recent CFC decision

[Tyler Longo]

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 ".

The principle I see operating here refers to players " losing " rating points, from my perspective. I believe a player should lose rating points when he plays below his current rating. One way of showing that he has done that is to lose to a lower-rated player.

If I am an 1800 player, and I lose to a " true " 1500 player, then I have played badly ( and obviously the opponent has played " over his head " ). I deserve to lose rating points to him. And it may be deserved by him, if he is just incrementally improving, slowly getting a bit better as he plays.

But what is the case if I play Jason, rated 1569. If I lose, is it because I have played badly = below my rating?? It looks like I could play at the 1800 level, and play as well as I can ( as I always do , of course !! ), yet may well lose to Jason. Why? Because Jason is in fact better than me. He is supposed to beat me now, given his improvement over the last year or less. So why should I lose a high number of rating points to him, when I have not necessarily played below my own current and accurate rating? And there is strong and obvious evidence that Jason is stronger - his recent performance ratings, and his FIDE rating.

So it seems to me that if something can be done, so that I can play Jason, and play well but lose, and not lose about 26 rating points, it should be done. I deserve to lose some points if I lose to Jason, according to the normal correct working of the rating system - ie. I am 1800, and Jason is 1921 - I deserve to lose about 12 rating points. I'm quite OK with that, because I believe the current transfer of rating points between opponents is a generally workable system.

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.

I believe our current system builds in deflation, because it is incapable at the moment of recognizing rapid improvement, and rewarding it with new " system rating points ", not hapless " opponent rating points ".

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

Bob,

What is the point of having a detailed rating system in the first place, if we manually adjust people's ratings when it seems unfair. The rating system will balance it out over time, that's how its meant to work.

Sure, in the short term your points make sense... if you lose to a 1500 rated player who is really 1900 strength, you will lose a few more points than you should, but your rating will approach its "correct" value when you continue to play. Tomorrow you might play a senior (not to say all seniors are overrated, just an example) whose rating has been steadily decreasing in the past few years (overrated). Do you want to adjust their rating down too?. If you respond by saying "well Jason is REALLY underrated", who decides how underrated/overrated you have to be to manually adjust your rating? What's wrong with letting the system adjust?

By manually fixing people's ratings, there is no point in having a system in the first place. Let's just all have a meeting every year, and decide what everyone's rating should be. Besides, we all know I should be a master by now right? :)

FWIW, I have similar problems with the rating boon that happened a few years ago.

EDIT: If we have a problem with vastly underrated juniors, the system needs to addressed. Change the K-factor perhaps, increase the performance bonus. A one time manual fix seems like a really bad solution.

Happy Holidays,
-Tyler

[Kirk Gornall]

Re: recent CFC decision

I find it incomprehensible that this decision was made. And now it might not be a one off thing and could be done again in the future. Where will this end? The chess federation should not be arbitrarily changing (meddling with) the ratings of players based on the subjective view of the playing strength of those players. The ratings of juniors (and adults) should be allowed to improve normally and naturally based on their results in rated competitions. In my view, it just sets a bad precedent for the future, and I could never support such a decision on principle.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: recent CFC decision

...based on the subjective view of the playing strength of those players. ....

It was not based on subjective factors. The evidence from a statistical view of his recent CFC results is quite clear and objective as is his WYCC result.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Character of the Current CFC System

Here is a supplementary post of mine of Dec. 24 on the members' CFC Chess Chat Forum, further elaborating my position:

Character of the Current CFC System

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec
It is inconsistent to argue that CFC ratings are inflated as you did before when arguing for FIDE ratings and then to applaud any action which inflates CFC ratings.


Hi Vlad:

2 points re your response:

1. CFC System Not Inflationary ( Now ) : To argue that the CFC rating is inflated relative to the FIDE rating, is not to argue that the CFC rating system is inflationary

This is a totally different question. My take on your previous position was that the CFC ratings were inflated. Adding 350 points to one individual inflated them more. This does not concern me as much as the question of consistency. The rating system is there to provide an imperfect measurement of performance and expected performance.

I think all this tinkering with the rating system raises the danger of demotivating people to play in outside tournaments. With performance points for someone with a rating of under 2200, a win against someone rated 1600 generated about a one point gain in rating. Now the gain is zero or pretty close to it. Why would I pay $300 in entry fees, gas and hotel and extra meal expenses and drive for eight hours round trip to play for the privilege of losing 32 points if I lose or gaining 0 points if I win? Instead I'll stay home and play games against local masters and experts that will cost me $10 per tournament less whatever prizes I win.

