recent CFC decision

[David Ottosen]

Re: recent CFC decision

Since you asked:

Ok,Here are three problems with subjective rating scaling before I head to bed.
!)#1 CFC rated player in each age group is entitled to skip CYCC and go to Worlds (and other international events probably)
2) CFC published top rating lists for all categories. If points are being added and ratings changed only for certain people then we should call it "Pound for Pound CFC rankings"(like boxing) instead as it would accurately reflect the situation.
3) As you mentioned, Olympiad,World U-16 Olympiad, University Team qualifications,Ability to play certain events with restrictions.

1) This rating adjustment has pushed him to #1 in the U10 by a mere 3 points, and to get to #1 U12, he has a long ways to go. It's pretty unlikely this rating adjustment will assist him in the manner you're describing here (I'm not sure how old he is or whether he'd be eligible for U10 next year or not - if so, I'd be surprised if they made the defending champ qualify through CYCC anyways).

2) Do you really think that it "accurately reflects" the actual rankings to have the World champ rated #8 in his age group in his own country?

3) None of these are relevant for him.

Your points are fair if applied to situations where there were actual benefits to increasing your rating without playing. I don't really see how any of them apply in this particular case. While I don't think thatmanual rating adjustments should be widespread, I also don't see any issue with it being done in cases where there is clear rating error. I can grant you that it's not entirely clear this is the case here, but I also don't think it has any negative impact on any other person in this case either, so I really don't understand why people are so worked up about it.

[John Brown]

Re: recent CFC decision

I think the easiest way to get low rated juniors or any unrated player up in the ranks is to change the provisional rating calculation.

Instead of using the current calculations for first time players in a CFC event because some of the Chess 'N Math ratings are not true ratings and highly deflated (in my opinion)

After your first CFC tournament instead of using average rating of opponents use: Current rating + ( 3 times Wins x 16 pts- 16 pts times Loses + 2 times 8 for Draws )+ 1600 points. This would be your new First time CFC Rating. Note all newcomers to a CFC rated tournament would start with a current rating of unrated ( 0000 rating)
Then you either go up or down from there.

This would get the stronger Juniors out of the basement sooner. Unrated get an extra 50 points so go up faster and would go to 1650+ and then can get up their rating quicker as their next tournament they can play in U1800 section or higher. If the player is not good then the ratings would be reflected after the next few events. Giving players a low rating to start is not the way to go.

Too many talented Juniors stay underrated too long.
You can also add a provision that a Junior will also get bonus points if they succeed in getting a 4 out of 6 or higher score in the tournament as well.

Simple solution to an ongoing problem of underrated players.

You can also tweak the formula to include established players and give more bonus points to fast improving players.

[Jean Hébert]

Re : Building Anecdotal Adjustment into the System

I think this was a good decision. And I think it follows a general principle that is sound, so I don't see it as just a " special one-time " event. I don't think it should be done just because Jason is a " World Champion ".

As we all know, on a chessboard "sound" general principles lead to many dreadful mistakes if applied without carefully calculating the consequences. In matters of ratings, random and subjective "solutions" (even based on good intentions) simply cannot be applied on a case by case basis, unless we want the rating auditor to drown into a mass of cases and be subjected to neverending complaints afterwards. If the system needs to be fixed, let's fix it, if not let it do its work. Personnaly I think it needs to be fixed for everyone and not just for a -10 world champion.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Building Anecdotal Adjustment into the System

I think this was a good decision. And I think it follows a general principle that is sound, so I don't see it as just a " special one-time " event. I don't think it should be done just because Jason is a " World Champion ".

But were other cases afforded the same scrutiny? If not, will they be examined? The action may not have been taken because he is now Under-10 World Champion, but it certainly came about only because he achieved that title. If he had (say) finished 3rd, would his rating have been adjusted?

I think it is clear that this is a special case. I am not implying agreement or disagreement, I am just saying that justification post-facto is rather hard to swallow.

[Eric Hansen]

Re: recent CFC decision

Since you asked:



1) This rating adjustment has pushed him to #1 in the U10 by a mere 3 points, and to get to #1 U12, he has a long ways to go. It's pretty unlikely this rating adjustment will assist him in the manner you're describing here (I'm not sure how old he is or whether he'd be eligible for U10 next year or not - if so, I'd be surprised if they made the defending champ qualify through CYCC anyways).

2) Do you really think that it "accurately reflects" the actual rankings to have the World champ rated #8 in his age group in his own country?

3) None of these are relevant for him.

Your points are fair if applied to situations where there were actual benefits to increasing your rating without playing. I don't really see how any of them apply in this particular case. While I don't think thatmanual rating adjustments should be widespread, I also don't see any issue with it being done in cases where there is clear rating error. I can grant you that it's not entirely clear this is the case here, but I also don't think it has any negative impact on any other person in this case either, so I really don't understand why people are so worked up about it.

