Tweet
I and PEI CFC Governor Fred McKim, CFC Treasurer, are proposing that the " Active " Rating System be expanded into a new " Speed " Rating System. Here is our proposed Motion 2012-Z:
Motion 2012-Z – CFC Speed Rating System
Revision # 2 - 11/10/19
Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Fred McKim
That CFC expand the current “ Active “ Rating System, into a “ Speed “ Rating System, on the following terms:
1. it will accept " speed " tournaments with time control from Game/5 to Game/59.
2. Initial ratings will be the higher of the current CFC rating (if any CFC Regular games played since 2006/01/01) or Active rating (if any Active games played since 2006/01/01). If the rating used is provisional, the speed rating will be provisional based on the same number of games.
3. Players must be CFC members or pay 50% of the normal tournament playing fee ( Adult - $ 10; Junior - $ 5 )". The price for the “ speed “ tournament playing fee will be reviewed by the executive after 6 months.
4. The " speed tournament " rating fee will be 50% of the normal rating fee.
5. The current practice of all-junior tournaments of less than 1 hour not requiring any CFC membership or tournament playing fee, and being rated for $ . 50 per player, will continue as an exception in the system.
Commentary:
The current “ active “ rating system is little used ( though a few particularly like it and find it a convenient time control ), and its ratings are considered by many to be stale and inaccurate because of the little use.
There is some demand for a fast rating system, to try to compete OTB with the faster internet time controls.
The Active Rating System seems easily adaptable to a new “ Speed “ Rating System, which would accept time controls from Game/5 to Game/59 ( a number seem opposed to going to “ bullet “ chess – Game/1 ). We feel this system will broaden the appeal of official CFC-rated tournaments, and expand the base of players, and hopefully generate new full CFC members, who will graduate to the “ regular “ time control rated tournaments over time.
The highest of “ regular “ ratings and “ active “ ratings will be used for the initial rating, since many feel many of the “ active “ ratings are generally inaccurate, because players have rated games so seldom. The regular rating is more up-to-date, even though it may be generally true that it is somewhat higher for most, than their actual speed strength. But the ratings will even out after the first initial period, as some initial rating points are lost, and ratings float down to more accurate “ speed “ ratings.
Since these “ speed “ tournaments are now being officially sanctioned, it is felt that CFC membership must be required, or a special new “ speed tournament playing fee “, which will be relatively modest, to keep this new type of tournament financially reasonable.
The rating of these tournaments is no different than the rating of “ regular “ tournaments, but it is felt that a lower rating fee ( subsidized by the regular rating system ) is required, again to keep the playing cost of the tournament modest, and make it attractive – we have set it at only 50% of the normal rating fee ( it has generally been estimated that the actual cost of rating an individual is likely around $ 2 ). It is hoped that both clubs and organizers will be attracted to the idea of a national “ speed “ rating, and that they will commence holding such “ speed “ tournaments. Again, this is seen somewhat as a “ loss leader “ to get non-CFC members involved in
official OTB chess, and that they will eventually become full, active members.
We do not want the current all-junior tournament system affected by this change, and so have made it an exception to the normal rules for “ speed “ tournaments.
Any comments before we file the motion with CFC Secretary, Lyle Craver?
Bob A ( GTCL CFC Governor ) & Fred
Motion 2012-Z – CFC Speed Rating System
Revision # 2 - 11/10/19
Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Fred McKim
That CFC expand the current “ Active “ Rating System, into a “ Speed “ Rating System, on the following terms:
1. it will accept " speed " tournaments with time control from Game/5 to Game/59.
2. Initial ratings will be the higher of the current CFC rating (if any CFC Regular games played since 2006/01/01) or Active rating (if any Active games played since 2006/01/01). If the rating used is provisional, the speed rating will be provisional based on the same number of games.
3. Players must be CFC members or pay 50% of the normal tournament playing fee ( Adult - $ 10; Junior - $ 5 )". The price for the “ speed “ tournament playing fee will be reviewed by the executive after 6 months.
4. The " speed tournament " rating fee will be 50% of the normal rating fee.
5. The current practice of all-junior tournaments of less than 1 hour not requiring any CFC membership or tournament playing fee, and being rated for $ . 50 per player, will continue as an exception in the system.
Commentary:
The current “ active “ rating system is little used ( though a few particularly like it and find it a convenient time control ), and its ratings are considered by many to be stale and inaccurate because of the little use.
There is some demand for a fast rating system, to try to compete OTB with the faster internet time controls.
The Active Rating System seems easily adaptable to a new “ Speed “ Rating System, which would accept time controls from Game/5 to Game/59 ( a number seem opposed to going to “ bullet “ chess – Game/1 ). We feel this system will broaden the appeal of official CFC-rated tournaments, and expand the base of players, and hopefully generate new full CFC members, who will graduate to the “ regular “ time control rated tournaments over time.
The highest of “ regular “ ratings and “ active “ ratings will be used for the initial rating, since many feel many of the “ active “ ratings are generally inaccurate, because players have rated games so seldom. The regular rating is more up-to-date, even though it may be generally true that it is somewhat higher for most, than their actual speed strength. But the ratings will even out after the first initial period, as some initial rating points are lost, and ratings float down to more accurate “ speed “ ratings.
Since these “ speed “ tournaments are now being officially sanctioned, it is felt that CFC membership must be required, or a special new “ speed tournament playing fee “, which will be relatively modest, to keep this new type of tournament financially reasonable.
The rating of these tournaments is no different than the rating of “ regular “ tournaments, but it is felt that a lower rating fee ( subsidized by the regular rating system ) is required, again to keep the playing cost of the tournament modest, and make it attractive – we have set it at only 50% of the normal rating fee ( it has generally been estimated that the actual cost of rating an individual is likely around $ 2 ). It is hoped that both clubs and organizers will be attracted to the idea of a national “ speed “ rating, and that they will commence holding such “ speed “ tournaments. Again, this is seen somewhat as a “ loss leader “ to get non-CFC members involved in
official OTB chess, and that they will eventually become full, active members.
We do not want the current all-junior tournament system affected by this change, and so have made it an exception to the normal rules for “ speed “ tournaments.
Any comments before we file the motion with CFC Secretary, Lyle Craver?
Bob A ( GTCL CFC Governor ) & Fred
Comment