If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there but ......
Bindi, I don't think you can make that claim without some evidence.
You have cited just one case where a player got a big rating boost after having an outstanding tournament. But isn't that what should happen? It is true that the next tournament wasn't as good, but again, that is just one tournament. The evidence is flimsy.
If we want to test whether the bonus system is too generous, we need to look at whether the players are able to maintain their post bonus ratings or not. I am sure both sides of the debate will be able to find individual cases to support their positions, but we really should test the entire population. For example, take all the players who have received more than 100 bonus points and see where their rating is in 6 months. If they have subsequently lost most of these bonus points, then I would agree with you.
Who said it is supposed by to relatively stable? The only thing that should be stable is the predictive value - a player rated 100 points higher than another should score X% in over the long run. A system where points are coming in (new players) and going out (leaving players) cannot by definition be stable.
If that's true then any rating is a totally arbitrary number and we can no longer speak of Masters, Candidate Masters, Class-A players, etc. since there is no way of measuring any of them.
Edit: Totally arbitrary in the sense of being measured against specific class metrics as opposed to a predictor of results within the rating pool being measured.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Bindi, I don't think you can make that claim without some evidence.
You have cited just one case where a player got a big rating boost after having an outstanding tournament. But isn't that what should happen? It is true that the next tournament wasn't as good, but again, that is just one tournament. The evidence is flimsy.
If we want to test whether the bonus system is too generous, we need to look at whether the players are able to maintain their post bonus ratings or not. I am sure both sides of the debate will be able to find individual cases to support their positions, but we really should test the entire population. For example, take all the players who have received more than 100 bonus points and see where their rating is in 6 months. If they have subsequently lost most of these bonus points, then I would agree with you.
As Ben posted in a previous comment,
"the rating system is supposed to be relatively stable though. if my rating goes from X to X+100 over some period, it should be because i improved, not because every active player's rating was inflated by 100 over that period. if the system is inflating rapidly (it is) it becomes impossible to track one's own progress using the rating system"
Players who receive the bonus points are more likely to retain their new rating because everyone else gained rating as well. If suddenly, the old 2100 is the new 2200 then what would be the value of being a master in this new rating system? In this case, it's very easy for a strong expert in the past to just play enough games while performing at their actual strength and the bonus points will boost them to 2200 naturally.
I am all in favor of rewarding players for having a fantastic tournament and I have no issues with that. The only problem I have is when it is blatantly obvious that the reward not equal the result. As I stated, how do you justify having a rating system that rewards non-provisional players 300 points for a 6 round tournament or rewarding 400 points for a 6 round tournament? Sure, you can always argue that they are underrated juniors but isn't that the excuse that everyone makes whenever someone loses to a junior? It's not because they played bad but because the junior vastly underrated and playing 300 points above his rating. Funny how it happens to everyone.
If suddenly, the old 2100 is the new 2200 then what would be the value of being a master in this new rating system? In this case, it's very easy for a strong expert in the past to just play enough games while performing at their actual strength and the bonus points will boost them to 2200 naturally.
Bindi, I do understand your concern. If you add excess bonus points, it will tend to spread amongst the population over time and raise everyone's rating, without merit. It is a concern. But if you read Paul LeBlanc's previous post you will see that he is monitoring the rating pool for inflation. For all players over 1200, he is detecting no inflation. The average is remaining constant in the low 1700's. IMHO, if we keep it between 1700 and 1750, no problem. The pool under 1200 has gone up, but that was anticipated. I trust Paul will sound the alarm bells at the first sign of inflation.
But you may ask, "Don't you create inflation in the pool with the inclusion of any bonus points?" The answer is No, not necessarily. What you really want to do is balance the inflationary effects of bonus points against the natural deflationary effects inherit in the system. Thus achieving an equilibrium.
If you don't accept the fact that there are deflationary forces inherit in the system, which some people do dispute, then that is a whole other debate.
As for the exceptionally high ratings of a few at the top, I don't have a good answer for you. Now the CFC and FIDE have different populations and rating formulaes. As such, all the statistical parameters will differ, averages, medians, distributions, standard deviations, etc. Expecting the top end of both rating pools to have similiar shapes maybe asking too much.
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Monday, 15th October, 2012, 09:20 PM.
