CFC Bonus Points

[Bindi Cheng]

While it's cool and all to have kids gaining somewhere between 200 to 300 points per tournament, I kind of think that the CFC bonus point system is unnecessary and stupid in the sense that it seriously inflates all Canadian ratings. No longer do I trust any CFC ratings at face value since it seems like every tournament, kids from all over the country are jumping several standard deviations or rating classes. While some kids may actually be as strong as their rating claims they are, a majority of them are overrated.

This post isn't designed as a personal attack on the strength of any kids but on the idea that CFC ratings are somehow deflated and we need to inject hundreds of points into it. Before, the average difference between CFC and FIDE was probably CFC - 100 = Fide. Now it's more like CFC - 200 = Fide. This new system treats participation like rating points. The more a player participates in tournaments, the more they will be rewarded. That isn't right... I've seen adults on ICC play a hundred thousand games and they're still... 1600.... I only used the example of kids because they're the most active and have the most spare time to play in all kinds of weird tournaments but some adults play just as much as kids and are rewarded as well, unless of course, they're not very good. Then their rating just stays the same while their playing strength goes down.

A national rating system is supposed to act as an accurate estimator of that country's players but in these days, it acts more as an internet rating.

[Marcus Wilker]

Re: CFC Bonus Points

According to Paul Leblanc (CFC rating auditor) from the most recent governors' meeting:

"A cursory examination of the September rating data shows no signs of inflation or deflation."

http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?t=2959

[Bob Armstrong]

CFC Bonus Points - Seems to be Working

Hi Bindi:

After Paul Leblanc, CFC Rating Auditor, introduced the change to the bonus point formula, I monitored the next three tournaments at the Scarborough CC. We have about 45 % juniors in our club, playing in the regular CFC-rated tournaments ( about 40 juniors ). In each tournament, we had only 3-5 juniors gaining over 100 pts., and these juniors were deserving of the jump - they had done exceptionally well in the regular tournament, and were clearly substantially underrated. I sent my monitoring to Paul to check, and he agreed that this was precisely what the new system was supposed to do. I do not see undeserving juniors upping their ratings unduly - the bonus system is not dumping points on them.

Bob, Former Chair, SCC Games Database Committee

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: CFC Bonus Points

All I can say is that I am glad that I am not the rating auditor. The rating system will be criticized no matter what happens.

In Windsor, we tend to dip our toes in two or three rating systems. We have the CFC, CMA and USCF. The USCF and CFC rating systems tend to be about equivalent. The USCF also has a bonus point system for kids though the purest indicator may be the initial rating. We just had a youngster who has an established CFC rating of 898 play in his first USCF tournament. He established a first USCF rating with a five game performance of 1628. I suspect that he will be able to maintain and improve on that rating based on his recent play in our Friday class and the all day Friday tournaments held in August. Children can improve very quickly particularly when they start taking lessons and have their chess shortcomings addressed and worked on.

I would really hate to see the USCF tack on a three hundred point bump to Canadian ratings to make up for the alleged deflation of our system.

Here are some ratings from kids from our Friday club who have been active in both CFC and USCF play in the last year. I believe that all of them are underrated in the CFC system and probably the USCF system as well. The oldest on this list is about 13 and the youngest is about 8.

CFC [CFC Active] <USCF> {CFC one year ago October 1st, 2011} *USCF one year ago*
1367 [1490] <1496> {1160} *920*
1254 [1531] <1444> {1172} *986*
898 [694] <1628/5> {609} *N/A*
1237 [1092] <1424> {886} *N/A*
1290 [1044] <1479> {1128} *1043*
938 [938] <895> {643} *530*
1009 [762] <1150> {1020} *888/5*
1257 [1169] <1055/19> {1239} *843/5*

[Jesse Wang]

Re: CFC Bonus Points

Just switch to Glicko II. End of rating complaints. Glicko II is better founded on principle compared to Elo. I recall running some simulations a while back and it was better than Elo. Various academic literature seems to agree.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: CFC Bonus Points

Bindi, you are wrong. ;)

I was going to explain why, but I have decided it would be a waste of my time. A lesson learned arguing with Vlad over climate change. He is wrong too, but lets not go there.

It sounds like the bonus system is working just fine. It is designed to kick in when juniors are increasing their skill level at a faster rate than the old ELO formula ever anticipated. From my experience, juniors who are eager and work at it can increase their playing level by 100+ points/month.

Enough said, that's one paragraph more than I planned to do, but couldn't resist. Stop typing, stop typing, stop..........

[Kerry Liles]

Re: CFC Bonus Points

Just switch to Glicko II. End of rating complaints. Glicko II is better founded on principle compared to Elo. I recall running some simulations a while back and it was better than Elo. Various academic literature seems to agree.

