have I. Whether its part of FIDE's plan or just an Hal Bond idea it is not likely to go very far.
The CFC should keep its rating system and try to reach an agreement with the FQE to have one common rating system all across Canada. The timing looks great with the FQE being friendly to the point of making donations to the CFC.

I see Hal's reply elsewhere in this thread seems to imply that the one-time conversion is just an idea to propose to FIDE... I have no idea whether it is a good idea or not, and regardless, I have no idea whether FIDE would accept the idea anyway. (perhaps if there was a payment to FIDE involved, they would agree!)

It seems obvious to me that there should not be CFC and FQE ratings (there should not be two solitudes) but eliminating both might be easier than combining them (despite the FQE's generous mood at this moment). :)

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Which rating to use? FIDE Ratings

The timing looks great with the FQE being friendly to the point of making donations to the CFC.

Hmmm... :);)

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Which rating to use?

Personally I don't see ANY benefit for players <2000 (maybe even <2100) to have FIDE ratings if their fight fields are within 100 km radius of the home place (probably about 80% of all CFC members) For ambitious players we have a trend to rate in both systems - CFC and FIDE.

There is a financial side too - using own rating system the CFC collects about 25k.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Which rating to use?

Hi Egis:

You raise a very important point - a significant portion of CFC's income comes from rating fees. And the fees subsidize the other activities of the CFC ( it clearly does not cost $ 25K to run the rating system ).

So even though I do favour moving to the FIDE system and eliminating the CFC one, I admit I do not yet have an answer to the CFC Revenue loss.

Bob

[Laurentiu Grigorescu]

Re: Which rating to use?

The method of selecting the players for the Olympiad needs to be based on a set of principles/objectives of our chess community. In this respect, either criteria (FIDE or CFC) have both advantages and disadvantages.

Using FIDE rating is very tempting because it is a better indicator of strength on the international level. However, it may lead to situations where:
1. An already accomplished player decides to switch nationalities - Kamsky/Shirov/Onischuk are the examples that come to mind. Depending on our set principles/objectives, we may or may not want to have them (based on FIDE rating only) in the Olympic Team.
2. An already accomplished player with a high FIDE rating may became "life memeber" of the Olympic team. He can maintain a high FIDE rating by wisely choosing in which foreign tournaments to take part in order to maintain that rating. Again, we may or may not want that.

Using CFC rating brought a lot of critique due to the "inflated" numbers when compared to FIDE rating. While this is generally true (from a various of reasons), there is a factor I believe benefits chess community - having our strong players playing "regular" tournaments in Canada leads (for the strong players) to an inflated CFC, however, tournament organizers benefit from an increased prestige of their tournaments and as a result in an increased participation, the (average) chess players benefit from increased competition and possibility to play the strongest.
Depending on our goals/principles, we may want to reward the contribution these strong players bring to Canadian chess every time they "inflate" their CFC.

In conclusion, a combination of the two ratings is beneficial and the method can be used in the analysis. A Grad Prix system (consisting of the major Canadian/provincial Opens and Canadian Closed) can also benefit players and organizers and be a basis for selection.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Which rating to use?

Using FIDE rating is very tempting because it is a better indicator of strength on the international level. However, it may lead to situations where:
1. An already accomplished player decides to switch nationalities - Kamsky/Shirov/Onischuk are the examples that come to mind. Depending on our set principles/objectives, we may or may not want to have them (based on FIDE rating only) in the Olympic Team.
2. An already accomplished player with a high FIDE rating may became "life memeber" of the Olympic team. He can maintain a high FIDE rating by wisely choosing in which foreign tournaments to take part in order to maintain that rating. Again, we may or may not want that.

1- Why on earth wouldn't we want accomplished players like Kamsky/Shirov/Onischuk on the Canadian olympic team, when we already welcome foreigners much less "accomplished" ?

