37A - Underrated Juniors

[Bob Gillanders]

After all the controversy concerning the rating adjustment for Jason Cao, can we now have a civilized debate as to how to handle the issue of underrated juniors?

Is it appropriate to make a rating adjustment for extreme cases?
If so, what is the criteria? Who makes the decision?

Your comments please. :)

[Christopher Mallon]

I don't have a problem with ratings adjustments where needed, but I do have a problem with using a FIDE rating as the basis. If someone is badly underrated, then give them a new rating based on their most recent 24 games, as if they had started over provisionally.

[Garland Best]

I firmly believe that rating corrections should naturally occur within the system, and not by bypassing the system. As such I believe that the role of the rating auditor is to confirm that the system is actually working as described and not make ad-hoc changes to one's rating. This whole thing was bollixed.

Best solution someone suggested to me was to leave the ratings of juniors as-is, but if their ratiings were below 1000, then use 1000 as the "rating floor" when calculating the effect on an opponent's rating. The result would be that those with ratings below 1000 points would add points to the system as they improved, not take them away.

Regardless, any solution should be STUDIED and not randomly implemented. It appears there are skilled people out there for evaluating these things. Roger Patterson has shown a talent for it, and I'm mathematicaslly inclined. My weakness is a lack of knowledge on ELO`s theories and system. We would also need someone with the programming skills to generate the routines and then run them on the existing database of results gathered in the CFC rating database, and analyse the results.

[Michael Barron]

Thank you, Chris!

You suggestion makes sense, but it doesn't address the root cause.

The problem is - the new players got ridiculously low provisional rating, even if they won all their games.

Just look at this tournament:
http://www.chess.ca/xtableSQL.asp?TNum=201011054

The winner - Qty Zhou - won all 5 games and lost ~500 rating point!
How it could be? :confused:

Even Carlsen couldn't perform better!

Qiyu already is A class player.
How could we assign her 1464 rating because she beat unrated opponents? :confused:

Unfortunately, even if we use you suggestion, we get the same result.

To correct the situation, we need to change provisional rating calculation - for example, ignore games won against unrated and underrated (more than 400 points difference) opponents.

[Bob Gillanders]

The winner - Qty Zhou - won all 5 games and lost ~500 rating point!
How it could be? :confused:


Michael - please, I beg of you, stop quoting this example. The rating drop is completely understandable when you realize the provisional rating of 1946 is based on only one game. The system calculated the new rating correctly.

Citing this example repeatedly unjustly criticizes our rating system. :(

[Christopher Mallon]

It IS a problem though Bob, with the way the system handles unrated and provisional players. There are other examples. There was an event I played in to get my first Active rating, we had a round robin with ONE rated player. He managed to lose rating points, despite playing all unrated people. That however is unrelated to juniors being underrated.

[Fred McKim]

There is no rating protection in the first 25 games. The formula has always worked this way. That's why it's called provisional.

[Aris Marghetis]

I firmly believe that rating corrections should naturally occur within the system, and not by bypassing the system. As such I believe that the role of the rating auditor is to confirm that the system is actually working as described and not make ad-hoc changes to one's rating. This whole thing was bollixed.

Best solution someone suggested to me was to leave the ratings of juniors as-is, but if their ratiings were below 1000, then use 1000 as the "rating floor" when calculating the effect on an opponent's rating. The result would be that those with ratings below 1000 points would add points to the system as they improved, not take them away.

Regardless, any solution should be STUDIED and not randomly implemented. It appears there are skilled people out there for evaluating these things. Roger Patterson has shown a talent for it, and I'm mathematicaslly inclined. My weakness is a lack of knowledge on ELO`s theories and system. We would also need someone with the programming skills to generate the routines and then run them on the existing database of results gathered in the CFC rating database, and analyse the results.
I agree with Garland. Fix/improve the system, and if appropriate, include mechanisms within the system, to handle extreme cases. Never bypass the system in an ad-hoc manner. Instead, fix/improve the system again. The Jason Cao thing was bollocksed!

[Bob Gillanders]

It IS a problem though Bob, with the way the system handles unrated and provisional players. There are other examples. There was an event I played in to get my first Active rating, we had a round robin with ONE rated player. He managed to lose rating points, despite playing all unrated people. That however is unrelated to juniors being underrated.

Chris - that is a different kettle of fish entirely. When there is a large number of unrated players, the program stops and asks the operator to enter an estimate of the ratings of unrated players. It is a necessary requirement of the programming. The ED enters a value based on the results of that tournament using his best judgement. In your example, the rated player could easily lose rating points if he lost some games. Right! :)

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

There is no rating protection in the first 25 games. The formula has always worked this way. That's why it's called provisional.

