GM Bator Sambuev new rating: 2725!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Re : GM Bator Sambuev new rating: 2725!

    Originally posted by Brian Hartman View Post
    My simpleton response would be the rating is relative. Thus, the salient point is that GM Sambuev has achieved a high standard than anyone else historically using the same system - that is what it being celebrated and justly so. Quite famous GMs have played in Canada and not had the same consistency.

    Unless his opponents play better and overcome his talents, he wil become 3000.


    Brian
    I disagree.

    Sambuev's performance rating over his last 5 tournaments (dating back to the Quebec Open Invitational) is approximately 2735 (30 games). This explains why his rating is what it is.

    I see no evidence that he will go any higher than 2750, unless he starts playing at a whole new level - like 2800 CFC strength (which presumably would be at least 2650 FIDE strength).

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Re : GM Bator Sambuev new rating: 2725!

      Originally posted by Fred McKim View Post
      I see no evidence that he will go any higher than 2750, unless he starts playing at a whole new level - like 2800 CFC strength (which presumably would be at least 2650 FIDE strength).
      A very high rating means that a player must win 100% to rise rating, and that Bator did in last two tournaments and got 50 points. Another three or four 100%-tournaments may throw him over 28xx :D

      http://chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=146462

      Yes, he became a shark (or a musky) in the pond :D

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Re : GM Bator Sambuev new rating: 2725!

        Leave Bator alone. Let him get to 3000, that is great. Think of how that would get many more people playing chess in Canada. We would have IMs and GMs from around the world clamouring to move here to boost their ratings higher. The CFC is brilliant, this is a huge marketing coup. And Kevin Spraggett may even end up coming back to Canada, he is so annoyed that Bator is much higher than him.

        Brilliant CFC, great move. Just get Bob Armstrong to tone down his opposition, after all does he not have the marketing position. What a conflict of interest, he is really shooting himself in the foot this time. Instead of sending press releases to all the Canadian papers (and International ones, and Chessbase, etc) on Bators accomplishment to boost chess publicity he is saying the rating system is broken. Go figure. Time for a new marketing guy...I cannot believe that I agree with Vlad on something...

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: CFC Rating System Problem?

          Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec View Post
          And yet it costs $100 to FIDE rate a round robin making it cost prohibitive for a small three or four player event. We will be playing a lot of unrated and no fee chess in Windsor if that were to come to pass.

          Things seem to be getting better with Canadian chess so why is everyone hell bent on changing everything?

          So far the CFC has collected $133 in rating fees and membership fees this year as a result of my chess play and I am not anywhere near being done. I can guarantee that I will probably never play this many CFC games in one year again. I will probably cut back to 120 games spread out between CFC and USCF play next year so don't count on my $133 to keep the CFC afloat.
          That number is not much different or even cheaper than what the CFC charges for non-members ($20 tournament membership + $3 rating). I suppose those who play in areas with lots of CFC members don't notice for rural regions without a lot of existing CFC members or for tournaments designed to encourage newbies to get used to tournament play ... the cost as you say, is prohibitive.

          Don't know about your $133 !?! Doesn't divide evenly by $3 (nor does $133-$36).

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: CFC Rating System Problem?

            Originally posted by Aris Marghetis View Post
            Victor, sorry, but I am a bit confused here :

            1) There is no FIDE membership fee. How could $0 be more than $36 + provincial fee?
            2) If we went FIDE rating, we would use the FIDE rating system, which is worldwide!
            1) My mistake. I was thinking that my son was paying fees to FIDE, but looks like it was just WYCC participation fee.

            2) But here still is a problem. Will FIDE calculate ratings for all Canadian players (starting from Bator and ending at around 1200)? I am not sure. And if we will calculate by ourselves the ratings for Canadian players only (starting from Bator and ending at around 1200) just using FIDE rating system, there will be a big problem.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: CFC Rating System Problem?

              Originally posted by Roger Patterson View Post
              That number is not much different or even cheaper than what the CFC charges for non-members ($20 tournament membership + $3 rating). I suppose those who play in areas with lots of CFC members don't notice for rural regions without a lot of existing CFC members or for tournaments designed to encourage newbies to get used to tournament play ... the cost as you say, is prohibitive.

              Don't know about your $133 !?! Doesn't divide evenly by $3 (nor does $133-$36).
              Ontario Adult membership is $43 so, 133-43 = 90/3 = 30 tournaments...
              ...Mike Pence: the Lord of the fly.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: CFC Rating System Problem?

                Originally posted by Kerry Liles View Post
                Ontario Adult membership is $43 so, 133-43 = 90/3 = 30 tournaments...
                but only 36 of that 43 went to the cfc durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
                everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: CFC Rating System Problem?

                  Originally posted by ben daswani View Post
                  but only 36 of that 43 went to the cfc durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
                  No. All $43 is remitted to the CFC and some time later the CFC sends the OCA the money it has collected on behalf of the OCA (in this case $7). The "transfer" payments are twice a year (if I recall). So, the calculation is correct... his statement that $133 went to the CFC is not quite correct since the OCA gets a piece of the action on membership - not rating fees.
                  ...Mike Pence: the Lord of the fly.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: CFC Rating System Problem?

                    Originally posted by Roger Patterson View Post
                    Don't know about your $133 !?! Doesn't divide evenly by $3 (nor does $133-$36).
                    Thirty tournaments at $90 and $43 CFC membership for a total of $133. I just finished my portion of a three player double round robin so that amount will go up to $136 once the other two players finish their games against each other and the result is submitted. I might get another four tournaments in this month beyond that but two of them could drag out into the early part of December depending on people's schedules.

