Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

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

  • #46
    Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

    Originally posted by Erik Malmsten View Post
    I think part of the problem is that they can get an established rating of 800 and then it takes a while to get up to 1300, wheras in the past (without rated school beginner tournaments) they would get to 1300 after 1 or 2 weekend swisses.
    Someone a long time ago mentioned that the CFC allowed to withdraw a player's established rating and to start freshly.

    It might make a sense to try once more allowing a grace 2 or 3 times:
    e.g. 1300 beats 1800 with 5/5. The normal gain would be 1300 + 32*5 ~ 1460
    The fresh start 1800 + 400 (5/5) = 2200 :D

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

      Originally posted by Ken Craft View Post
      I think changes to the rating system are the Governors' prerogative.
      Unless they are considered "tweaks" (not sure of the technical term).
      See some other posts in this thread...

      for example: http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...8088#post38088
      Last edited by Kerry Liles; Friday, 27th May, 2011, 02:53 PM. Reason: added link to post I was thinking about
      ...Mike Pence: the Lord of the fly.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

        Originally posted by Kerry Liles View Post
        Unless they are considered "tweaks" (not sure of the technical term).
        See some other posts in this thread...

        for example: http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...8088#post38088
        An interesting question.
        I think even the President could make a decision by himself. The ratings system (Section 7 in the handbook) probably is not By-Laws. Thus the Governors have no exclusive rights ("Final decisions in the following matters are reserved exclusively to the Assembly. ...the amending in any degree of the Constitution and By-Laws of the Federation,")


        While the President
        "He shall exercise constant active and general supervision of the Officers of the Federation, and the conduct of its affairs, with the exception of: (...)
        The President shall have full power to take such action in the name of the Federation, as he may in his sole discretion decide.
        In matters where an immediate decision is not necessary, the president shall confer with the other Officers of the Federation, but as a matter of general policy only, and not so as to limit in any way his authority. In any matter covered by his general authority and not coming within the duties specifically allotted to any other Officer or Officers, the decision of the President shall override that of any other Officer."

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

          (Ken Craft) I think changes to the rating system are the Governors' prerogative.
          there are issues with that. The governors ought not to be allowed to vote on a motion that is not technically sound and for which the ramifications have not been adequately explored and explained.

          In general, as years of results are available, it is possible to back test any proposed rating change rule and that should be done automatically before any consideration by the governors (or perhaps the governors could request that a particular rule be tested).

          The consequences of governors proposing and making arbitrary changes to the rating system is instability in the rating system and a loss of confidence in the rating system. In particular I will quote Stephen Wright from Governor's Letter GL 7 (2006-07) on the motion establishing the Stockhausen proposal for bonus points: "is there any mathematical/scientific basis for the motion? For that matter, there was a ratings boon some 18 months ago - have there been any studies to determine if this had the desired effect, or whether further modification (possibly including this motion) is required? Is the rating system being overseen on an ongoing basis?". No answer and it was voted in with the predictable consequenses.

          I suppose the governors have the right to move that they want the rating system to have particular characteristics (e.g. a system that scientifically attempts to measure strenght as it is now versus a system like bridge which is ever rising) but they do not have the right or the expertise to vote on particular mathematical formulisms or bonus point proposals. That is the right of the rating auditor or a technically competent committee.
          Last edited by Roger Patterson; Friday, 27th May, 2011, 04:03 PM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

            Originally posted by Kerry Liles View Post
            Local warming ... :-)
            More like local cooling lately. We have had two warm days so far this year and June is just around the corner.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

              Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
              An interesting question.
              I think even the President could make a decision by himself. [/I]
              I think it would be wrong for a president nearing the end of his mandate to make such a decision. I also think that it would be wrong to do something kneejerk. Either the results bonus should be eliminated for all players or none. Players under 2000 already have bonus points which double gains above a certain amount per tournament. There are a lot of young players between 2000 and 2200 and maybe even 2000 to 2400 who are underrated.

              With respect to decisions on Olympiad team selections we don't have a big problem at the moment. Bator won the Canadian Closed AND has the highest rating. Maybe a solution is to CFC rate all FIDE play or to CFC rate all FIDE play by players over 2400 (or 2300). That way the players who concentrate on FIDE play would have their CFC ratings inflated at the same time.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

                Originally posted by Erik Malmsten View Post
                Very impressive use of statistics for such a small group of players.

