recent CFC decision

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: recent CFC decision

Tournament organizers could use a "minimum ratings" list as the Continental Chess Association does for their tournaments in the US. These are for players whose ratings have either dropped sharply recently - or are in the process of rising rapidly (e.g. improving juniors). These ratings are generally higher than the USCF ratings for these players. This cuts down (or eliminates) sandbagging.

On the list is at least one Canadian (Ferdinand Supsup) who has been assigned a minimum rating of 1800 (his USCF rating is 1708; CFC is 1835).

http://www.chesstour.com/mr.htm

[Felix Dumont]

Re : recent CFC decision

Even though I agree that he is worth more than his rating shows, this decision is in my opinion highly questionable...

First of all, do you really think you help him by giving him 350 rating points? He needs to get this rating by playing against people of his strength too. I firmly believe that by suddently jumping from a rating of 1500 to a rating of 1900 Jason misses a very important step...

It took me about a year from my first real week-end tournament to get to a rating of about 1900 (FQE rating) and I'm certainly not as gifted as he is, so it's not like if it would be a big challenge for him... He just need to do it by himself.

[Jesse Wang]

Re: recent CFC decision

Tournament organizers could use a "minimum ratings" list as the Continental Chess Association does for their tournaments in the US. These are for players whose ratings have either dropped sharply recently - or are in the process of rising rapidly (e.g. improving juniors). These ratings are generally higher than the USCF ratings for these players. This cuts down (or eliminates) sandbagging.

On the list is at least one Canadian (Ferdinand Supsup) who has been assigned a minimum rating of 1800 (his USCF rating is 1708; CFC is 1835).

http://www.chesstour.com/mr.htm

Irrelevant. Jason Cao is not a sandbagger.

[Adam Cormier]

Re: recent CFC decision

Was Jason given the choice to automatically gain those points or to stay at his current rating? If the CFC wanted to make this an option to him it would have been better for them to ask him what he wanted. Maybe Jason would have preferred to improve his CFC rating without assistance(Also the chance to pick up a few hundred dollars for more tournaments in the future by lowing in lower sections)? Jason should have been given the choice to whether or not he wanted to gain the ratings points that the CFC seemed so determined to give to him.

edit: If he was given the choice and he selected to gain the rating points, than my objection is pointless. I don't see how it is controversial to give a world champion a few hundred more points to get his CFC to meet his FIDE(if that was what HE had decided after getting the option from the CFC), but maybe the decision to make it was too sudden because he could have just had the tournament of his life and not actually be the strength he performed at in the WYCC.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: recent CFC decision

A lot (all?) of strong players in the attached list worked their way up through the rating grid. I wonder how many felt they deserved a special rating gift from the CFC? What's done is done, but perhaps this CFC decision deserved some more thought.