1) Even if they let him go directly since he's world champ, he is taking the #1 rank and therefore taking a privilege from some other youth who earned it and may want to skip CYCC.
2) He got a 5.5/7(1500 perf) at the CYCC against his fellow rivals in the list. IMO that does not mean he is dominating the players in his age group to the point where he is entitled to a "Pass through GO and collect 350 rating points" card. It is more accurate to use an objective measurement for rankings than to let the CFC pick and choose. He can be rewarded by getting his performance at WYCC rated and be much closer to getting the ranking you feel is accurate and which he fully earned. People are worked up over it because it is totally unnecessary and ruins the integrity of the system. Have you heard of another example of this anywhere else? I already explained that the system will allow him to catch up and gain considerable rating(300+) with only a few tournaments.


And as you stated, it's just not completely proven he should be at 1920 as his FIDE rating is completely provisional. If he lost to a 1220 recently, it is just more proof of randomness in youth results and that some people were a little trigger-happy. There was no clear rating error, it was just a case of a kid who improved drastically but people aren't patient enough to let his rating catch up. He is not the first nor the last but the CFC's reaction may well be a first.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: recent CFC decision

1) Even if they let him go directly since he's world champ, he is taking the #1 rank and therefore taking a privilege from some other youth who earned it and may want to skip CYCC.

He is eligible to enter the World YCC the next year per FIDE rules. It's up to him to choose the age group - U10 or U12. I think I've read he had plans to go to U12. (don't about finances involved...)

the system will allow him to catch up and gain considerable rating(300+) with only a few tournaments.

For this one reason I don't understand the need to rise one person's rating. Is it a milestone for a player to have 19xx when the goal is 24xx and more? :D

Merry Christmas !!!

[Eric Hansen]

Re: recent CFC decision

He is eligible to enter the World YCC the next year per FIDE rules. It's up to him to choose the age group - U10 or U12. I think I've read he had plans to go to U12. (don't about finances involved...)

Merry Christmas !!!

Isn't anyone eligible to enter the World YCC, not just Jason? I believe the difference is he gets free room+board or something and is not considered an "additional player". But you still need national federation approval so the CFC still gets their say (I think,could be wrong). He still takes the #1 privileges from someone else though.

Merry Christmas to you too :)

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: recent CFC decision

Isn't anyone eligible to enter the World YCC, not just Jason?

He has the personal right (whatever that means) to go to the WYCC now. All other players should go through some kind of a qualification.

"3.
(GA `93) The players placed 1-3 in a previous World Youth Championship, and the champions of Continental Boys (Girls)-8, 10, 12 and 14 championships, shall have the personal right to participate in the World Youth Championship of the corresponding age-category or a higher age-category if the stipulation of Art. 2 is met. This privilege may be exercised once exclusively in the subsequent year following the year of qualification. "
http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.ht...0&view=article

Finances are issue. However, let's leave it for the next thread :)

[Erik Malmsten]

Re: Building Anecdotal Adjustment into the System

Hi Jean:

I think you have hit the nail on the head. Here is my post in the discussion on this on Dec. 24 on the CFC members' Chess Chat Forum:

Building Anecdotal Adjustment into the System

I think this was a good decision. And I think it follows a general principle that is sound, so I don't see it as just a " special one-time " event. I don't think it should be done just because Jason is a " World Champion ".

So in my view, if there is strong and sufficient evidence that a player is in fact 300 rating points stronger than his current rating, then I see an adjustment upward as maintaining the integrity of the system.

And this is why I see this as not just a " one-on " situation. I think there should be a mechanism for submission of evidence of this situation to the Rating Auditor, and he should be empowered to grant the appropriate increase.

This does not exclude either, some system adjustment that would take into account that many juniors quickly leave their initial ratings behind in terms of actual strength, as they play a lot, and study like sponges. I see no reason both improvements to the system should not occur.

How's that for walking right into the middle of the firestorm? Anyone agree with me, or am I a voice crying in the wilderness?

Bob

Such policy decisions should have been announced in advance. There clearly is a problem with underrated rising juniors. Maybe a different rating system is needed for players under 14 who have chess coaches. Certainly the World tournament should have been CFC rated for all Canadian participants.

Is there a table of rating growth of present masters showing their rating growth from 800-1200 up to 2000? And then if a new kid matches that average graph they get marked for a rating increase?

In Toronto there are enough tournaments for these hard-working youngsters to raise their ratings, but not in smaller communities. But even in Toronto there has been players with 300 pts higher CMA ratings, from playing in many CMA tournaments but few CFC-rated ones. Will the Rating Auditor look at those CMA-rated results?

It is unfair to all the other underrated young players to raise only one. It looks like corruption and favourtism.

