0 rating points for a win??

[Hans Jung]

I just finished playing in the City Championship here in Kitchener and received my new rating. (and I feel a need to vent about what is bothering me) What becomes apparent is that I had 3 wins against opponents rated 1864, 1788, and 1225 (my 1225 opponent had not played a CFC rated game in 8 years and was about 13 yrs old back then - he had an over 1900 performance in the city championship) and received 0 rating points for playing those three games. My complaint is this: when I spend at least 2 hours playing a rated game and make the effort and put in the time preparing etc. I expect at least one rating point for a win - otherwise whats the use in bothering? The alternative is to avoid playing those that are more than 350 rating points below me (which in my case means basically all club tournaments). How do others feel about this?

[Roger Patterson]

Re: 0 rating points for a win??

I'm completely OK with it:

a) if you got a minimum of 1 point for beating a 1200 player, you could (well you wouldn't but someone could) play an arbitrarily large number of games against 1200 players and get an arbitrarily large rating.

b) the purpose of the rating system is not to give out rating points as a reward for playing. It is a system to measure your ability. In this case, no adjustment of your rating is required.

c) the real problem is that your 1200 player is probably mis-rated. Some people argue that ratings should not be readjusted to reflect reality but there is a rule on the books that players who are inactive can (? must? should?) have their rating redone so you could ask the CFC to do that and recalculate your rating on that basis. Seems a bit odd that you, his opponent, would have to do that though.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: 0 rating points for a win??

I was tempted to play in CFC rated events a couple of times but decided against it because of a 35 year old CFC rating. I'm a titled correspondence player who has represented Canada on Olympic teams, Pan Am Team, etc.and playing as high as board 1. I couldn't bring myself to play with that old rating.

Those dated ratings should be tossed and players restarted, in my opinion.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: 0 rating points for a win??

Those dated ratings should be tossed and players restarted, in my opinion.

What is a period of inactivity for a new start? Should a person request to reevaluate his rating?

[Steve Demmery]

Re: 0 rating points for a win??

I like the idea of who ever wins clear first in a chess tournament does not lose any rating points. I think at one time the CFC did do this I am not sure There seems to be a lot of clubs out there where you have tons of low rated players and just a small number of masters who do not want to play because there rating will just take a hit. That probably also hurts the growth of chess in this country because low rated players who have potential will not get the opportunity to learn from these veteran masters.

[Stephen Wright]

Re: 0 rating points for a win??

I just finished playing in the City Championship here in Kitchener and received my new rating. (and I feel a need to vent about what is bothering me) What becomes apparent is that I had 3 wins against opponents rated 1864, 1788, and 1225 (my 1225 opponent had not played a CFC rated game in 8 years and was about 13 yrs old back then - he had an over 1900 performance in the city championship) and received 0 rating points for playing those three games. My complaint is this: when I spend at least 2 hours playing a rated game and make the effort and put in the time preparing etc. I expect at least one rating point for a win - otherwise whats the use in bothering? The alternative is to avoid playing those that are more than 350 rating points below me (which in my case means basically all club tournaments). How do others feel about this?

Hello Hans

I'm no expert on such matters but it appears you are thinking of the old rating formula - +16 points for a win, modified by the rating difference upto a maximum of 350 points. The CFC now uses a system based on expected result compared to actual result (see 714 in the Handbook) and considers the difference out to 735 points. Based on some rough number crunching it appears the three games you mention above gained you 1.28 points, the win against Klarner was worth 4.48, but what killed you were the two draws, a loss of 14.4 points, for a net loss of 8.64. Incidentally, section 712 describes how an inactive rating is to be treated, not sure when the CFC actually uses the article (looks like it should apply to Garrett Forsyth).

[Gary Ruben]

Re: 0 rating points for a win??

What is a period of inactivity for a new start? Should a person request to reevaluate his rating?

Maybe about 10 years. For a junior rating maybe less. They tend to get good fast and with the internet could easily be playing much higher.

Older people who have been inactive in chess could easily have rating lower than the one which is published. With an older player who is inactive, he might not want to play because his published rating is too high and he doesn't want to embarrass himself.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: 0 rating points for a win??

My complaint is this: when I spend at least 2 hours playing a rated game and make the effort and put in the time preparing etc. I expect at least one rating point for a win - otherwise whats the use in bothering? The alternative is to avoid playing those that are more than 350 rating points below me (which in my case means basically all club tournaments). How do others feel about this?

I think this sucks. It was partially covered when there were participation points (you at least got half a point) but what sense does it make to risk 32 rating points for the prospect of gaining zero points. The simple solution is to pick and choose your tournaments so that you are playing players in your rating ballpark plus or minus two hundred or so.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: 0 rating points for a win??

The simple solution is to pick and choose your tournaments so that you are playing players in your rating ballpark plus or minus two hundred or so.

Of course, I don't always follow this formula myself.

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: 0 rating points for a win??

I was tempted to play in CFC rated events a couple of times but decided against it because of a 35 year old CFC rating. I'm a titled correspondence player who has represented Canada on Olympic teams, Pan Am Team, etc.and playing as high as board 1. I couldn't bring myself to play with that old rating.

Those dated ratings should be tossed and players restarted, in my opinion.