Chess Federation
of Canada


Canadian All Time Greats


# Name Location Rating
1 Sambuev, Bator Montreal, QC 2726
2 Spraggett, Kevin Toronto, ON 2665
3 Le Siège, Alexandre Montreal, QC 2660
4 Gerzhoy, Leonid Toronto, ON 2646
5 Kovalyov, Anton Verdun, QC 2638
6 Bluvshtein, Mark Toronto, ON 2634
7 Samsonkin, Artiom Toronto, ON 2624
8 Charbonneau, Pascal Outremont, QC 2585
9 Noritsyn, Nikolay Richmond Hill, ON 2582
10 Hergott, Deen Ottawa, ON 2580
11 Ivanov, Igor St.George , Utah , ON 2576
12 Tyomkin, Dimitry North York, ON 2570
13 Porper, Edward Edmonton, AB 2556
14 Biyiasis, Peter Los Gatos - CA, BC 2555
15 Zugic, Igor Toronto, ON 2553
16 Suttles, Duncan Vancouver, BC 2550
17 Hansen, Eric Calgary, AB 2550
18 Teplitsky, Yan Markham, ON 2549
19 Livshits, Ron Pickering, ON 2536
20 Nickoloff, Bryon North Bay, ON 2536
21 Hébert, Jean Longueuil, QC 2534
22 Krnan, Tomas Burlington, ON 2534
23 Day, Lawrence Weston, ON 2510
24 Linskiy, Oleg Montreal, QC 2509
25 Roussel-Roozmon, Thomas Montreal, QC 2504
26 O'Donnell, Tom Ottawa, ON 2500
27 Khassanov, Marat Montreal, QC 2496
28 Schleifer, Michael Montreal, QC 2491
29 Cummings, David Toronto, ON 2490
30 Piasetski, Leon Vancouver, BC 2487
31 Hartman, Brian Caledonia, ON 2487
32 Teodoro IV, Eduardo D. Toronto, ON 2487
33 Cheng, Bindi Burnaby, BC 2485
34 Yoos, John C. (Jack) Vancouver, BC 2483
35 Thavandiran, Shiyam Toronto, ON 2480
36 Sapozhnikov, Roman Richmond Hill, ON 2477
37 Quan, Zhe Richmond Hill, ON 2471
38 Pelts, Roman Thornhill, ON 2470
39 Kuprejanov, George , ON 2468
40 Schulte, Oliver Burnaby, BC 2462
41 Barbeau, Sylvain Montreal, QC 2460
42 Tayar, Jonathan Toronto, ON 2460
43 Taylor, Gordon Kanata, ON 2456
44 Gravel M, Simon Montreal, QC 2452
45 Pechenkin, Vladimir Edmonton, AB 2452
46 Hamilton, Robert Ottawa, ON 2443
47 Leveille, Francois Montreal, QC 2442
48 Ochkoos, Jura Toronto, ON 2437
49 Plotkin, Victor Thornhill, ON 2436
50 Findlay, Ian Markham, ON 2435
51 Glinert, Stephen Toronto, ON 2435
52 Mikanovic, Goran Montreal, QC 2434
53 Duong, Thanh Nha La Prairie, QC 2433
54 Spraggett, Grant St. John's, NL 2432
55 Milicevic, Goran Toronto, ON 2429
56 Southam, Todd London, ON 2423
57 Yanofsky, Abe Winnipeg, MB 2420
58 Koliada, Timour Toronto, ON 2419
59 Alipayo, Rodulfo Scarborough, ON 2418
60 Vukadinov, Milan Windsor, ON 2412
61 Divljan, Igor Toronto, ON 2412
62 Basanta, Gary Vancouver, BC 2410
63 Stevens, Christian Toronto, ON 2408
64 Pacey, Kevin Ottawa, ON 2406
65 Allan, Denis Hamilton, ON 2405
66 Vaingorten, Yaaqov Richmond Hill, ON 2405
67 Martchenko, Alexander Etobicoke, ON 2405
68 Dougherty, Michael Etobicoke, ON 2404
69 Djerkovic, Miladin Gloucester, ON 2402
70 Marantz, Michael Thornhill, ON 2401
71 Lawson, Eric Montreal, QC 2401
72 Lipnowski, Irwin Winnipeg, MB 2400
73 Berry, Jonathan Nanaimo, BC 2400
74 Stone, Raymond Windsor, ON 2400
75 Vranesic, Zvonko Islington, ON 2400
76 Amos, Bruce Toronto, ON 2400
77 Reeve, Jeff Edmonton, AB 2400
78 Joyner, Lionel B. Port Coquitlam, BC 2400
79 Bailey, Doug Hamilton, ON 2400
80 Hua, Lefong St. Laurent, QC 2400
81 Johnstone, Glenn St.Catherines, ON 2395
82 Gentes, Kevin Winnipeg, MB 2395
83 Sasata, Robert Saskatoon, SK 2392
84 Williams, Paul D. Willowdale, ON 2390
85 Szalay, Karoly Ottawa, ON 2390
86 Campbell, Brett Toronto, ON 2388
87 Goldenberg, Danny Montreal, QC 2388
88 Hambleton, Aman Toronto, ON 2388
89 Gardner, Robert J. Edmonton, AB 2387
90 Calugar, Arthur Toronto, ON 2386
91 Mihaljevic, Josip Mississauga, ON 2385
92 Huber, Gregory Calgary, AB 2385
93 Jiang, Louie Verdun, QC 2384
94 Tipu, Vincentiu North York, ON 2383
95 Baragar, Fletcher Winnipeg, MB 2382
96 Yuan, Yuanling Toronto, ON 2382
97 Gicev, Blagoj Edmonton, AB 2382
98 Peng, David (Yu) Toronto, ON 2378
99 Barron, Michael North York, ON 2377
100 Levtchouk, George Montreal, QC 2375

[David Ottosen]

Re: recent CFC decision

We don't get any CFC presents.