                If the Executive is going to vote on rating changes then maybe they should resolve the other rating problem discussed here last December:

                http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...ighlight=Jason

                If you're going to fix the 1% overrated at the top, when is the CFC going to have a transparent, publicly annnounced system of dealing with the !% of underrated coached juniors.

                I think part of the problem is that they can get an established rating of 800 and then it takes a while to get up to 1300, wheras in the past (without rated school beginner tournaments) they would get to 1300 after 1 or 2 weekend swisses.

                Has there been any progress made? Can any of you stat wizards come up with a solution?
                Perhaps something along the lines of automatically changing the player's rating back to provisional when they have a result that crosses a certain threshold above their current rating...

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

                  Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec View Post
                  With respect to decisions on Olympiad team selections we don't have a big problem at the moment. Bator won the Canadian Closed AND has the highest rating. Maybe a solution is to CFC rate all FIDE play or to CFC rate all FIDE play by players over 2400 (or 2300). That way the players who concentrate on FIDE play would have their CFC ratings inflated at the same time.
                  I notice on the CFC site the membership is down by more than 60, year over year. It's barely over the 1800 mark. I think the next Olympiad team should include a player from Western Canada, or at least an invitation extended. There is good chess being played in that area of the country, even though the rating system does not reflect that.

                  It's at the point where the organization should do some rebuilding of the membership, unless they are satisfied with the current situation.
                  Gary Ruben
                  CC - IA and SIM

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

                    Originally posted by Gary Ruben View Post
                    I notice on the CFC site the membership is down by more than 60, year over year. It's barely over the 1800 mark. I think the next Olympiad team should include a player from Western Canada, or at least an invitation extended. There is good chess being played in that area of the country, even though the rating system does not reflect that.

                    It's at the point where the organization should do some rebuilding of the membership, unless they are satisfied with the current situation.
                    Hansen tied for first in the Canadian Closed. He definitely merits a long look.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

                      Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
                      Someone a long time ago mentioned that the CFC allowed to withdraw a player's established rating and to start freshly.

                      It might make a sense to try once more allowing a grace 2 or 3 times:
                      e.g. 1300 beats 1800 with 5/5. The normal gain would be 1300 + 32*5 ~ 1460
                      The fresh start 1800 + 400 (5/5) = 2200 :D
                      You might be on to something, provisional ratings allow for greater increases.

                      Two ideas to consider:

                      1) Have all bantam games rated as a provisional rating until they have played 25 slow games in all-ages tournaments like weekend swisses.

                      2) When a bantam is due bonus points, for that tournament treat their rating as provisional and calculate accordingly, going back to using the established formula for their next tournament. This way their rating will reflect their current strength. May restrict this adjustment to bantams under a set rating like 1200 or 1600 or 2000.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Role of the Rating Auditor

                        It is my belief that the Rating Auditor, Bill Doubleday, does not regularly monitor this board ( I can't remember ever seeing him post here ).

                        I'd suggest ideas should also be e-mailed to him, if they are to go anywhere ( maybe ? ).

                        Bob

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

                          Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec View Post
                          Players under 2000 already have bonus points which double gains above a certain amount per tournament.
                          Not any more...........

                          This was removed from the rating system, probably at the same time as participation points were added. I am in favour of returning this to the rating system and the provision where a player could jump from any rating under 1200 to 1200 in one tournament if there performance rating for 5 or more games was at least 1200 (there is more to this rule, obviously, but that's the main point).

                          I think if we returned both of these we'd adjust for a lot of the underrated junior issues.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

                            I think the Governors are looking forward to receiving recommendations from the rating auditor.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

                              Originally posted by Fred McKim View Post
                              Not any more...........

                              This was removed from the rating system, probably at the same time as participation points were added.
                              It would help if the CFC website got updated so that we could tell what the rating rules actually were.

                              I know the the new website is going to be coming out REAL SOON NOW as Jerry Pournelle used to put it.

                              http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/r/RealSoonNow.html

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Difference between FIDE and CFC Ratings

                                Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec View Post
                                It would help if the CFC website got updated so that we could tell what the rating rules actually were.

                                I know the the new website is going to be coming out REAL SOON NOW as Jerry Pournelle used to put it.

                                http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/r/RealSoonNow.html
                                Real soon now. YES.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X