If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Grandmaster Bator Sambuev lives in Quebec, not in Ontario. A sample size of seven or eight is hardly likely to be useful in coming to any conclusions that are statistically significant.
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.
If any of my statistics professors had seen this analysis their heads would have exploded. GIGO.
FIDE = CFC -43.6 -7.5D
My formulation shows that FIDE rating is related to CFC rating by the above formula where D is digits (number of fingers and toes). Of course in most cases I have had to estimate the number of digits since most chessplayers wear shoes at tournaments. It might be safer to choose the relationship:
FIDE = CFC - 43.6 - 15F
where F stands for the the number of digits on each chess players hands (fingers and toes) which is more easily observed than the number of digits which includes toes.
If any of my statistics professors had seen this analysis their heads would have exploded. GIGO.
FIDE = CFC -43.6 -7.5D
My formulation shows that FIDE rating is related to CFC rating by the above formula where D is digits (number of fingers and toes). Of course in most cases I have had to estimate the number of digits since most chessplayers wear shoes at tournaments. It might be safer to choose the relationship:
FIDE = CFC - 43.6 - 15F
where F stands for the the number of digits on each chess players hands (fingers and toes) which is more easily observed than the number of digits which includes toes.
Of course this observation is statistically significant but irrelevant as the number of fingers and toes has no relationship with CFC or FIDE ratings. Further adding to the murky thinking is that some of the names on the low end of the range of CFC games played had their initial CFC rating calculated from their FIDE rating for example Anton Kovalyov.
Hardly any CFC games played in the last two years and lo and behold his CFC and FIDE ratings are much closer together. Of course since they apparently took his FIDE rating as the starting point for his first CFC tournament we are looking at a statistical tautology. What does it mean? Nothing.
Players who spend a lot of time playing in FIDE pools and no time playing in CFC pools over the last two years show no difference between their FIDE and CFC rating. What does it mean? Nothing.
You create meaning out of nothing by making the erroneous assumption that there is some relationship and using a very small sample to arrive at your data points. Linear regression works only if the data points have some kind of meaning and relationship. The people who show no difference between FIDE and CFC ratings played no games and therefore the universe is in balance. Those dastardly individuals who ***GASP!!!!*** played in lots of CFC games have a huge gap when compared to those who played no CFC games. LETS ADJUST THE RATINGS AGAIN TO CORRECT THIS NON-EXISTENT ANOMALY!!!!!
I would accuse you of using similar statistical methods as those so called climate scientists but unfortunately I think their statistical constructions are even more flimsy than these.
You want to raise your FIDE rating? Play in Europe, New York, Chicago, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Jamaica, Brazil, Siberia, Dubai or Manila but NOT in Toronto, Guelph or Kitchener.
Of course this observation is statistically significant but irrelevant as the number of fingers and toes has no relationship with CFC or FIDE ratings.
Players who spend a lot of time playing in FIDE pools and no time playing in CFC pools over the last two years show no difference between their FIDE and CFC rating. What does it mean? Nothing
Kitchener.
starting with a hypothesis that the observed difference is related to an inflation on a per game basis, especially when per game bonus points have been awarded and testing that hypothesis is totally reasonable. Of course, it may be possible that the model is wrong and the regression is spurious but there is never any certainty about any model being right.
As to complaining about the number of data points not being enough for meaningful statistics, that's what t stats are for. Besides, the observation that Ontario ratings seem inflated has been made before in other older posts with different data. How much analysis do you need? Or do you insist on claiming a 2700 rating is either real or just within acceptable statistical variation?
If any of my statistics professors had seen this analysis their heads would have exploded. GIGO.
FIDE = CFC -43.6 -7.5D
My formulation shows that FIDE rating is related to CFC rating by the above formula where D is digits (number of fingers and toes). Of course in most cases I have had to estimate the number of digits since most chessplayers wear shoes at tournaments. It might be safer to choose the relationship:
FIDE = CFC - 43.6 - 15F
where F stands for the the number of digits on each chess players hands (fingers and toes) which is more easily observed than the number of digits which includes toes.
Vlad:
I am merely trying to explore some ideas for looking at differences between FIDe and CFC ratings.
1) I was trying to establish a reasonable difference between the two at the top end of the CFC rating spectrum.
2) I was trying to explore Roger's suggestion of bringing the number of games played as a possible variable. A statistical analysis was presented by a poster and I interpreted it based on the variables it contained.
Correct in both cases I only used 20 cases.
Your over the top dismissal of the information hardly proves or disproves anything. If there was a mistake made, please share it.
Certainly there is no interest on anyone at the CFC's on adjusting the ratings of CFC members. There is interest (at least by me) in seeing the effect of the performance bonus on member's ratings.
You create meaning out of nothing by making the erroneous assumption that there is some relationship and using a very small sample to arrive at your data points.
After removing some "nothings", the R.P. idea still holds: there is a strong relationship of the ratings difference (FIDE-CFC) on the top of the CFC list.
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.
I worked through players results from the end of Nov up to and including this past weekend (as FIDE has the results for both the Ontario Open and the Keres).
If anybody wants the raw line by line data let me know. Otherwise here are some findings.
Total # of CFC games played = 242
Total # of CFC rating points gained = 155
So 0.64 rating points gained per game is considerably less than the 1.3 the CFC vs FIDE data was suggesting yesterday. Of course the number of games chosen for the dataset yesterday was a bit arbitrary.
