Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

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

  • Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

    There some discussion about this on a thread earlier, where I tried to suggest that the difference was much less than 200 points as had been suggested by someone.

    A good starting point is the analysis on the CFC site.
    http://www.chess.ca/CFCvsFIDE.shtml

    I had done an analysis back in Nov of the top 20 Canadian based players, having played in a Canadian event in the past 3 years.

    Sambuev, Bator Montreal, QC 2725 2497 228
    Kovalyov, Anton Verdun, QC 2638 2623 15
    Bluvshtein, Mark Toronto, ON 2634 2587 47
    Gerzhoy, Leonid Toronto, ON 2629 2497 132
    Charbonneau, Pascal Outremont, QC 2585 2511 74
    Samsonkin, Artiom Toronto, ON 2576 2402 174
    Noritsyn, Nikolay Richmond Hill, ON 2556 2408 148
    Hansen, Eric Calgary, AB 2537 2412 125
    Porper, Edward Edmonton, AB 2517 2437 80
    Roussel-Roozmon, Thomas Montreal, QC 2500 2500 0
    Hébert, Jean Longueuil, QC 2486 2414 72
    Cheng, Bindi Burnaby, BC 2485 2376 109
    Krnan, Tomas Burlington, ON 2470 2390 80
    Tayar, Jonathan Toronto, ON 2460 2356 104
    Cummings, David Toronto, ON 2456 2369 87
    Hartman, Brian Caledonia, ON 2453 2392 61
    Yoos, John C. Jack Vancouver, BC 2452 2382 70
    O'Donnell, Tom Ottawa, ON 2451 2358 93
    Panjwani, Raja Kitchener, ON 2450 2416 34
    Piasetski, Leon Vancouver, BC 2416 2301 115

    92.4

    I performed the identical analysis for the top 20 US players at this level and found the US ratings inflated by 70.8

    I'll try to give this a six month update, shortly, unless someone beats me to it.

  • #2
    Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

    It might be more meaningful if you restricted the list to those who are currently active in both systems.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

      Originally posted by Roger Patterson View Post
      It might be more meaningful if you restricted the list to those who are currently active in both systems.
      Are you talking about the CFC list or my list? I think all the players on my list are active in both systems.

      The numbers Gerry automatically (I assume, anyway) churns out would be difficult to define activity, as we don't carry a FIDE activity indicator in the CFC data.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

        Originally posted by Fred McKim View Post
        Are you talking about the CFC list or my list? I think all the players on my list are active in both systems.

        The numbers Gerry automatically (I assume, anyway) churns out would be difficult to define activity, as we don't carry a FIDE activity indicator in the CFC data.
        Well then, how about a regression of the form

        FIDE = cfc + a + b*n

        Where n is number of games played in cfc system in the last year or two, and a,b are the regression constants and test for statistical significance.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

          Originally posted by Roger Patterson View Post
          Well then, how about a regression of the form

          FIDE = cfc + a + b*n

          Where n is number of games played in cfc system in the last year or two, and a,b are the regression constants and test for statistical significance.
          I'll try to do some more work on this over time. My main purpose was to illustrate that the CFC system was not 200 points out of line with FIDE. Obviously, there is a mean difference and a standard deviation from it like any set of data.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re : Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

            Sambuev, Bator Montreal, QC 2725 2497 228
            Bluvshtein, Mark Toronto, ON 2634 2587 47
            Gerzhoy, Leonid Toronto, ON 2629 2497 132
            Samsonkin, Artiom Toronto, ON 2576 2402 174
            Noritsyn, Nikolay Richmond Hill, ON 2556 2408 148
            Hansen, Eric Calgary, AB 2537 2412 125
            Porper, Edward Edmonton, AB 2517 2437 80
            Cheng, Bindi Burnaby, BC 2485 2376 109
            Krnan, Tomas Burlington, ON 2470 2390 80
            Tayar, Jonathan Toronto, ON 2460 2356 104
            Cummings, David Toronto, ON 2456 2369 87
            Hartman, Brian Caledonia, ON 2453 2392 61
            Yoos, John C. Jack Vancouver, BC 2452 2382 70
            O'Donnell, Tom Ottawa, ON 2451 2358 93
            Panjwani, Raja Kitchener, ON 2450 2416 34
            Piasetski, Leon Vancouver, BC 2416 2301 115

            105.4

            And what happens when we take off the players from Quebec who don't really play in CFC tournaments? Now the average difference is of 105,4! And some of the players above aren't that active... Basically the current difference between the CFC and the FIDE rating of a very active CFC player should be of at least 125-150. That's way to much...