Do you happen to have any links to any papers etc? I'd like to read them; if you have already found some good ones...

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: CFC Bonus Points

imho, the evil is 5 round events. My research shows that in 9 round tournaments top players loose their skyrocketed points.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: CFC Bonus Points

Bindi, you are wrong. ;)

I was going to explain why, but I have decided it would be a waste of my time. A lesson learned arguing with Vlad over climate change. He is wrong too, but lets not go there.

Lets not because your talking points are too easy to refute. I suppose you agree with some of the hardcore liberals that say Obama won the debate....

I have a feeling another nail is going to soon be driven into the coffin of the global warming religion with the election of Romney. End of multibillion dollar boondoggles on "green" energy.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: CFC Bonus Points

..... in the sense that it seriously inflates all Canadian ratings. ....

This post isn't designed as a personal attack on the strength of any kids but on the idea that CFC ratings are somehow deflated and we need to inject hundreds of points into it. Before, the average difference between CFC and FIDE was probably CFC - 100 = Fide. Now it's more like CFC - 200 = Fide. .....
.

Below is the average and mean of the top 100 since start of 2011 (for players who played at least 5 regular rated games in the preceeding 12 months).

Not a lot of evidence that the current bonus system (in place since early this year) has caused any inflation, let alone an additional 100 points. That's not to say there won't be a problem in the future as circumstances change or perhaps the effects have not filtered to the top, but it is being monitored.


Also plotted is the number of active players which clearly shows the effect of the rating auditor's other initiative (moving juniors playing active games to the active rating system rather than in the regular system)

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: CFC Bonus Points

...... I suppose you agree with some of the hardcore liberals that say Obama won the debate....

No, everyone agrees Obama lost the first debate, even the hardcore liberals. It was painful to watch. I had to turn it off after a few minutes.

Despite the first debate performance, I would vote for Obama.

[John Upper]

Re: CFC Bonus Points

Lets not because your talking points are too easy to refute. I suppose you agree with some of the hardcore liberals that say Obama won the debate....

I have a feeling another nail is going to soon be driven into the coffin of the global warming religion with the election of Romney. End of multibillion dollar boondoggles on "green" energy.

Why doesn't this site have a "plonk" button?

[John Upper]

Re: CFC Bonus Points

Before, the average difference between CFC and FIDE was probably CFC - 100 = Fide. Now it's more like CFC - 200 = Fide.

The rating system is not a reflection of skill but only a predictor of results between two players rated by the same system. So comparing a person's FIDE with their CFC ratings does not show that one is inflated.

An interesting question (to me) is: what would happen to FIDE ratings if they rated all the games played by quickly improving (and then quitting) juniors? i.e. what if FIDE served a constituency with as broad a rating base as the CFC?

In the Canadian events I've played in which were "FIDE rated", the lower-rated (by the CFC) players tend not to have FIDE ratings and so games against them don't get rated by FIDE. A rating system without bonus points is zero-sum: the points one player wins come from another player. By not rating players at the bottom end of the rating spectrum FIDE avoids having its long-term players' ratings slowly lowered as they lose rating points to quickly improving beginners, who then quit playing and take the rating points with them.

AFAIK, FIDE avoids this only by not rating the vast majority of players in this quickly-improving part of the rating spectrum.
The CFC does not have this option.

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: CFC Bonus Points

AFAIK, FIDE avoids this only by not rating the vast majority of players in this quickly-improving part of the rating spectrum.

Ahh, but they want to, and are going to start doing this.... just wait for all the fun!

[Paul Bonham]

Re: CFC Bonus Points

While it's cool and all to have kids gaining somewhere between 200 to 300 points per tournament, I kind of think that the CFC bonus point system is unnecessary and stupid in the sense that it seriously inflates all Canadian ratings. No longer do I trust any CFC ratings at face value since it seems like every tournament, kids from all over the country are jumping several standard deviations or rating classes. While some kids may actually be as strong as their rating claims they are, a majority of them are overrated.

This post isn't designed as a personal attack on the strength of any kids but on the idea that CFC ratings are somehow deflated and we need to inject hundreds of points into it. Before, the average difference between CFC and FIDE was probably CFC - 100 = Fide. Now it's more like CFC - 200 = Fide. This new system treats participation like rating points. The more a player participates in tournaments, the more they will be rewarded. That isn't right... I've seen adults on ICC play a hundred thousand games and they're still... 1600.... I only used the example of kids because they're the most active and have the most spare time to play in all kinds of weird tournaments but some adults play just as much as kids and are rewarded as well, unless of course, they're not very good. Then their rating just stays the same while their playing strength goes down.

A national rating system is supposed to act as an accurate estimator of that country's players but in these days, it acts more as an internet rating.

This opinion smells like dog crap.