2- No sane "accomplished player with a high FIDE rating" will ever be interested in a "life membership" on an amateur chess olympic team such as Canada's where players receive no fee or no compensation for their time and work. Furthermore, maintaining "a high FIDE rating by wisely choosing in which foreign tournaments to take part" is mostly a rumor that only runs in the minds of those with no high ratings. It simply doesn't work like that in real life. Professionnal players are interesting in making a living, "protecting" their rating comes in second place The only full-proof way to protect a rating is by not playing, in which case you eventually lose the advantage of your high rating, and cannot make a living.

So overall, your argumentation against using FIDE ratings only is less than convincing. Would you like any help ? :)

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Which rating to use?

1. An already accomplished player decides to switch nationalities - Kamsky/Shirov/Onischuk are the examples that come to mind. Depending on our set principles/objectives, we may or may not want to have them (based on FIDE rating only) in the Olympic Team.

H.Nakamura was a better name, or A.Kovalyov with B.Sambuev who are already in Canada. However, I do not think that this issue is related to a rating's choice. This is dealt in the "(a) Eligibility:" part + some FIDE restrictions.

"2. An already accomplished player with a high FIDE rating may became "life memeber" of the Olympic team. He can maintain a high FIDE rating by wisely choosing in which foreign tournaments to take part in order to maintain that rating. Again, we may or may not want that."

Meaning that the selection should be not entirely based on one criteria, and providing some power to a Selection Committee to interfere. (+ Execs might overrule their decision)

having our strong players playing "regular" tournaments in Canada leads (for the strong players) to an inflated CFC, however, tournament organizers benefit from an increased prestige of their tournaments

IMHO, the main weekend opens are FIDE rated, thus both parties are satisfied - players acquires the required number of played games, organizers - strong players.

In conclusion, a combination of the two ratings is beneficial and the method can be used in the analysis.

In analysis - yes. However, now it is a selection criteria

[Laurentiu Grigorescu]

Re: Which rating to use?

1. You are correct! According to CFCs web site:
Objectives
"The main objectives of participating in the Chess Olympiad are to field teams which will achieve the highest possible results, while at the same time representing Canada favourably on the international stage."
2. You are correct! However, chess history shows this situation occurs sometimes.

I may have misunderstood the idea behind the poll - CFC or FIDE - and went on a wider scale when I stated "the use of FIDE rating only". In the presence of other factors and criteria, FIDE is a good starting point

Thanks for offering help!

[Laurentiu Grigorescu]

Re: Which rating to use?

[QUOTE=Egidijus Zeromskis;23928]H.Nakamura was a better name, or A.Kovalyov with B.Sambuev who are already in Canada. However, I do not think that this issue is related to a rating's choice. This is dealt in the "(a) Eligibility:" part + some FIDE restrictions.

Thank you for pointing me in the right section of the selection process. Not sure why Nakamura is a better name. Not from what I intended to say. As far as I know he plays in US a lot, and developed there into what he is today. Anton and Bator, to their merit, play often in Canadian tournaments. As far as "eligibility" , the standard is very inviting and vague.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Which rating to use?

FIDE should rate only 2000 or higher. It is the professional/semi-professional/serious player system. Meanwhile, the CFC should have a totally different system catering to 1500 +/- 500 points roughly. How about something like this:

http://g4tv.com/videos/44277/dice-20...-presentation/

Basically, it's a "levelling-up" type system. Consider the popularity of Farmville, Mafia Wars, etc. which use a grading system where you make incremental accomplishments and - very important - you never lose them.

The USCF has begun doing just as the above. I picked a current member totally at random:

https://main.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlM...s.php?12868161

Notice he gets credit for his 25th and 50th tournament game victories, as well as "Category Title" which he achieved by making the related norms. IMO this is what the rating inflators are trying to turn the present system into, but without recognizing that you don't need to inflate people's ratings to get them to stick around. Instead, just recognize their incremental achievements (very gradually making them more difficult with each subsequent step) and make sure they always have something to which they can "level-up".