I am willing to spend that $300 for four good games against reasonably strong opponents. I am not willing to spend that $300 for three games against reasonably strong opponents and one or two games against much lower rated or weak opposition. I will probably save some of that money up and go to a tournament in Chicago or Ohio or Las Vegas where I will be able to play six or seven strong players in one tournament.

Merry Christmas, Hannukah or whatever Holidays you are celebrating to everyone.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: recent CFC decision

Jason is actually and currently playing at around a 1900 to 1950 level on the VCC rating system. I am currently playing at around that level as well, but Jason of course is taking big leaps while I am slowly declining in strength due either to age or laziness.

It would certainly be unfair for other players to lose mega points against him because of a loss to a heavily underrated player which does not reflect any actual change in their playing strength. This will likely happen to me in the reasonably near future, though so far I've been able to hold him off in tournaments.

Why would it be fair for me to lose a hundred or so rating points by losing to someone who will soon be, if not perhaps quite yet, be my clear superior? If Jason makes a sudden leap to 2100, not beyond possibility, why should I lose fifty points to him for a loss because his rating has not caught up with his actual strength?

No rating system is perfect, and there always exceptions and special cases. If, for instance I have me a stroke and my strength goes down to 1200 at a result, why should 1400 players who beat me gain a hundred points from beating a 1200 player whose current "rating" is hundreds of points higher but completely out of date?

A rating system that cannot be adjusted to reflect suddenly changed realities about certain players is not a fair system at all.

The intent of the rating system is to reflect actual strength, and to predict performance in tournaments against others of many different ratings. If a single player makes a huge leap or a huge drop in strength that is unrecognized then that purpose is impaired. Exceptional performances should therefore be rewarded with exceptional ratings adjustments to keep the integrety, such as it is, of the rating system.

Mathematical methods for adjusting ratings of players who make exceptional results are available and have been used in this case, in my mind perfectly fairly and appropriately.

[Eric Hansen]

Re: recent CFC decision

It was not based on subjective factors. The evidence from a statistical view of his recent CFC results is quite clear and objective as is his WYCC result.

His rating was changed to a performance which he has never had in Canada and which he has only had/exceeded once in his lifetime. Sure its not subjective in that sense, its just totally illogical. The subjective part was VCC members basing it on his VCC performances and comparing it to CFC ratings which is totally speculation. I don't find any conclusions in your statistics which points to him being awarded a rating from the tournament of his life. The reality is that Jason Cao is likely an A-class player and if WYCC was rated according to the CFC calculator, he would be rated about 1936(from 1569). If those bonus points aren't counted, he is a few points away from A-class anyways. I just don't see whats so hard to understand about that. The rating system isn't near as bad as you guys put it for dealing with underrated.

Really, though. Whats so hard to understand? The CFC guys just are probably bored and feel like making totally irrational decisions like playing God with the rating system.

[Tyler Longo]

Re: recent CFC decision

No rating system is perfect, and there always exceptions and special cases. If, for instance I have me a stroke and my strength goes down to 1200 at a result, why should 1400 players who beat me gain a hundred points from beating a 1200 player whose current "rating" is hundreds of points higher but completely out of date?

Who decides your new strength is 1200? Obviously there is no perfect system, but arbitrarily deciding a specific instance is wrong isn't the solution. If you really think this is a problem then fix the system, don't use some band-aid solution. Personally, I don't think this is anywhere near as big a problem as some others do though.

Mathematical methods for adjusting ratings of players who make exceptional results are available and have been used in this case, in my mind perfectly fairly and appropriately.

What mathematical method was used here? The kid had one amazing tournament... let his rating adjust properly, or rate that tournament with the CFC. Don't arbitrarily decide "FIDE is right", and just change it. Besides, who would decide that? It's clear in this case he is underrated, but it wont always be that obvious. Why don't we just change everyone's CFC rating who is x points different from their FIDE rating. What's the point of having a CFC system then anyways?

Its not feasible to keep manually adjusting people's ratings who are either too high or too low. Without naming names, it really strikes me that there a lot of people in this thread who are more concerned about losing rating points to someone who is underrated, than having a reasonable rating system that doesn't require subjective manipulation.