Bindi, I do understand your concern. If you add excess bonus points, it will tend to spread amongst the population over time and raise everyone's rating, without merit. It is a concern. But if you read Paul LeBlanc's previous post you will see that he is monitoring the rating pool for inflation. For all players over 1200, he is detecting no inflation. The average is remaining constant in the low 1700's.
I calculated how many points was purged into the system by three recent top tournaments (BC and AB open, and BC closed). The amount was ~1200. (I discarded players with non-established ratings.) Still thinking is it big or not :/
The average absolute rating fluctuations were ~30-40 points. These numbers might be big in my mind.
But you may ask, "Don't you create inflation in the pool with the inclusion of any bonus points?" The answer is No, not necessarily. What you really want to do is balance the inflationary effects of bonus points against the natural deflationary effects inherit in the system. Thus achieving an equilibrium.
And the difference between this CFC bonus point system and other, previous CFC bonus point systems is that this one was statistically tested before being implemented. So it's not just a cowboy "let's try it and see what happens" approach that was adopted ...
Most people who play competitive chess for a certain period of time enter the pool with a lower rating and leave the pool with a higher rating.
Where did they get those extra rating points? From established players, by beating them.
Players who retire from competitive chess take all of those extra rating points with them when they leave.
To maintain the relative stability of a rating system over time -- so that 2200 reflects a similar playing strength from year to year -- there must be a system of injecting bonus points to compensate for deflation caused by the retirement of established players. The trick is to get the formula right so that drift in either direction is avoided or at least minimized. All of the recent evidence suggests that our rating auditor has found a pretty decent bonus formula.
The rising player who "victimizes" a few stronger players will get a nice increase, but if his results curve later goes down, he will give those extra points back to the system -- as he should. His rating will eventually stabilize at a new level -- perhaps lower than his all-time peak -- but the main point is that his erstwhile opponents will have an opportunity to recover the points they lost to him. This is an important factor in maintaining the long-term stability of the rating system.
It is not unknown for a rising young player to have a rating of 2000 but a true playing strength of 2200. I for one have no interest in donating rating points to underrated players.
I'm sure all of this is self-evident to many readers, but it bears repetition.
To maintain the relative stability of a rating system over time -- so that 2200 reflects a similar playing strength from year to year -- there must be a system of injecting bonus points to compensate for deflation caused by the retirement of established players. The trick is to get the formula right so that drift in either direction is avoided or at least minimized. All of the recent evidence suggests that our rating auditor has found a pretty decent bonus formula.
The rising player who "victimizes" a few stronger players will get a nice increase, but if his results curve later goes down, he will give those extra points back to the system -- as he should. His rating will eventually stabilize at a new level -- perhaps lower than his all-time peak -- but the main point is that his erstwhile opponents will have an opportunity to recover the points they lost to him. This is an important factor in maintaining the long-term stability of the rating system.
It is not unknown for a rising young player to have a rating of 2000 but a true playing strength of 2200. I for one have no interest in donating rating points to underrated players.
I'm sure all of this is self-evident to many readers, but it bears repetition.
Around 2200 the formula changes a coefficient from 32 to 16, meaning that it also generates points.
During the tournament you are not meeting 5 promising players who are underrated by many points. The formula takes your opponents average rating, thus the influence by the underrated player is also minimized.
It sounds that Canadian chess is flooded by promising players and they are threat to the national (rating) security :D
It sounds that Canadian chess is flooded by promising players and they are threat to the national (rating) security :D
There are two separate deflationary effects. The more general one is caused by players leaving the system with higher ratings than when they entered. The more specific one is caused by significantly underrated players victimising higher-rated players. A bonus point system is needed to correct for both effects and bring stability to the system.
In 1980 I was the CFC Rating Auditor, and was tasked with "re-normalising" the rating pool which had become significantly skewed -- and deflated -- after the mass departure of the post-1972 "Fischer boom" players. Dr Arpad Elo assisted with the calculations, which were then vetted by the CFC President, Dr Malcolm Collins.
If that ever happens, I think I'll switch to postal chess. :)
Not having the temperament to lose to lower rated juniors without wanting to change the rating system doesn't make an aging player uniquely qualified for postal chess.
Tweet
Comment