It might be that this drags a player's rating down for a long period. I would be interesting to study the rating settling with only 10 provisional games but larger coefficients (e.g., 50 for 400-1000; 40 - 1001-1401; 32 1401-2199; 16 - 2200-...)

[Paul Leblanc]

Why can't we have a bonus system like we used to have 10-15 years ago that recognizes superior performance by awarding extra rating points for superior performance in a tournament with a specified number of rounds?
I don't think rating inflation would be a problem because we no longer have the participation points that were pumping thousands of rating points into the system for several years. Instead, with bonus points for superior play, fewer points would be added and they would be offset by attrition as players who joined the system at lower ratings retire with higher ratings.
Does anyone remember why we dropped that sensible system and replaced it with participation points that had no relation to playing strength?
As for waiting for the Rating Auditor to come up with a statisticaly sound solution rather than applying a common sense solution, do your really think there is a chance that that is going to happen?

[Bob Gillanders]

Why can't we have a bonus system like we used to have 10-15 years ago that recognizes superior performance by awarding extra rating points for superior performance in a tournament with a specified number of rounds?


Yes, absolutely!
It is as brilliant as it is simple. :)
Somebody please dig up the old formula and put it in a motion, now! :D

[Paul Leblanc]

It was something like: In a tournament of 5 rounds or more, when a player gains more than 25 rating points, the number of points gained above 25 are doubled. For example, a rating point gain of 50 points becomes a gain of 75 points.
Everyone's favourite example is World Under 10 Champion Jason Cao. If that formula had been applied to his result at his most recent adult tournament, the Langley Open, the 85 rating points that he gained would have earned a bonus of 60 additional points and would have resulted in a new rating of 1609 instead of 1549. He would have still been woefully under-rated but perhaps this sort of solution is more acceptable to commentators such as Hansen and Hebert who basically feel that "we did it the hard way, so should all the under-rated juniors".

[Lyle Craver]

I thought the CFC as a matter of policy did not publish provisional ratings till it was based on 3 or 4 games (sorry I'm working from memory here). When did this change? With the online nature of ratings we seem to have lost the "/x" codes but "/1" shouldn't ever be published.

[Fred McKim]

The formula is any points over 24 in a 4 game event, 26 in a 5 game event, 28 in a 6 game event, etc are doubled.

In a 6 game event and you gain 40 points, it becomes 52 points.

I'm not sure when we eliminated this - maybe when we introduced the bonus points for going over your maximum rating thing we have now.

With one of the version changes to the rating program it started printing ratings that were only based on one or two games (we can see these online but they aren't "true" ratings). Probably once we had the ratings on the website..........

[Michael Barron]

The formula has always worked this way...

Yes, Fred, the formula has always worked this way...
And we always had problems with underrated juniors... :(

Probably we need to take a step back and decide first:
Is our rating system perfect?
Or it has some flaws that we need to identify and fix? :confused:

[Bob Gillanders]

Yes, Fred, the formula has always worked this way...
And we always had problems with underrated juniors... :(

Probably we need to take a step back and decide first:
Is our rating system perfect?
Or it has some flaws that we need to identify and fix? :confused:

No no no! The rating formula Fred is describing was abandoned many years ago, probably at least 10 years ago. (?) Does anyone know?

It had generous bonus points which raised underrated juniors ratings much faster than present. It really could help out! :D

A perfect rating system is impossible. If we wait for one, we will never do anything. :(

[Paul Leblanc]

I am (almost) as eager as the president to get this issue sorted out. But I'd like to find out why we decided to kill the bonus point formula first and then out of courtesy I believe the Rating Auditor should be brought into the discussion. Bill, where are you?

[Hal Bond]

I recall presenting a motion during Halldor's Presidency(?) when bonus points were still alive. There was a stipulation that bonus points could only be awarded in the cases of peak ratings. The motion removed this stipulation. At that time we could not access the rating code so it was not implemented.

While we are at it, I believe the handbook cites specific individuals on a ratings committee (Robert Hamilton I believe was one name) and this is no longer true.

[Hal Bond]

I recall presenting a motion during Halldor's Presidency(?) when bonus points were still alive. There was a stipulation that bonus points could only be awarded in the cases of peak ratings. The motion removed this stipulation. At that time we could not access the rating code so it was not implemented.