[David Ottosen]

Re: recent CFC decision

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

Actually, my original post said the rating system is meant to be a predictor and to make more accurately paired games. Having a tournament with 20 players who are rated more or less correctly, and 1 who is wrong by two classes is detrimental to that. Now, if manual adjustment has other external consequences (such as qualification to something), there's a case to be made that we should let time do it's work. However, if there's not external consequences, then I don't see why immediate adjustment shouldn't be made.

Again - no real idea if this individual situation merits this kind of adjustment as I don't know how good he is. However, all word from people actually seeing him play seems to be that 1900ish is a fair rating, so I don't see any issue with it.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: recent CFC decision

What mathematical method was used here? The kid had one amazing tournament... let his rating adjust properly, or rate that tournament with the CFC.

In three different tournaments he performed three standard deviations above his expected performance. The likelyhood that this happened by accident is vanishingly small. It is virtually certain that this reflects a real increase in his playing strength.

Roger has pointed this out to you, and the fact that apparently you don't understand the statistical significance of this merely shows your ignorance.

Lastly, I know from personally playing him that his strength has increased massively. My rating on the VCC system increased in 2010 from 1854 to a peak of 1922, during the same time Jason went from 1771 to 1901. His best performance during that time was 2241, bettering my own best of 2212, although I had one more 2100 plus performance. At the beginning of this year he was a fairly easy player for me to beat. By the end he is virtually even with me and at the rate he is improving I will soon provide no competition for him.

I know from actually playing him during this time that his strength has increased massively and I personally witnessed him beat a 2100 plus player (and a CFC NM) in a 15 minute game very convincingly.

Jason is the real thing, and holding his rating back would be a travesty and would damage the integrety of the CFC rating system.

The forumula used by the VCC system, by the way, is identical to the CFC system.

[Tyler Longo]

Re: recent CFC decision

In three different tournaments he performed three standard deviations above his expected performance. The likelyhood that this happened by accident is vanishingly small. It is virtually certain that this reflects a real increase in his playing strength.

Roger has pointed this out to you, and the fact that apparently you don't understand the statistical significance of this merely shows your ignorance.

Lastly, I know from personally playing him that his strength has increased massively. My rating on the VCC system increased in 2010 from 1854 to a peak of 1922, during the same time Jason went from 1771 to 1901. His best performance during that time was 2241, bettering my own best of 2212, although I had one more 2100 plus performance. At the beginning of this year he was a fairly easy player for me to beat. By the end he is virtually even with me and at the rate he is improving I will soon provide no competition for him.

I know from actually playing him during this time that his strength has increased massively and I personally witnessed him beat a 2100 plus player (and a CFC NM) in a 15 minute game very convincingly.

Jason is the real thing, and holding his rating back would be a travesty and would damage the integrety of the CFC rating system.

The forumula used by the VCC system, by the way, is identical to the CFC system.

First of all, there is no need to get personal. I'm merely stating my point of view and trying to have a healthy debate, but suggesting I'm ignorant when it comes to the statistical significance of his accomplishment is a little unnecessary.

I never said his actual playing strength wasn't 1950. Maybe it is. I completely understand the statistical significance of him performing well above what his rating would predict. My point is simply that the system should be made to reflect that. There shouldn't be any need for manual interference. Adjusting his rating sets a horrible precedent, and its hard to see where the line should be drawn.

[Tyler Longo]

Re: recent CFC decision

Actually, my original post said the rating system is meant to be a predictor and to make more accurately paired games. Having a tournament with 20 players who are rated more or less correctly, and 1 who is wrong by two classes is detrimental to that. Now, if manual adjustment has other external consequences (such as qualification to something), there's a case to be made that we should let time do it's work. However, if there's not external consequences, then I don't see why immediate adjustment shouldn't be made.

Again - no real idea if this individual situation merits this kind of adjustment as I don't know how good he is. However, all word from people actually seeing him play seems to be that 1900ish is a fair rating, so I don't see any issue with it.

That's fair. I guess I think there are more external consequences to this rating change than you do. Who decides who's rating should or shouldn't be changed. How underrated does a player have to be? etc..

[Michael Yip]

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.

I am a bit sad that noone has noticed that I am not a junior, but a semi-senior. I played in the same Inter-Collegiate Championship tournament as Jean Hebert in the mid-1970s where he won 6-0 if I remember correctly.

