recent CFC decision

[Stuart Brammall]

Re: recent CFC decision

Seems to me that some of the "problems" in the rating system is that older people can't accept that they are getting weaker. If people find that too troubling perhaps the CFC should adopt a rating system such as in bridge where people's ratings don't go down?

I would further hypothesize that right now maintaining specific level of play is not sufficient to maintain a rating at a specific level. With the advent of online chess, and strong chess programs available to all, it seems likely that the absolute strength of the rating pool is increasing... player's who cannot keep pace with the improving pool, even if they are not getting any weaker, per se, should lose points.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: recent CFC decision

Seems to me that some of the "problems" in the rating system is that older people can't accept that they are getting weaker. If people find that too troubling perhaps the CFC should adopt a rating system such as in bridge where people's ratings don't go down?

I'd hate to see a rating system like that. I'm currently playing in a CC event on board 2 where I'm the highest rated. RR with 13 players. So far I've finished 8 games and lost 8 rating points on 3 wins and 5 draws. I figure if the players want my rating points they can come get them.

In the past few days I turned down an invitation for a Postal correspondence Olympiad. It would have given me higher rated opponents but could go 4 or 5 years. At my age that's too long. I could be cutting out paper dolls in that length of time.

However, a server Olympiad will be stating over the next year and I intend to play in that and kick some butt. That's how this old guy approaches the rating system.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: recent CFC decision

I would further hypothesize that right now maintaining specific level of play is not sufficient to maintain a rating at a specific level. With the advent of online chess, and strong chess programs available to all, it seems likely that the absolute strength of the rating pool is increasing... player's who cannot keep pace with the improving pool, even if they are not getting any weaker, per se, should lose points.

I think this was always the case, but of course with the things you mentioned the process is accelerating. A couple of years ago when the most recent rating "adjustment" was announced, there were a bunch of people who posted on ChessTalk about how they had always been rated X, but that now with juniors getting chess coaching their ratings were dropping and even though they were as good as ever it wasn't right their ratings were dropping so of course there should be upward rating adjustments, blah blah de blah. I'm thinking that by about the year 2100, the average CFC rating is going to be 2200. ;-)

The same thing is happening in poker. Even average poker players like myself are forced to do some work and thinking to maintain their standing. To think that the world isn't going to progress just because I don't work on my game is incredibly naive.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: recent CFC decision

They are both Elo-based systems, and should be comparable - that was the justification for the rating adjustment to Jason's rating.

There is, in the Elo system, no provision that ensures that players who are the same strength should have similar ratings in each system they are rated in, nor any mathematically sound method of making this so. This follows inescapably from straightforward sampling theory. Nor is there any mathematical way of preventing rating inflation or deflation. This also follows from straightforward sampling theory.

This would only be possible if we could require every player in the country to play a suffucient number of games against every other player in the country to establish in each case a statistically significant rating difference between them.

Tournament games simply are not and cannot be a random sample of all against all which is the only proper way to determine a formally correct rating system. That it works as well as it does is rather a miracle. The idea that some ideal and perfect rating system can be devised under the situation as it is is simply wishful thinking.

The current difficulties, it seems to me, come mainly from trying to attain two mutually contradictory objectives (and these were set out as objectives by Elo himself), namely having acccurate current ratings and keeping those ratings consistent over time. The closer you get to one the further you get from the other, and this is just a mathematical necessity.

The only way to approximate this is by the occasional adjustment by human beings with all their predjudices and failures as people. The only practical way to do it is, as done with Jason, by a manual adjustment for special cases.

This is simply a fact due to the design of the system.

The reason for the adjustment in the case of Jason Cao was his series of exceptional performance in the CFC system. Since he is rated at around 1900 to 1950 in two other systems, then rating him at that level in the CFC system is reasonable and if mistaken will adjust itself in due time. I think it rather more likely that it will adjust itself upward and, in that process, cause less deflation that not making the adjustment would, thus keeping the current CFC system in better shape than not making the adjustment would. Elo himself suggested means of dealing with rating deflation, which he recognized, correctly, as a built in flaw in his version of the rating system. I do not think his methods work very well, alas, and they have tended to cause more problems than would arise if they were not used.

I continue to believe that the reason for the objections are based, not on reason, but on jealousy. Well, we are all people and we all, myself included, experience jealousy. Some of us mature the the point where we can deal with it maturely at least part of the time.

[Erik Malmsten]

Re: recent CFC decision

I continue to believe that the reason for the objections are based, not on reason, but on jealousy. Well, we are all people and we all, myself included, experience jealousy. Some of us mature the the point where we can deal with it maturely at least part of the time.

You continue with your delusions, nobody is jealous, we are all thrilled with Jason winning the World Champion. And we all share your concern about playing 1600-rated juniors who are 1900 strength. For me, 1) it's a question of fairness to other juniors/ systematic approach. and 2) not knowing the process of manually adjustly ratings.

Two years ago I raised the issue of a junior player rated 1660 CMA winning the under 1600 section. Nobody told me to contact the Rating Auditor to adjust his rating up. That player is now over 2000.

I had hoped that the CMA and CFC rating systems would be combined.

[Ed Zator]

Re: recent CFC decision

The reason for the adjustment in the case of Jason Cao was his series of exceptional performance in the CFC system. Since he is rated at around 1900 to 1950 in two other systems, then rating him at that level in the CFC system is reasonable and if mistaken will adjust itself in due time.

Ed, I understand your arguments, as they are clear and well expressed.

