0 rating points for a win??

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

  • #31
    Re: 0 rating points for a win??

    Originally posted by Fred McKim View Post
    Gary: You should consider playing in the World Senior sometime. Hal runs the Canadian Senior on the August long weekend and raises money for the winner's airfare.

    To put your rough equity with Lipnowski (ca.1961) in perspective, two years later he came 6th in the Canadian Closed ahead of Suttles, Witt, Vaitonis, and Allan. His CFC high was 2400+ and could probably still be 2300+, if he was active.
    It's something to think about, Fred. That was actually a pretty strong Manitoba Junior event. Jack Woodbury directed. John Burstow played but didn't figure in the placings. He did, however, win the Canadian junior.

    After that I only played sporadically as women and work took up a lot of time. Back then chess wasn't as glamerous as it is these days. I can recall one girl dumping me for a musician. Guitar player in some band which was unknown to me. She said a musician was a better prospect than a chess player. Can you imagine that?

    Anyhow, when I got back to chess I gravitated more to organizing than playing. My kids were young and I had other obligations.
    Gary Ruben
    CC - IA and SIM

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: 0 rating points for a win??

      Originally posted by ben daswani View Post
      hm, i notice there's an irwin lipnowski and then some years later a sam lipnowski pops up

      am i to infer that sam lipnowski is... son of fm irwin lipnowski????????
      That's certainly no secret.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: 0 rating points for a win??

        I have been playing competitive chess, on and off, since the Canadian Open in 1964. In the mid 1990s, due to a career change, I again dropped out of tournament chess until a couple of years ago. Upon returning, I noticed that a lot of familiar faces and names were no longer involved with chess. Why are some of these people not playing competitive chess any more? I think it’s because of the present rating system. If you happen to play lower rated players and win your games, why should you lose rating points? Doesn’t that just discourage people from playing? Some die-hards stick it out because they “love” playing chess and will continue to play no matter what. But for some others, having a rating heading south is hard on the ego, the legacy, pride, dignity, or whatever, and they have chosen not to play. The old rating system was not this hard on people. Sure, according to statistics, we all will drop in ratings as we age, but I think it was a more gradual decline compared to being thrust down a flight of stairs as the present system tends to do. This brings about another point to mention. During a recent discussion when I inquired why the rating system changed, it was mentioned that the CFC wanted to align themselves closer to FIDE ratings, thus the change. If this is true, it’s a poor reason for destroying something that was quite satisfactory. Sort of reminds me of the cliché, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” I think we should consider returning to the older rating system and let this one go.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: 0 rating points for a win??

          Originally posted by Ralph Deline View Post
          I have been playing competitive chess, on and off, since the Canadian Open in 1964. In the mid 1990s, due to a career change, I again dropped out of tournament chess until a couple of years ago. Upon returning, I noticed that a lot of familiar faces and names were no longer involved with chess. Why are some of these people not playing competitive chess any more? I think it’s because of the present rating system. If you happen to play lower rated players and win your games, why should you lose rating points? Doesn’t that just discourage people from playing? Some die-hards stick it out because they “love” playing chess and will continue to play no matter what. But for some others, having a rating heading south is hard on the ego, the legacy, pride, dignity, or whatever, and they have chosen not to play. The old rating system was not this hard on people. Sure, according to statistics, we all will drop in ratings as we age, but I think it was a more gradual decline compared to being thrust down a flight of stairs as the present system tends to do. This brings about another point to mention. During a recent discussion when I inquired why the rating system changed, it was mentioned that the CFC wanted to align themselves closer to FIDE ratings, thus the change. If this is true, it’s a poor reason for destroying something that was quite satisfactory. Sort of reminds me of the cliché, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” I think we should consider returning to the older rating system and let this one go.
          The current rating system has existed with just minor alterations for at least 40-45 years.

          What did change is that players used to gain 2 rating points for beating players 350 points and lower. That number is now smaller and eventually becomes 0 at 750 point difference. You never lose rating points for a win (as long as you have and established rating).

          Comment

          Working...
          X