My first tournament game was against Mr. Ken Salmon at the Calgary Chess Club where I lost rather quickly. But I came back to win a nice book prize as the top unrated player. My first provision rating was 1798(I think) and I cannot remember if anyone thought that I was under-rated at the time but I was quite happy to see my name published with a little number beside it.

I remember using one book-Best Games of Karpov by Peter Markland, to propel myself to 1995 in a couple of years without solving a single chess problem. My wisest investment back then was a few chess lessons with Dave Ross(around 2260 back then) where he emphatically told me to solve problems for 15mins/day.

However, I did not listen...so chess enthusiasts take note. Solve problems if you want to rise quickly...or you will spend your life at 2000-2100 level.

The highlight of my chess life was a draw with Igor Ivanov at a Winnipeg Canadian Open in the 1990s(beautifully staged and organized) where the CFC gave me a top upset prize-Akiba Ruibstein's Chess Acadamy by Glatman.

Now after some decades in chess, some observations

1.Listen to your chess coach, especially if he(or she) says solve problems
2.Read some classic books early in your chess education like My System, Questions of Modern Chess Theory(Lipnitsky), Zurich 53
3.Don't play the King's Indian, Najdorf Sicilian as your first defences. Try open games, French or Caro-Kann instead
4. Play alot. Read alot. Study alot. But most of all enjoy the game. Your rating will follow you like a dog, sometimes it's behind you sometimes its ahead of you. But it's always with you no matter what.
5.Take in some modern classics. San Luis 2005, Winning Chess Middlegames(Sokolov), My Great Predecessors etc
6. Don't get buried in the details of openings
7. Pay attention when strong players analyze in the tournament you're in. They are your teachers.
8.Check your own games carefully.
9.Only a handful of people can make a living at chess. At the appropriate times, it is necessary to stop chess to complete your education, start your career...etc. You can play and do chess later. Later is now for me.
10.Canadian Open Championships(and Quebec Opens) were the highlight(s) of my life. I played in a few. I wish I could have played in more.
11.Organizers are volunteers. Say thank you once in a while.
12.If you have some spare time?...donate it to a junior, start a kids club. Got an extra book just sitting on a shelf? Pass it on to someone who needs it. It might help them along.

Merry Xmas

Michael Yip

[Roger Patterson]

Re: recent CFC decision

three standard deviations.

That should read 'two standard deviations'.

I know from actually playing him during this time that his strength has increased massively and I personally witnessed him beat a 2100 plus player (and a CFC NM) in a 15 minute game very convincingly.
.

In the last 6 months or so he has also beaten Harry Moore (2275), drawn Valeria Gansvind (2318), drawn Brian McLaren (2207), drawn me (2138) (twice I think). Those were not CFC rated games, either training games before the WYCC or in an active tournament at rapid time controls but still... Pretty good results for either a 1500 player or a 1900 player.

The forumula used by the VCC system, by the way, is identical to the CFC system.

Not quite although it is similar. For one thing, I have a rule (unpublished) for adjusting ratings for extreme performances. It's experimental at this point. [the rule is: for extreme performances more than 2 standard deviations from expectations, adjust the pre tournament rating to approx. that required to make it standard deviations. i.e. moves part of the way there but not all the way [to guard against giving extra points for someone who just had a good day]. The only people who have managed to benefit from this rule so far are our juniors....

[Aris Marghetis]

Re: recent CFC decision

Merry Christmas Michael

[Jean Sasseville]

Re: recent CFC decision

I am a bit sad that noone has noticed that I am not a junior, but a semi-senior. I played in the same Inter-Collegiate Championship tournament as Jean Hebert in the mid-1970s where he won 6-0 if I remember correctly.

Michael Yip

Michael,

I have the same age as you. I played in that intercollegiate in Shawinigan. The following year I took 2nd place with 5.5/6. Jean Hebert was not there to krush me. Me too I succeeded in drawing some GMs. I stopped playing at age 25 and went on in organizing tournaments and being president of the Montreal Chess League. Ten years ago I came back to competitive chess for a year and came back again last year. I am intimated when I play to some of these youngsters with great talent and supported by a strong coach. However loosing rating points is not a main concern, as long as I succeed in playing well I am proud.

Accept my apologies for my mistake. But it gave me an opportunity to better know you. I greatly enjoyed reading your latest post.

Merry X-mas to all!!!