I'm sure you could make a fairly strong case to the Ratings Auditor (or the Exec) to have your rating tossed entirely, or to have it changed to something around your correspondence rating.

[Erwin Casareno]

Re: 0 rating points for a win??

I just finished playing in the City Championship here in Kitchener and received my new rating. (and I feel a need to vent about what is bothering me) What becomes apparent is that I had 3 wins against opponents rated 1864, 1788, and 1225 (my 1225 opponent had not played a CFC rated game in 8 years and was about 13 yrs old back then - he had an over 1900 performance in the city championship) and received 0 rating points for playing those three games. My complaint is this: when I spend at least 2 hours playing a rated game and make the effort and put in the time preparing etc. I expect at least one rating point for a win - otherwise whats the use in bothering? The alternative is to avoid playing those that are more than 350 rating points below me (which in my case means basically all club tournaments). How do others feel about this?

Hi Hans,

You are not alone.......I suffered a similar case in 2008 in an active tournament hosted by the Oriole chess club.

The difference between our case: you have played 3 rated opponents while i played 2 rated opponnts and 1 unrated opponent. The similarity is: we both scored 3 wins in 3 games.

The difference is: you got 0 rating gain, ....while i was deducted 178 rating points, despite scoring 100 %.

Shown below is the cross table.

# Name Old Perf New High Results Tot

1 Casareno, Erwin 2329 1677 2151 11 W 2 W 3 W 4 3.0
2 Zhan, Eric 1185 1550 1374 6 L 1 W 6 D 3 1.5
3 Lai, Fred 0 1425 1431 3 W 5 L 1 D 2 1.5
4 Zhan, Reena 1075 1279 1183 6 W 6 D 5 L 1 1.5
5 Dimitrov, Dimitare 0 1166 1172 3 L 3 D 4 W 6 1.5
6 Lankage, Chalini 0 700 706 3 L 4 L 2 L 5 0.0

Hans, my apology for bringing out my case, under your topic. My intention is to support your argument. I have waited for more than 3 years to brings my case out in the open and now is my chance.

I scored 3 wins in 3 games against 2 lower rated opponents and 1 unrated opponent.....and my rating crashed from 2329 to 2151..........

This left me completely baffled at that time. Perhaps someone could offer an explanation.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: 0 rating points for a win??

Hi Hans,

You are not alone.......I suffered a similar case in 2008 in an active tournament hosted by the Oriole chess club.

The difference between our case: you have played 3 rated opponents while i played 2 rated opponnts and 1 unrated opponent. The similarity is: we both scored 3 wins in 3 games.

The difference is: you got 0 rating gain, ....while i was deducted 178 rating points, despite scoring 100 %.

Shown below is the cross table.

# Name Old Perf New High Results Tot

1 Casareno, Erwin 2329 1677 2151 11 W 2 W 3 W 4 3.0
2 Zhan, Eric 1185 1550 1374 6 L 1 W 6 D 3 1.5
3 Lai, Fred 0 1425 1431 3 W 5 L 1 D 2 1.5
4 Zhan, Reena 1075 1279 1183 6 W 6 D 5 L 1 1.5
5 Dimitrov, Dimitare 0 1166 1172 3 L 3 D 4 W 6 1.5
6 Lankage, Chalini 0 700 706 3 L 4 L 2 L 5 0.0

Hans, my apology for bringing out my case, under your topic. My intention is to support your argument. I have waited for more than 3 years to brings my case out in the open and now is my chance.

I scored 3 wins in 3 games against 2 lower rated opponents and 1 unrated opponent.....and my rating crashed from 2329 to 2151..........

This left me completely baffled at that time. Perhaps someone could offer an explanation.

my guess would be (you have played only 11 active games) that your active rating was provisional. The provisional rating methodology is based on all of your results up to 25 games and is highly sensitive to the average rating of the opponents in those games.

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: 0 rating points for a win??

Provisional rating perhaps? It's a grey area.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: 0 rating points for a win??

This left me completely baffled at that time. Perhaps someone could offer an explanation.

Hi Erwin,

There is no need to wait 3 years for an explanation. We get these questions on a regular basis, and hopefully most (if not all) get a satisfactory answer within a few days. Roger's explanation is perfect. You have only 11 active games, so it is a provisional rating. Look at it this way, your first 25 games will be treated as one tournament by the computer to come up with your first established rating. Only then do the normal formulas for rating changes kick in. :)

[Lucas Davies]

Re: 0 rating points for a win??

I just finished playing in the City Championship here in Kitchener and received my new rating. (and I feel a need to vent about what is bothering me) What becomes apparent is that I had 3 wins against opponents rated 1864, 1788, and 1225 (my 1225 opponent had not played a CFC rated game in 8 years and was about 13 yrs old back then - he had an over 1900 performance in the city championship) and received 0 rating points for playing those three games. My complaint is this: when I spend at least 2 hours playing a rated game and make the effort and put in the time preparing etc. I expect at least one rating point for a win - otherwise whats the use in bothering? The alternative is to avoid playing those that are more than 350 rating points below me (which in my case means basically all club tournaments). How do others feel about this?

Why does it matter if you get 1 point or 0? Like, it's 1 point. Who cares?