                    Who am I kidding? Next year I might try to see if I can break 200 rated games (CFC and USCF). At the beginning of this year I was only going to play 80 games but that didn't seem to work out somehow.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: CFC Rating System Problem?

                      Originally posted by Kerry Liles View Post
                      No. All $43 is remitted to the CFC and some time later the CFC sends the OCA the money it has collected on behalf of the OCA (in this case $7). The "transfer" payments are twice a year (if I recall). So, the calculation is correct... his statement that $133 went to the CFC is not quite correct since the OCA gets a piece of the action on membership - not rating fees.
                      My actual statement was

                      So far the CFC has collected $133 in rating fees and membership fees this year as a result of my chess play.
                      which correctly indicates that the CFC collected that amount. What they did with it later is not my concern at least with respect to the construction of that sentence which is semantically and factually correct.

                      I should have been a lawyer.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: CFC Rating System Problem?

                        Originally posted by Kerry Liles View Post
                        No. All $43 is remitted to the CFC and some time later the CFC sends the OCA the money it has collected on behalf of the OCA (in this case $7). The "transfer" payments are twice a year (if I recall). So, the calculation is correct... his statement that $133 went to the CFC is not quite correct since the OCA gets a piece of the action on membership - not rating fees.
                        but, as you say, the cfc only keeps 36 of the 43. sure, it's all initially sent to the cfc but ultimately they keep 36 and the oca keeps 7. it's a mere technicality that the cfc at some point has all 43 dollars. if i buy a soda pop for 1 and pay 1.12 (1 + 12% tax) would you say the store is receiving 1.12? of course not. they are receiving 1
                        everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: CFC Rating System Problem?

                          Originally posted by ben daswani View Post
                          but, as you say, the cfc only keeps 36 of the 43. sure, it's all initially sent to the cfc but ultimately they keep 36 and the oca keeps 7. it's a mere technicality that the cfc at some point has all 43 dollars. if i buy a soda pop for 1 and pay 1.12 (1 + 12% tax) would you say the store is receiving 1.12? of course not. they are receiving 1
                          Sure. Now I see why you are a fan of Kovalchucky... :)
                          ...Mike Pence: the Lord of the fly.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Re : GM Bator Sambuev new rating: 2725!

                            Originally posted by Felix Dumont View Post
                            No offense to Bator Sambuev, but doesn't this prove that something's wrong with the rating system?
                            No, not necessarily.

                            The ELO rating system's goal is to measure the relative strength of players within a pool. Mr. Sambuev has won many tournaments in convincing fashion these past few months and his current rating reflects he is, at the moment, playing significantly better (result-wise) than any other CFC member in CFC-rated competitions.

                            Just out of curiosity, how many CFC-rated only tournaments Mr. Sambuev played in the past few months? If you were to (fictively) rate them FIDE, what would be Mr. Sambuev new FIDE rating? Would you agree this (fictive)rating is likely a better approximation of Mr. Sambuev's current strength versus international competition than his CFC and current FIDE ratings?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Re : GM Bator Sambuev new rating: 2725!

                              Originally posted by Felix Dumont View Post
                              No offense to Bator Sambuev, but doesn't this prove that something's wrong with the rating system?

                              Hello Everyone.

                              With no offence to anyone, one of the main reasons for GM Sambuev’s difference between FIDE and CFC rating is the fact that most of tournaments he plays (and wins) are not FIDE rated... He is obviously an over 2500 FIDE rated GM and his performances during major tournaments (such as Quebec' Open) prove it with no doubt.

                              When we were checking all his results for the past couple of years, the irony found was that when it happens to him to lose a game in a weekend tournament - it is often in a FIDE rated tournament and when he scored 100% the tournament is not FIDE rated...

                              I would like to congratulate THE MOST ACTIVE CANADIAN ELITE CHESS PLAYER with the new CFC record and wish him to bring his FIDE rating to the level of his real strength, shutting by this all the critics!

                              Thank you for your attention,

                              Danny Goldenberg (FIDE MASTER)
                              I think, therefore I am!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: CFC Top Ratings Out of Whack

                                Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
                                Hi Vlad:

                                I don't think anyone is trying to discount Bator as a personable chess player, nor his accomplishments under the CFC rating system.

                                What is being challenged is that the CFC system is inflated compared to the FIDE system.
                                It is but why does it matter?

                                So Bator is rated 2725 CFC. Are CFC ratings equivalent to FIDE ratings?
                                No. Do they have to be?

                                <snip!>

                                I am only a weak player, and so I may not be able to evaluate Bator's actual strength, but, with all due respect, I suspect Bator does not match the players in this list. The CFC ratings are too high at the top, compared to the FIDE ratings.
                                So subtract 200 points from CFC ratings across the board. Watch the players quit in droves. Make every tournament FIDE rated and gradually get rid of the CFC rating and let FIDE take over. Get used to a CFC that starves itself to death bit by bit.

                                The CFC Rating Auditor, Bill Doubleday of Ottawa, needs to investigate this.

                                That's the point some of us are trying to make - a systemic point, not a personal one against Bator.

                                Bob
                                Isn't there a pretty good writeup on the topic on the CFC website
                                "Comparison between FIDE and CFC ratings" or some such?

                                http://www.chess.ca/CFCvsFIDE.shtml

                                What do you want Bill Doubleday to investigate? According to the website the difference is about 90 points above 2200 and about 1 point below 2200. In my case my FIDE lags my CFC rating by more than double that 90 point gap so I guess I am adding to the perceived inflation of Canadian ratings.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X