[Bob Armstrong]

General Application Procedure Suggested

Hi Kerry:

I have now made a submission to the CFC Rating Auditor, that a new " application for rating increase " procedure be instituted, such that where there is strong and sufficient proof that a player is actually 300 rating points or more above his current rating, an application for increase adjustment can be made.

So it is my position that Jason's case ought not, in all likelihood, to be a " one-time event, because he is World Champion ". The procedure will be available to all, not just juniors. Others who clearly merit an increase should also get it.

I have asked Bill to respond to my suggestion in his report at the Governors' Winter Quarterly On-line Meeting, starting Jan. 15, 2011.

Bob

[Michael Yip]

Re: Rating changes

Hi Bob

(1)Would this procedure be available if there is proof that someone is 300+ overrated? Would they get an instant CFC rating chop?
(2)Why not just rate the WYCC as Mr Hansen has suggested?
(3)Perhaps CFC can publish CFC and FIDE ratings side-by-side so readers can do their own adjusting as they read? (just my 30 sec idea-pardon if you already do this)

Merry Xmas

Michael Yip

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Rating changes

Hi Michael:

1. Find me a CFC member for whom there is " strong and sufficient " evidence he is 300 rating points over-rated. I think there are none. The system decreases ratings as play deteriorates. Deterioration of play is usually a gradual thing, usually due to aging, or decreasing actual tournament playing ( the rust factor ). Barring an injury or health event, your situation ought not to occur. The fact is very different for rising juniors - there we have many instances of juniors leaving their ratings far behind.

2. Rating the WYCC as a CFC event is a possibility. But the issue is that much increased juniors ought not to be taking rating points away from established players as they slowly climb, where it is clear they are much stronger than there rating, not just a bit improved. That is why a separate application procedure is required, in my opinion anyways.

3. Good idea to publish both ratings - but the issue is actual adjusting of the CFC rating. It's not just an issue of personal opinion.

Bob

[Jean Sasseville]

Re: recent CFC decision

Between adults, you find in this thread irreconciable opinions.

I was happy to see many young players post. They probably all experienced some periods of fast improvement in their level of play. They had their rating lagging. I believe that their opinion are more important than elders like me and the other who have posted here. I note that these young players expressed their point very clearly and all are against that rating adjustment. Maybe we should listen more to juniors from time to time.

Eric Hansen, Yelizaveta Orlova, Tyler Longo, Michael Yip, Ben Daswani, Felix Dumont, Canadian chess has a good future with good minds like yours.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: General Application Procedure Suggested

Hi Kerry:

such that where there is strong and sufficient proof that a player is actually 300 rating points or more above his current rating, an application for increase adjustment can be made.

Actually, that just begs the question as to what is strong and sufficient proof. It's something that I've been working on with the statistics of old data but fundamentally, these questions are not always easy to answer. Proposing a motherhood motion and saying 'make it so' will make you feel good but does nothing to solve the actual technical issue.

And, as far as I can see, the rating auditor has always had the power that you are proposing to give him. Elsewhere in the thread, I identified two people, one of whom was adjusted, the other apparently eligible to be adjusted under existing rules. So he can adjust ratings if he wants to for exceptional circumstances and has always had that power.

[Tyler Longo]

Re: recent CFC decision

Since you asked:



1) This rating adjustment has pushed him to #1 in the U10 by a mere 3 points, and to get to #1 U12, he has a long ways to go. It's pretty unlikely this rating adjustment will assist him in the manner you're describing here (I'm not sure how old he is or whether he'd be eligible for U10 next year or not - if so, I'd be surprised if they made the defending champ qualify through CYCC anyways).

2) Do you really think that it "accurately reflects" the actual rankings to have the World champ rated #8 in his age group in his own country?

3) None of these are relevant for him.

Your points are fair if applied to situations where there were actual benefits to increasing your rating without playing. I don't really see how any of them apply in this particular case. While I don't think thatmanual rating adjustments should be widespread, I also don't see any issue with it being done in cases where there is clear rating error. I can grant you that it's not entirely clear this is the case here, but I also don't think it has any negative impact on any other person in this case either, so I really don't understand why people are so worked up about it.

Your response seems to boil down to: "It probably wont matter so why does everyone care?" That doesn't really make sense to me.

I'll reiterate what I said before... the rating system should adjust itself over time. While the negatives probably wont make much of a difference (which I somewhat agree with), does this decision really seem fair? I thought I was underrated when I was younger, but nobody adjusted my rating for me. I'm sure there are other young juniors who felt the same way, and their rating often went up very quickly.

What exactly are the positives of increasing his rating? What is wrong with either 1. Just rating his WYCC performance with the CFC or 2. Letting him actually play CFC events (which I'm sure he will do) and have his rating self-adjust?

Happy holidays,
-Tyler