CFC ratings database: some analysis for ratings & activity

[Peter McKillop]

Re: CFC ratings database: some analysis for ratings & activity

... Subject for possible discussion: abandon membership fees completely, and just charge rating fees. It would put the CFC emphasis where it belongs, getting people to play chess.

Yes, this is an interesting idea. Some years ago (I'm thinking 10+), someone involved with the CFC cited, somewhere, a survey of leisure time activities which some Canadian entity had completed (the italicized items reflect the current unhappy state of my memory). If I recall correctly (HA!!), some low seven-figure number of Canadians listed chess as a leisure time activity they had tried. If the CFC could move away from perceiving themselves as a small organization of ~1,500 dues-paying members and instead see themselves as a national organization representing 1,000,000+ Canadian chessplayers, with about 1,500 tournament players paying money to the CFC on a fee-for-service basis, who knows what marvellous things might result?

[John Coleman]

Re: CFC ratings database: some analysis for ratings & activity

Your memory, while failing, is a little generous, I think. The Gallop survey is here
http://members.shaw.ca/berry5868/gall.htm

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: CFC ratings database: some analysis for ratings & activity

CXR looks like it is set up well for rating tournaments - but is under-used. There have only been a couple of dozen tournaments rated since the beginning of the year (and more than half of them are from Hawaii).

I notice that the 2010 Ontario Open is listed - but I can't find a crosstable - maybe it was ever submitted for CXR rating?

http://www.cxrchess.com

[Steve Karpik]

Re: CFC ratings database: some analysis for ratings & activity

I'm slightly surprised at these numbers. I have no knowledge of what is happening in other parts of the country but if I look only at the Ontario numbers they seem to be a bit odd. Another caveat, I am really only familiar with the Toronto scene. From what I have seen in tournament play in the GTA and at the Scarborough Chess Club, activity seems to be increasing. It sounds like Ottawa and Kitchener are pretty active. That covers most of the big population areas in the province.

If the numbers are correctly tabulated (and I assume they are), the difference must be the Junior rated tournaments which I don't know anything about (it's been a long time since I've been a junior and I don't have any kids).

It would be interesting to see those numbers with the junior data ($0.50 rating fee events for Juniors only) factored out if possible. Perhaps there has been a fall in Junior only CFC events. At the SCC, we've recently seen a boom in our under-18 membership numbers. We went from just having a few kids in the club to them making up a sizable percentage.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: CFC ratings database: some analysis for ratings & activity

In Windsor, chess activity is up across the board (both for adults and juniors) though for a time CFC tournaments were fairly rare. Now there are one or two a month if not more. It seems to me that across southwestern Ontario chess tournaments are increasing in frequency or at least maintaining their numbers back to 2007 when I first returned to chess.

[Erik Malmsten]

Re: CFC ratings database: some analysis for ratings & activity

Hi Roger,

I would be interested in seeing a graph by rating class over time.

I played with the list of established players for an article in the Scarborough Chess Club newsletter:

Number of FIDE rated Canadian players by Class
Sept FIDE Rating List/ CFC Rating List 2001-2010 (June 2010 TD List)
2300 and above 61 121 (117 with a FIDE rating)
2200 119 168 (130)
2100 136 174 (90)
2000 144 297 (85)
1900 54 405 (60)
1800 23 437 (21)
1700 6 532 (6)
1600 4 526 (1)
1500 2 442 (1)

Note that the second list is by CFC rating, which can be in a different class than their FIDE rating. Today, CFC-rated Experts should be able to easily get enough games to get a FIDE rating. It’s a struggle for A-class players as they usually need to get 1 point from stronger players in the top section. As more A-class players get ratings, more lower-rated players will get more rated games. But I don’t see 1200 FIDE-rated players anytime soon.

[Mavros Whissell]

Re: CFC ratings database: some analysis for ratings & activity

Hi everyone,

Just thought I would like to add the dramatic effect of some of these graphs would be less if they actually had an absolute zero in each of these graphs. Without an absolute 0 (or just plain zero) curves or increases/decreases appear much more exciting then they actually are. It's a form of false advertising. However, Roger gets his point across regardless.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: CFC ratings database: some analysis for ratings & activity

I thought the CFCs latest alteration of the rating system, eliminating participation points without any apparent study, was a knee-jerk reaction to whatever problems with the rating system that may exist. People got too many points added to their regular rating at the time of the rating boon in 2007 because of a program error that added boon points meant for their Active ratings to their regular ratings, as Chris Mallon revealed on the CFC Discussion Board some time ago.