While we are at it, I believe the handbook cites specific individuals on a ratings committee (Robert Hamilton I believe was one name) and this is no longer true.

[Bob Gillanders]

Thanks Hal. We heard you the first time. :D

So it wasn't that long ago?
We can do some tweaking of the rating system easily, like adding bonus points, but any serious overhaul would be costly.

I still like Paul's suggestion. :D

[Valer Eugen Demian]

I think the solution is to establish rating floors: a player's rating cannot fall below a certain level - example between 100 to 200 below his highest ever rating - no matter how bad they do.

This has been done in the past and also currently by several internet or live clubs and organizations. It could reduce the fear of adults to play underrated juniors because they could lose several rating points.

Let's say a player reaches his highest peak @ 2200. His rating can never go below 2000 as life goes by. It is not even so far fetched to understand this! While father "Time" might reduce that player's ability to compete at a certain level, his chess knowledge will never be lost, right?

Once the above is in place, juniors would get enough chances to raise their ratings by playing, so no freebie points are required at anytime!...

[Lyle Craver]

One needs to be careful on this - my highest lifetime rating was 1905 so given the suggested floor I could never slip before 1705. I've lost enough games since then to have earned my present rating.... :)

[Valer Eugen Demian]

One needs to be careful on this - my highest lifetime rating was 1905 so given the suggested floor I could never slip before 1705. I've lost enough games since then to have earned my present rating.... :)

Let's exaggerate and assume you play really bad and your rating falls (under current conditions) to 1500. Is that representing your TRUE chess knowledge? Not at all. Other countries combine these rating floors with categories; again once you reach a certain level (category) this can never be taken away from you. Giving away nice certificates for each one of them is also a nice touch and benefit of being a member!... :)

[Christopher Mallon]

I always liked the old USCF system where you had a rating Class, and you earned those just as you would earn an IM title.

For example, to earn the Class A title, you need 3 events > 1900 performance, and an 1800 rating.

What exactly does that sort of system have to do with UNDERrated players though?

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

What exactly does that sort of system have to do with UNDERrated players though?

Maybe that players who would loose to an underrated player would not loose rating points :/ The system may be depended on a number of played games. 1-100 no sinking; 101-150 readjustment. 151-... no sinking, etc :)

[Christopher Mallon]

Well, modern computers can easily keep track of every game someone has played - something they couldn't do before. So It would be easy to flag any 100-game trends, say, and send them for attention of the rating auditor to determine if someone's class should be lowered.

The classes made class prizes REALLY easy too, didn't have to worry nearly so much about sandbagging.

[Stuart Brammall]

Rating floors are the most rediculous idea every implemented in a statistical system.
They do nothing to correct under-rated players, and only serve to protect the egos of players on the decline.

It would be fine to grant a player a class, but let there rating go below that level anyway. For example a player with peak rating 1950 could still be called class A, even when there rating goes down to 1500. What I am trying to say is that class and rating need not be locked together... in the same way that Lawrence day can consitently perform at 2100, but still be an IM.

Will that be sufficient protection for those whos egos are too big to accept that their strength has decreased? Probably not... but outright lying to them through the use of rating floor is shameful. If you perform at 1500 consistently then you are a 1500 player, even if your peak was 2000.

[Bob Gillanders]

Thank you Stuart.

My peak rating is 2140. Really, look it up! (pause, while everyone goes to the CFC website to confirm this startling fact). Now I do realize that occasionally I do perform below that level :o (my opponents can confirm this!), giving me a rating floor of say 2000 would mean for me a lifetime ban from the U2000 section where I enjoy playing and where I am competitive (more or less).

Rating floors - bad idea. :mad:

[Rob Clark]

I'm interested to see the rating auditor's take on the current state of affairs. I think his input should be sought, so I agree with Mr. Barron.

[Fred McKim]

Bill has presumably been working on this problem since August and it's unfortunate he hasn't been able to attend.

The first thing worth mentioning is that we don't even know if we can modify the rating program in it's present form to change any thing.

For example I like the idea of different K ratios (what this means is that the adult has a higher rating memory than the junior).

This would make the junior ratings more volatile, and not remove as many points from the system.

At some point in time in the next couple of years we will likely have to rewrite the rating system to directly tie into the web site. We would be smart to build in some settable parameters (k ratios) for different classifications of players.

In the meantime we could recognize outstanding performances (according to some of Roger Patterson's criteria) by giving a manual 50 or 100 point bonus.

It might be something the tournament organizer would have to make note of on the rating report.