But I wasn't giving an opinion on the correctness of the adjustment. Only to
make the point that I think Canada, a country with has so great an area, with
few major events, and significant numbers of members playing overseas, would
benefit from using the same rating system that FIDE is using anyway.

I don't think the CFC's survival as an organization depends upon having its own
rating system. It would still get revenue from tournaments under its control,
membership fees, and donations.

As for the adjustment, I would have a hard time explaining to other juniors why Jason
merits this special treatment. The idea of following any rating system is to apply it
uniformly to all, regardless of its idiosyncracies, and avoid any hint of favouritism.

Someone should perhaps ask Jason what he thinks about it. Going by the pre-registration
for the 2011 Can. Open, he seems happy to play in the section where he believes he
belongs, regardless of what his rating is officially.

[Vlad Dobrich]

Re: recent CFC decision

Some three or four yaers ago I was asked to join a committee to revamp the rating system. Unfortunately I found out too late that it was no committee but rather an informal advisory board.
What I suggested was that participation points be awarded to everyone for every game played. The thinking being that mostly everyone improves with every game played. Further I proposed that the value of the added point be adjusted in such a way that the average rating of a control group remain unchanged over time. I proposed the control group to be all players between the ages of 30 and 40 - as this is the age that chess ability levels off before it begins to decline with time.
The person who chose what to do about the deflationary ratings opted to ignore my proposal and simply awarded points retroactively (bringing his own rating to over the 2400 mark, by the way). I objected strongly to retroactive increase as having no value compared to awarding participation points which would have encouraged more play. An accumulative system is used in bridge where over 10,000 players will join a regional tournament in pursuit of master points and no prize money!
It seems the current computer technology would handily track the performance of several hundred active players in the 30-40 age bracket and
determine what value should be assigned to the participation point to several decimal places. This value could also be age related. I still feel this is the way to go.

[Ed Zator]

Re: recent CFC decision

It seems the current computer technology would handily track the performance of several hundred active players in the 30-40 age bracket and
determine what value should be assigned to the participation point to several decimal places. This value could also be age related. I still feel this is the way to go.

They will have to do something like that if it they want to keep the CFC ratings credible when
automated through the new website. TD's should just be able to submit the results, get the
ratings calculated by the server, and compared against one or at most two hand calculations
including bonus points.

The increased compexity of the new rating formulas over those years ago makes automation
paramount.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: recent CFC decision

But I wasn't giving an opinion on the correctness of the adjustment. Only to make the point that I think Canada, a country with has so great an area, with few major events, and significant numbers of members playing overseas, would benefit from using the same rating system that FIDE is using anyway.

But it wouldn't do that. Canada has many separate rating pools because of the size of the country and the expenses of travel mean that there are groups of players who seldom play anyone outside their group. Nothing about joining the FIDE rating system would change this. It might be a perfectly good idea for various reasons, but it would do nothing to bring Canadian ratings in line either with other countries or other regions in Canada. Only getting players to play people from all parts of the country would do that, and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

As for the adjustment, I would have a hard time explaining to other juniors why Jason merits this special treatment.

If those other juniors achieve the same extreme performance jumps as Jason then they should of course get the same treatment.

The idea of following any rating system is to apply it
uniformly to all, regardless of its idiosyncracies

But the Elo system cannot do this, as Elo himself recognized and wrote about. Nor can any other chess rating system yet developed, nor is there any likelyhood that such a system can be developed, the laws of probability being, alas, unlikely to change any time soon.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: recent CFC decision

They will have to do something like that if it they want to keep the CFC ratings credible when automated through the new website. TD's should just be able to submit the results, get the ratings calculated by the server, and compared against one or at most two hand calculations including bonus points.

But though it is a great idea to do that, it will do absolutely nothing to address the fact that various rating groups throughout the country are not comparable simply because they don't play that many games with each other, and given the distances and expenses involved are unlikely to do it in the reasonably forseeable future. This has nothing to do with computation, this has to do with the laws of probability and the facts of geography.

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: recent CFC decision

Technically, if everyone went FIDE ratings only... yes you'd still have pockets across Canada, but since they'd also be intermingling north-south with the USA as well as east-west with the rest of Canada it wouldn't be as big of an issue - there would be less isolation in general.

The problem that FIDE might find (or already be finding) is that while 2200+ players, and even 2000+ players, might have traveled between continents frequently, thus avoiding any serious rating pools in the past, sub-2000 players probably don't travel nearly as much.

[Jean Hébert]

Re : Re: recent CFC decision

I continue to believe that the reason for the objections are based, not on reason, but on jealousy.

In all statistical probability :), this must be the weakest argument in this thread but at the same time the most self-comforting one.

[Jean Hébert]

Re : Re: recent CFC decision

What I suggested was that participation points be awarded to everyone for every game played. The thinking being that mostly everyone improves with every game played.

This is widely spread idea despite the abondance of cases that clearly prove it wrong. Players like to believe that simply pushing woods with minimal efforts will eventually make them significantly better players.
Beginners improve with every game played but gradually the benefits decrease to zero as they accumulate games and years of experience. Without studying and preparing properly, all players stop improving after a while and simply repeat their thinking patterns good and bad, if all they do is to play. So participation points simply reflect participation but unfortunately little else.

[Jason Lohner]

Re: recent CFC decision

There is a fairly simple solution to this. Those people who's FIDE rating is more current than their CFC rating should have their ratings adjusted to match their FIDE rating. Do this across the board and people would stop complaining about special cases.

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: recent CFC decision

Why not get rid of ratings completely. We can all play for enjoyment.