The participation points that have just been eliminated had been awarded the way that they were back in the 1990s and prior afaik, and after some sample calculations I noticed also that it seems less Bonus points are awarded (under the 2007 & beyond method of awarding them) than compared to the way they were awarded before 2007. Now we may see ratings deflate again faster than some may guess. Hopefully the CFC will study the rating system properly, and regard the elimination of participation points only as a stopgap (& perhaps temporary) measure.

My own rating has taken a big hit (50+ points) lately, in only about 20 games, played mostly before participation points were dropped. I went through a period where I was less able than usual to concentrate at the board due to being preoccupied with other matters.

Plus I have to get used to a group of young children running around the halls outside our club, swinging their arms in the aisles of the club as they walk, or occasionally walking right up beside my table (being one of the top players, I'm a magnet), sometimes resting their chin on it, apparently to see the games better.

Maybe I'll do the Fischer routine of arriving a little late for my games so at least the pre-game noise coming from the kids won't be on my mind. Then again, maybe I'm becoming an irritable curmudgeon :). I seem to be chessed out anyway, so I took a month off playing. I plan to come back with my teeth sharpened. Grrr!

Meanwhile, with participation points gone, it may take a long time to get back up to 2400 :(. I realized long ago I'd never break even in prize money compared to what I spend on entry fees alone. The joy of playing chess for me is mainly about playing and studying lots of different openings, playing the odd good game, pulling off the odd upset or lucky escape if I can, occasional cash prizes, getting a high rating, and above all going to the bar afterwards to relieve the tension and socialize.

A little inflation in the CFC rating system, if it exists nationwide, is good for business as far as the CFC goes. Keep the members happy. You might lose them in droves again otherwise, should deflation occur once more. Btw, fix up the deflated Active ratings too.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: CFC ratings database: some analysis for ratings & activity

I have posted some more work at: http://victoriachess.com/cfc/dist_summary.php based on the distribution of #players versus rating.

Elsewhere in this thread, some thought that perhaps the bad news was restricted to only a change in the number of juniors in junior only tournaments. The CFC database does not allow a direct separation of the junior only population from the 'serious' population but assuming that those rated <1200 belong to the former and >1200 to the latter gives some results. Basically, all of the provinces except Alberta and Ontario are down by fairly significant percentages in activity for both junior & adult play. Summary in the table below (a nicer table is at the link). The last column is the change in 'adult' active playing population from 2007 to 2010 (i.e. those rated >1200). Sample graphs for Canada are given also but to see graphs for the provinces, go to the link.

Province	#players 2007-01	change to 2010-01	change: %	#rated <1200 2007-01	change <1200	change %	#rated > 1200 2007-01	change >1200	change %
CAN	4586	-801	-17%	2698	-643	-24%	1888	-158	-8%
ON	3354	-884	-26%	2303	-873	-38%	1051	-11	-1%
BC	565	101	18%	300	186	62%	265	-85	-32%
AB	239	68	28%	21	55	262%	218	13	6%
MB	95	-20	-21%	1	1	100%	94	-21	-22%
NB	131	-64	-49%	39	-27	-69%	92	-37	-40%
NS	96	-55	-57%	13	-13	-100%	83	-42	-51%
NL	39	-17	-44%	9	-9	-100%	30	-8	-27%
SK	49	-49	-100%	8	-8	-100%	41	-41	-100%

[Gary Ruben]

Re: CFC ratings database: some analysis for ratings &amp; activity

Isn't the year you used, 2007, the one in which we saw the demise of the CFC printed publication? First with a drop in the number of issues and then completely discontinued?

I think the value of the printed word has been underestimated.

[Fred McKim]

Proposal to deal with underrated juniors

I have sent the following proposal to the CFC Rating Auditor. I believe it addresses most of the problems we are having.

The main cause for rating deflation is underrated junior players taking points from other players in the system (typically adult players).

As most adult players are 1400 and above, the effect of deflation from juniors below 1000 is probably negligible, and in any event, the CFC has a mechanism for a quick rise to 1000.

I have been observing the effects of ratings for close to 35 years and in my opinion, juniors who stick with the game rise in strength about 100 points per year. If we consider this to be somewhat true, then we could consider that any junior opponent is potentially 100 points underrated.

To compensate a typical player for this, the junior opponent should for sake of rating calculation be considered to have an extra 100 rating points, in this case UP TO 4 participation points would be given to the player who is playing the junior. If there is a big enough rating difference no participation points would be awarded (for example the player is 800 points higher rated than the junior)..