[Aris Marghetis]

1) At some point in time in the next couple of years we will likely have to rewrite the rating system to directly tie into the web site.

2) It might be something the tournament organizer would have to make note of on the rating report.



re point 1: I could cry we didn't do it this time around. Anyone know why we didn't?! :(

re point 2: This sounds so subjective, and difficult to ensure consistency, fairness, etc.

[Paul Leblanc]

I was hoping that one of the past presidents would let us know why the bonus point system was discontinued.
What I'd like to see out of this discussion is some pressure from the governors to get the Rating Auditor to examine the adviseability of re-instituting a bonus point system as a tool to align the ratings of under-rated players, particularly juniors, with their true performance.
There are other options - Fred's suggestion, for example or as Bill Doubleday mused at the AGM - maybe we need to look at reducing the rating points lost by opponents of someone performing greatly above their published rating.

[Stuart Brammall]

I think we should just get a new rating auditor...

[Fred McKim]

I think we should just get a new rating auditor...
I am very hesitant to criticize volunteers in an organization.

I think in most situations people reluctantly make a commitment that they can't keep, and find it difficult to bow out graciously.

I think at this stage (the 2/3 mark) we carry on with the debate and hope that we will be able to have some clear ideas to be able to hand off to the next 2011/12 Rating Auditor.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

Thank you Stuart.

My peak rating is 2140. Really, look it up! (pause, while everyone goes to the CFC website to confirm this startling fact). Now I do realize that occasionally I do perform below that level :o (my opponents can confirm this!), giving me a rating floor of say 2000 would mean for me a lifetime ban from the U2000 section where I enjoy playing and where I am competitive (more or less).

Rating floors - bad idea. :mad:

Interesting how this is a good idea in quite a few places (with better chess tradition) outside Canada, but we always feel the need to know better... It is like claiming we do better watches than Swiss, better wines than French, better train schedule than Japanese and so on... :mad:

[Bob Gillanders]

Interesting how this is a good idea in quite a few places (with better chess tradition) outside Canada, but we always feel the need to know better... It is like claiming we do better watches than Swiss, better wines than French, better train schedule than Japanese and so on... :mad:

I don't wear a watch, I like Canadian wine, and I've never taken a Japanese train. I do hear, however that they pack you in like sardines. My comments about rating floors is just my opinion. If it works for them in those first tier chess countries, fine. But are you claiming that they don't have any players who have quit tournament chess because they are forced to play in sections above their playing strength? That would surprise me!

[Bob Armstrong]

I agree with Bob G.

Players do get worse - age, less time to play OTB, less studying than previously, etc.. They should be able to play with their competitive peers as they decline - they ought not to be cannon fodder for the rest of their lives to significantly better players.

But I fear the day I must drop down into the Scarborough CC U 1700 section - it is filled with SCC junior sharks ! It's like quicksand once you get sucked in - these 1000 rated kids play like 1500's and you start to lose rating points.

Is there an underrated juniors problem at SCC - I have heard the concern mentioned from time to time by 1500's adults in the section.

Bob

[Stuart Brammall]

But I fear the day I must drop down into the Scarborough CC U 1700 section - it is filled with SCC junior sharks ! It's like quicksand once you get sucked in - these 1000 rated kids play like 1500's and you start to lose rating points.


Lol Bob, when I was 1400 at SCC we (myself and other Hart House-SCC transplants) used joke about all the over-rated old guys there... Easiest place ever to go from 1400 to 1800... Although, admittedly you crushed me pretty badly on the two occasions we played there--

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Stuart:

SCC loved the influx of university blood into the club at that time from Hart House!

I think you were underrated at the time, and I feel fortunate to have come out on top in our battles.

You may remember my ill-fated excursion to one of your Hart House weekend tournaments - I got eaten alive by all those underrated HH guys !! ( of course I wasn't over-rated !! ).

Bob

[Michael Barron]

I think we should just get a new rating auditor...

Stuart,

Do you want to be a new rating auditor ? ;)

[Stuart Brammall]

Do you want to be a new rating auditor ? ;)

I actually already offered to do something of an informal audit on the rating system... unfortunately there did not seem to be much interest in it... in fact now that I think about it seemed more like there was active opposition to anyone actually compiling real statistics on the rating system.

In my opinion it is pointless to even have a rating auditor if they are not going to actually conduct audits, which, again in my opinion, would require access to at the least the ratings database, and ideally also the ratings program... one of which I was outright denied access to, the other I was told I could have a copy of (but only after I reminded the concerned individuals they already gave Roger Patterson a copy), but then never recieved it...