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

              Not quite the same subject, would it be possible for tdlist.zip to show the date of the most recent activity of the player? For regular ratings; I don't pay any attention to active ratings.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

                Originally posted by John Coleman View Post
                Not quite the same subject, would it be possible for tdlist.zip to show the date of the most recent activity of the player? For regular ratings; I don't pay any attention to active ratings.
                I doubt that Gerry can change the format of that list, as he'd have to look at tournament data.

                However the new web top player search function will allow you to select a list of players using last activity date as a filter.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

                  Originally posted by Roger Patterson View Post
                  FIDE = cfc + a + b*n

                  Where n is number of games played in cfc system in the last year or two
                  Counted games (n) starting 2010

                  Code:
                  correlation (diff vs n)	-0.792477233				
                  intercept (a)	-43.5991989				
                  linest	(b) -1.315385475	 -43.5991989			
                  average	-92.4		
                  Name      CFC  FIDE      n     diff
                  
                  Samb.	2725	2497	107	-228	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=146462
                  Kova.	2638	2623	9	-15	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=142449
                  Bluv.	2634	2587	0	-47	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=125709
                  Gerz.	2629	2497	44	-132	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=142916
                  Char.	2585	2511	15	-74	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=108065
                  Sams.	2576	2402	86	-174	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=146305
                  Nori.	2556	2408	99	-148	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=132534
                  Hans.	2537	2412	69	-125	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=132475
                  Porp.	2517	2437	44	-80	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=136955
                  Rous.	2500	2500	9	0	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=122701
                  Hébe.	2486	2414	9	-72	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=101280
                  Chen.	2485	2376	45	-109	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=141968
                  Krna.	2470	2390	16	-80	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=132215
                  Taya.	2460	2356	0	-104	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=133658
                  Cumm.	2456	2369	51	-87	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=123161
                  Hart.	2453	2392	36	-61	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=102700
                  Yoos.	2452	2382	40	-70	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=107994
                  O'Do.	2451	2358	36	-93	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=106245
                  Panj.	2450	2416	18	-34	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=121202
                  Pias.	2416	2301	9	-115	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=101297
                  What does that mean? :?
                  Last edited by Egidijus Zeromskis; Wednesday, 25th May, 2011, 02:36 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

                    Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post

                    What does that mean? :?
                    Hmmmmmm...... Probably either the file or system itself is corrupted. (corrupted = containing errors).

                    Probably the way to attempt to standardize the file is to go back to before the bonuses and rate the events without bonuses. Then see if the results are closer to the FIDE ratings.
                    Gary Ruben
                    CC - IA and SIM

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

                      Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
                      Counted games (n) starting 2010

                      Code:
                      correlation (diff vs n)	-0.792477233				
                      intercept (a)	-43.5991989				
                      linest	(b) -1.315385475	 -43.5991989			
                      average	-92.4		
                      Name      CFC  FIDE      n     diff
                      
                      Samb.	2725	2497	107	-228	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=146462
                      Kova.	2638	2623	9	-15	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=142449
                      Bluv.	2634	2587	0	-47	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=125709
                      Gerz.	2629	2497	44	-132	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=142916
                      Char.	2585	2511	15	-74	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=108065
                      Sams.	2576	2402	86	-174	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=146305
                      Nori.	2556	2408	99	-148	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=132534
                      Hans.	2537	2412	69	-125	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=132475
                      Porp.	2517	2437	44	-80	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=136955
                      Rous.	2500	2500	9	0	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=122701
                      Hébe.	2486	2414	9	-72	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=101280
                      Chen.	2485	2376	45	-109	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=141968
                      Krna.	2470	2390	16	-80	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=132215
                      Taya.	2460	2356	0	-104	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=133658
                      Cumm.	2456	2369	51	-87	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=123161
                      Hart.	2453	2392	36	-61	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=102700
                      Yoos.	2452	2382	40	-70	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=107994
                      O'Do.	2451	2358	36	-93	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=106245
                      Panj.	2450	2416	18	-34	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=121202
                      Pias.	2416	2301	9	-115	http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=101297
                      What does that mean? :?
                      Very good work !!