Neither did he. But if it makes you feel better, I have written down that your rating is now 2740. Do you feel special now? Because my scribble on a notepad has the same value as Jason's CFC rating.

[Nic Haynes]

Re: recent CFC decision

This is hardly shocking. The CFC also thought it was a great idea to increase ratings based on the number of games played not too long ago. It's not like this is an organization known for it's statistical acumen....

[Eric Hansen]

Re: recent CFC decision

Neither did he. But if it makes you feel better, I have written down that your rating is now 2740. Do you feel special now? Because my scribble on a notepad has the same value as Jason's CFC rating.

Are you avoiding my post that was in response to yours or is it unworthy to reply to? I'm totally up for a debate, I'd like to see more of the other side.

But no, the scribble on a notepad does not have the same value as Jason's CFC rating(explained in previous post). To be honest, I can't tell if you are just internet trolling. So if you are, props on you since you are doing a good job. It's much needed as there's been less trolls on chesstalk lately so the entertainment value has gone down(which is why I hardly post).

[Gary Ruben]

Re: recent CFC decision

my mind wasn't boggled by the loss, but by the idiotic decision to adjust one person's rating, and also i suppose by the multiple people who, on the one hand, support the retarded decision, but on the other hand, appear to capable of communicating and operating complex tools such as computers

Yeah. Good points. The CFC should go back to what they do better. Managing money rather than a rating system. :):)

By the way, I notice Jersey tied the can to Johny Mac. I thought he'd make the all star game.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: recent CFC decision

To be honest, I can't tell if you are just internet trolling. So if you are, props on you since you are doing a good job. It's much needed as there's been less trolls on chesstalk lately so the entertainment value has gone down(which is why I hardly post).

The trolls are all posting on the climate change thread.

[Hugh Siddeley]

Re: recent CFC decision

Ben, why are the Devils doing so horribly this year? Will Brodeur request a trade? I can't believe they're that much worse than the Leafs in the standings right now. And you must've seen that Kovalchuk miss in that penalty shoot-out hahaha.

[Jean Hébert]

Re : Re: recent CFC decision

A lot (all?) of strong players in the attached list worked their way up through the rating grid. I wonder how many felt they deserved a special rating gift from the CFC?

To my knowledge nobody has ever expected rating gifts from the CFC. That is, up until now...

[Bob Armstrong]

Building Anecdotal Adjustment into the System

Why Jason but not others?

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 Armstrong]

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 ( though it has been recently with participation points I think - I think it overcompensated in the total re the underrated junior deflation issue ). I think there are other reasons for the FIDE/CFC rating differential, due to, among other reasons:

a) slighty different formulas for calculating ratings;
b) the lack of lower-rated players in the FIDE pool, and
c) FIDE having a much larger pool than Canada.

2. CFC System Deflationary: Awarding " fast improved ( 300 rating points above their current rating ) " players ( not just juniors ) " system points " ( instead of hapless " opponent points " ), is not inflationary, even though it increases the total points in the pool. What it does is prevents the deflation of the ratings of the hapless vicitims, to allow these fast-improved players ratings to slowly rise ( and there are numbers of hapless victims along the path of their current trajectory ).

Bob

[Eric Hansen]

Re: Character of the Current CFC System

I'll let others respond to the clear issues with Bob's argument and just reiterate my previous suggestion which will save the CFC from more embarrassment for such an awful decision:

Rate his WYCC tournament CFC rated. There are already rules in place for rating foreign FIDE tournaments. If it states that Jason's consent is needed to rate it(can't remember handbook), then leave it up to him.