This is ideal for a situation where a junior gains about 80 points per year plus say another 20 bonus points. This could be gained over the course of about 4 tournaments. So quarterly, the junior would gain 25 points in their rating and their playing strength would go up 25 points. They would constantly be 100 points underrated.

This works (sort of) for most of the areas of the country where juniors play this limited schedule. However, we know that in certain areas of Ontario, BC, and Alberta, they play many more tournaments. We need to set up regional “playing areas”. Most provinces would have a single area. Ontario could probably be broken into the 4 leagues, Alberta: north and south, and BC into Vancouver Island, Vancouver and elsewhere.

We would need to calculate the average number of games played by juniors in each area. We’ll call this Navg. Probably I would suggest current non-provisional members, rated over 1000, who have played more than one tournament in the past twelve months. Any area that has a Navg is 4 or less, uses an Navg of 4.

The following formula is used: Rjradj = Rjr + 400 / Navg

Living in PEI, I could get up to 4 participation points for any local junior I play, but only those that are within 400 points of me, which there aren’t any. We do have some 1600 players here, and they’d get 4 participation points by playing any of our juniors (a number are rated 1200-1350).

Somebody would have to calculate what the average for Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver Island would be. There might have to be tweaking to only include juniors who play in three or more events.

The idea, of course is to develop a regional on-going fix. Right now we have too many rating pools to do a fix that works for everybody. I posted several months ago, that with the amount of tournaments in PEI the participation points worked just perfectly (ie 0 rating inflation or deflation since it had been introduced).

Depending on how much automation was built into this, the Navg could be calculated annually or more frequently.

[Garland Best]

Re: CFC ratings database: some analysis for ratings &amp; activity

What a weird distribution. It's bimodal. Where are the 1200-1500 rated players?

There are 2 distinct populations here. One is centered at 800 points, the other around 1700. The lower rating population is in fact the larger, something I never would have anticipated. At the same time it is dropping rapidly in size, while the high end is stable, if not increasing.

Is this pattern true in earlier years, like say 2001?

How does one interpret the data? Are we not doing enough to encourage the lower rated players to stay? Or does it indicate that juniors make up the actual majority, and their population is centered at 800 (And regardless their numbers are dropping)?

I know we have been focusing on CFC numbers. At the same time what about CMA members? Could the CFC numbers be lower on the low end because juniors stay in the CMA system instead of joining the CFC?

Either way, it's food for thought. Personally right now, I think these statistics show that rating inflation/deflation is not the key problem. It's keeping members. People rated above 1400 are hard core and their population is stable and so are their ratings. We are losing the battle on the lower rating end. We need to retain those players!

[Roger Patterson]

Re: CFC ratings database: some analysis for ratings &amp; activity

What a weird distribution. It's bimodal. Where are the 1200-1500 rated players?

There are 2 distinct populations here. One is centered at 800 points, the other around 1700. The lower rating population is in fact the larger, something I never would have anticipated. At the same time it is dropping rapidly in size, while the high end is stable, if not increasing.

Is this pattern true in earlier years, like say 2001?

How does one interpret the data? Are we not doing enough to encourage the lower rated players to stay? Or does it indicate that juniors make up the actual majority, and their population is centered at 800 (And regardless their numbers are dropping)?

I know we have been focusing on CFC numbers. At the same time what about CMA members? Could the CFC numbers be lower on the low end because juniors stay in the CMA system instead of joining the CFC?

Either way, it's food for thought. Personally right now, I think these statistics show that rating inflation/deflation is not the key problem. It's keeping members. People rated above 1400 are hard core and their population is stable and so are their ratings. We are losing the battle on the lower rating end. We need to retain those players!

maybe you need to follow the link - you would know that the <1200 people are basically juniors who (mostly) play in junior only events. [note: they also don't pay CFC membership dues]

The population above 1400 is not stable, at least outside Ontario / Alberta. The other provinces are dying.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: CFC ratings database: some analysis for ratings &amp; activity

The other provinces are dying.

Is it possible to see numbers of tournaments?

[Roger Patterson]

Re: CFC ratings database: some analysis for ratings &amp; activity

pretty much anything that is in the database can be investigated. I have a long list of things I want to look into relating to activity, membership retention, ratings inflation, and accuracy of the rating calculation. It's a goldmine of information actually.

So, post any queries you may have (which I gather would include "how many tournaments in each year [by region]) and depending on the status of my list and how interesting I think the question is, I might get to it.

I also received recently, the old data going back to I think 1995 so I hope to put that up as well.