Compare to the FIDE games
Total # of FIDE games played = 368
Total # of FIDE rating points gained = 41
So 0.11 rating points gained per game. This seems reasonable.
I tried to factor out the performance bonuses. The bonuses can be taken at face value if achieved in the most recent event, after that they are reduced by a factor correlated to the percentage of the current rating the older tournament data represents. I can explain this in more detail, if anybody wants to know.
I calculated 79 performance bonus points were present from the raw 105 bonus points, in the last 6 months data.
Number of CFC games played = 242
Approximate number of points gained (excluding performance bonus) = 76
This brings the CFC rating points per game increase down to 0.31. Is this an acceptable number ?
I decided to split the group up into 3 sub-groups by age
1) 25 and under
2) 26-40
3) over 40
Using the adjusted (without performance bonus) CFC gains
1) 136 games played +64 rating points = + 0.47 per game
2) 46 games played +6 rating points = + 0.13 per game
3) 60 games played +6 rating points = + 0.10 per game
Using the FIDE gains
1) 213 games played +26 rating points = + 0.12 per game
2) 38 games played +37 rating points = + 0.97 per game
-I suppose this apparent anomaly is mostly explained by Sambuev bringing his FIDE rating up to his playing strength at an accelerated rate
3) 117 games played -22 rating points = - 0.19 per game
Using only the raw performance bonus
1) 70 points approximately 23 tournaments = + 3.0 per tournament
2) 30 points approximately 6 tournaments = + 5.0 per tournament
3) 5 points approximately 10 tournaments = + 0.5 per tournament
I have made a recent recommendation to the rest of the Executive that the performance bonus no longer be applied to players over 2000.
I tried to factor out the performance bonuses. The bonuses can be taken at face value if achieved in the most recent event, after that they are reduced by a factor correlated to the percentage of the current rating the older tournament data represents. I can explain this in more detail, if anybody wants to know.
I can hardly wait.
Let's not lose track that while the amount of points per game might be small, the rating difference over a period of years tends to multiply and inflate the rating system in relation to the FIDE system.
The integrity of the rating system must take priority over complaints of rating deflation. Trying to rationalize the result of changes, where there may have been unintended consequences of the changes, is not an ideal situation.
Other sections
U2000 +35
U1600 -60. This section have 2 new members (not included into a sum), and two non-established (included; -25 & -92).
that the performance bonus no longer be applied to players over 2000.
and the "16" should be reduce to "10" for higher ratings (2400 or 2500).
I think that the CFC rating and FIDE should almost match for the top CAN players.
There was a total net gain of 24 points. Twenty points was from results bonuses of ten points each for Leonid Gerzhoy and Nikolay Noritsyn. Four points were created because the masters lost 4 points and the under 2200s gained 8 points because of the different rating multipliers (I suspect).
If there is anything to your analysis of activity and rating differential it is this. Players who play more have more chances to obtain a results bonus. The top players tend to win more tournaments and cash in more results bonuses.
Any analysis which goes back only 18 months and tries to calculate a regression analysis on the FIDE vs CFC rating differential based on games played is deeply flawed and incorrect. You need to look at when the results bonus was added. You have to go back to the CFC rating boon which happened before 2007 and factor in participation points. I believe that the CFC and FIDE differential was about 50 points before all these manipulations took place.
There was a total net gain of 24 points. Twenty points was from results bonuses of ten points each for Leonid Gerzhoy and Nikolay Noritsyn. Four points were created because the masters lost 4 points and the under 2200s gained 8 points because of the different rating multipliers (I suspect).
If there is anything to your analysis of activity and rating differential it is this. Players who play more have more chances to obtain a results bonus. The top players tend to win more tournaments and cash in more results bonuses.
Any analysis which goes back only 18 months and tries to calculate a regression analysis on the FIDE vs CFC rating differential based on games played is deeply flawed and incorrect. You need to look at when the results bonus was added. You have to go back to the CFC rating boon which happened before 2007 and factor in participation points. I believe that the CFC and FIDE differential was about 50 points before all these manipulations took place.
It wasn't my original idea to do a regression. I only interpreted the results.
Today I presented some evidence that would indicate yesterday's results weren't exactly correct, as we were worried about the size of the slope of the line. The slope might be only half the size of what yesterday suggested.
For players let's say 2400+ (pretty well the group the study was done on)there would seem to be a good liklihood that these guys are picking up performance bonuses at a good clip. The results of the Ontario Open show just that.
The analysis could be completely different if we look at the group of players between 2200 and 2400.
Did the Governors vote on the implementation of the scheme in the first place?
I really don't recall... I'm just saying.
Kevin Spraggett seems to suggest that it was your and Peter Stockhausen's motion that established it, so presumably, the governors did vote on it then and their vote would thus be required to rescind it unless we have become a dictatorship in the interim.
Kevin Spraggett seems to suggest that it was your and Peter Stockhausen's motion that established it, so presumably, the governors did vote on it then and their vote would thus be required to rescind it unless we have become a dictatorship in the interim.
Wow. I don't recall that at all...
Do you have a link to Spraggett's post about that? I will have to search all the old GLs I suppose...
Tweet
Comment