CFC bonus rating points - for dummies

[Marcus Wilker]

http://annexchessclub.com/2012/07/cf...-bonus-points/

[Jordan S. Berson]

Re: CFC bonus rating points - for dummies

Excellent article!

(&@%# underrated juniors!)

Priceless :D

[Paul Leblanc]

Re: CFC bonus rating points - for dummies

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I'm now watching intently to see if the new formula works. In the first 3 months (April to June), we experienced an 80 point increase in the average ratings of the lowest rated players (below 1200). Many or most of those were juniors. Some experienced players also gained quite a few points but the overall average for players above 1200 remained constant at 1732. The top 100 had a tiny decrease in average rating, from 2356 to 2353.

With only 3 months of data, it's too soon to sit back and relax.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: CFC bonus rating points - for dummies

Bonus rating points are indeed for dummies.

[Bill Evans]

Re: CFC bonus rating points - for dummies

Hi Paul

It is refreshing to see a capable person(s) employing systematic / scientific techniques in studying the knotty problem of ratings.

Thank you very much for your efforts. Thanks also for your patience in having to put up with childish comments from those who a certainly not children.

Bill Evans

[Gary Ruben]

Re: CFC bonus rating points - for dummies

Thanks also for your patience in having to put up with childish comments from those who a certainly not children.

Sounds like a bit of indirect addressing.

Do you really think giving a player 200 bonus rating points, as an example, would make him a player who is a class better? Mostly what you have is still a fish who is a desirable opponent for the redistribution of rating points. An example of trickle down economics, or should that be trickle up economics. Also a rating system which may or may not be correct.

All a player really needs is a basic rating system without dummy (what the subject line calls) bonus rating points. A player who plays well enough will find their rating goes up.

To move from class B to class a, as an example, a player should have to learn more to develop his game. Getting lucky in an event and getting more bonus rating points isn't the answer.

The CFC rating system has been around long enough that it should be a mature and reasonably accurate reflection of a players rating. Yet with the tinkering the system seems to be falling short of being that. That can be the only justification for tinkering with the system to try to inject more points.

[Marcus Wilker]

Re: CFC bonus rating points - for dummies

The CFC rating system has been around long enough that it should be a mature and reasonably accurate reflection of a players rating. Yet with the tinkering the system seems to be falling short of being that. That can be the only justification for tinkering with the system to try to inject more points.

As long as I've known it, though, it's always had some kind of bonus points or participation points, etc. Something other than the straight K-factor adjustment.

Interestingly, Roger Patterson charted some players' hypothetical ratings over a five-year period, under various rating systems - including a pure, no-bonus system.

http://www.victoriachess.com/cfc/cfc_rating_doc.htm

[Gary Ruben]

Re: CFC bonus rating points - for dummies

The preamble states the premise the system is deflationary. I don't necessarily agree with that and consider many of his examples irrelevant.

Regarding the examples, some of the players are well past their prime, in my opinion and the CFC rating without bonus reflects that. One example hit in excess of 2700 which is something of a puzzler.

The graph only goes back to 2005. Why not take some of the ratings back to say the 1980's or 1970's for comparison? Let's see if the ratings without bonus are showing deterioration from the players prime years.

I notice a couple of the players in the graph are now organizers. Organizing and playing can cost a player a couple of hundred playing points in rating. Distraction and less time for study.

It is interesting most of the examples graphed are between 150 and 200 points more than without the bonus.

Maybe if the ratings were NOT inflated by the bonus points more players would be interested in the events. Such an anomaly, which I suspect is representative of the entire system, could easily suggest to an average player that CFC events are loaded with sharks. The "what chance do I have against players with such high ratings" syndrome.

This might sound funny to you but it might be interesting if someone graphed the CFC membership numbers from the same point as the ratings in 2005. Would we find when the ratings went up the CFC membership went down?