                      Here's what it means after a little algebraic rearranging:

                      FIDE = CFC - 43.6 - 1.3*G

                      In layman's terms it means that someone who didn't play any CFC games should have a FIDE rating 43.6 points lower. This discrepancy increases by 1.3 for every CFC game that is played.

                      Now the accuracy of this measurement is measured by the correlation coefficient which is -0.7. The closer this number is to 1.0 or -1.0 measures how significant the three sets of data interrelate. 0 would indicate totally random data with no correlation. I'm just an amateur statistician, so others can expalin this better.

                      The results would seem to indicate that as you play more CFC games your FIDE rating will lag further behind. We have to note that this set of data, is only those players who were in the top 20 CFC players who had played in the last three years.

                      A goal of the rating system would be to reduce both 43.6 and 1.3, but the 1.3 is even more distressing as it shows with some certainty that there is ongoing inflation at the top level.

                      I did some analysis a few months ago to try and determine what the adjusted ratings might be of the players who had received significant performance bonuses (if you don't know what this is see Spraggett Blogspot (at your own risk)). I'll look into that.

                      I'm also looking at what's happened in the 6 months since I originally did this. We no longer have participation points so this may also make a difference.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

                        Originally posted by Gary Ruben View Post
                        Hmmmmmm...... Probably either the file or system itself is corrupted. (corrupted = containing errors).

                        Probably the way to attempt to standardize the file is to go back to before the bonuses and rate the events without bonuses. Then see if the results are closer to the FIDE ratings.
                        Probably the system is corrupted. I suspect there should be no correlation between games (n) and a difference (diff), or maybe there should be a different correlation when n>>(a lot of games), then diff >>0.

                        There is a picture of a data set.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

                          disclaimer: as calculations of the games were done quickly, some numbers might be wrong (lets say by -5-10), as I did not looked what kind of the games were Regular or Active.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

                            Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
                            disclaimer: as calculations of the games were done quickly, some numbers might be wrong (lets say by -5-10), as I did not looked what kind of the games were Regular or Active.
                            As there are not a lot of Active tournaments at this level, I doubt that would make a big difference to these figures.

                            So my plan is:

                            1) try to factor out performance bonuses and see what we get.

                            2) bring the study 6 months ahead to just before the long weekend (up to and including the Can Closed kind of thing - which data I can get from FIDE site) or wait until the June FIDE ratings, depending on how much time I have to work on this.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

                              Originally posted by Fred McKim View Post
                              Very good work !!

                              Here's what it means after a little algebraic rearranging:

                              FIDE = CFC - 43.6 - 1.3*G

                              In layman's terms it means that someone who didn't play any CFC games should have a FIDE rating 43.6 points lower. This discrepancy increases by 1.3 for every CFC game that is played.

                              Now the accuracy of this measurement is measured by the correlation coefficient which is -0.7. The closer this number is to 1.0 or -1.0 measures how significant the three sets of data interrelate. 0 would indicate totally random data with no correlation. I'm just an amateur statistician, so others can expalin this better.

                              The results would seem to indicate that as you play more CFC games your FIDE rating will lag further behind. We have to note that this set of data, is only those players who were in the top 20 CFC players who had played in the last three years.

                              A goal of the rating system would be to reduce both 43.6 and 1.3, but the 1.3 is even more distressing as it shows with some certainty that there is ongoing inflation at the top level.

                              I did some analysis a few months ago to try and determine what the adjusted ratings might be of the players who had received significant performance bonuses (if you don't know what this is see Spraggett Blogspot (at your own risk)). I'll look into that.

                              I'm also looking at what's happened in the 6 months since I originally did this. We no longer have participation points so this may also make a difference.
                              and I would add that both of those coefficients are statistically significant. By itself, the intercept of 43 points or so is not such a big problem. The 1.3 points per game is a huge problem.

                              An interested reader who does not post sent me the following info broken down by region:

                              http://victoriachessclub.pbworks.com...9180/dummypage

                              which suggests that Ontario in particular has a differential for it's top players of close to 170 points.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X