In any case it is not really possible to conduct an audit without these things... and I am not interested in continuing the trend of stumbling around in the darkness of ignorance, with regards to changes to the rating system.

[Bob Gillanders]

.... the other I was told I could have a copy of (but only after I reminded the concerned individuals they already gave Roger Patterson a copy), but then never recieved it...


Stuart - an unfortunate breakdown in communications,:o which I only became aware of a week ago. Honest. Cross my heart. If you are still interested, please ask Roger directly, tell him I said okay to give you a copy of database we sent him. :)

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

In my opinion it is pointless to even have a rating auditor if they are not going to actually conduct audits

in principal it's a job for a National Rating Committee


702. National Rating Committee Whereas it is widely accepted that the CFC rating system is in need of both near term adjustments and an accurate longer term method of monitoring the rating system to ensure the ongoing integrity of the rating system.

Be it resolved that the CFC establish a National Rating Committee responsible for both implementing near term adjustments to the rating system and establishing a credible long term monitoring process.

A rating auditor probably deals more with appeals
RATING AUDITOR @ http://www.chess.ca/section_2.shtml
10. The Rating Auditor shall supervise the operation of the rating system and shall deal with rating appeals.
and more details
739. Appeals @ http://www.chess.ca/section_7.shtml


*-*-*

The CFC must encourage to rate more tournaments, and think how to simplify an inclusion of international FIDE events with players affiliated with CAN.

[Fred McKim]

The National Rating committee was effectively a one time group that operated about 5 years ago.

At the moment the Rating auditor would chair any such committee that was formed. Rating appeals were more common back when ratings were done with a calculator.

[William G. Doubleday]

Hello all

I still don't know how our software works, but I had an exchange with Fred McKim about the hard to understand paragraph in the handbook regarding unrated players. Apparently Fred and Johnathon Berry built in a deflation of 200 points into the calculations many years ago. If this is stll hidden in the program, it could be part of the reason why ratings from juniors tounaments come out so low.

I don't have any faith in ratings below 1000 and would support starting new players at 1000 based on a phantom five games.

Another idea I am considering is a scaled k factor starting hgih (maybe 64) for the lowest rated and dropping gradually to 16 at 2200 and above. This would speed the rise of weak players as they improve and would take fewer points away to fund the rise.

Bill Doubleday

[Stuart Brammall]

Hello all

I still don't know how our software works, but I had an exchange with Fred McKim about the hard to understand paragraph in the handbook regarding unrated players. Apparently Fred and Johnathon Berry built in a deflation of 200 points into the calculations many years ago. If this is stll hidden in the program, it could be part of the reason why ratings from juniors tounaments come out so low.

I don't have any faith in ratings below 1000 and would support starting new players at 1000 based on a phantom five games.

Another idea I am considering is a scaled k factor starting hgih (maybe 64) for the lowest rated and dropping gradually to 16 at 2200 and above. This would speed the rise of weak players as they improve and would take fewer points away to fund the rise.

Bill Doubleday

You don't know how the program works, and yet you want to change it?

[Fred McKim]

Hello all

I still don't know how our software works, but I had an exchange with Fred McKim about the hard to understand paragraph in the handbook regarding unrated players. Apparently Fred and Johnathon Berry built in a deflation of 200 points into the calculations many years ago. If this is stll hidden in the program, it could be part of the reason why ratings from juniors tounaments come out so low.

I don't have any faith in ratings below 1000 and would support starting new players at 1000 based on a phantom five games.

Another idea I am considering is a scaled k factor starting hgih (maybe 64) for the lowest rated and dropping gradually to 16 at 2200 and above. This would speed the rise of weak players as they improve and would take fewer points away to fund the rise.

Bill Doubleday

Bill there are so many kids playing now in tournaments, that I think that starting them at 1000 would lead to some real inflation in certain areas (especially elementary children - might be OK for junior high and high school)). I've run kids tournaments for 30 years and I can tell the sifference between a 400, 600, 800 and 1000 player.

Rule 716 Applies to low rated players. Established players won't ever go below 800 once they get there and will never go below their highest rating if below 800. Provisional players will never go below 200.

At one time we had a rule that
a) if a player below 1200 had a performance rating (on 5 games or more) of 1200 or above their pre tournament rating would be considered 1200.

b) if a player below 1200 had a performance rating (of 5 games or more) above their pre tournament rating (but less than 1200), the performance rating would be their new rating.

These rules only applied to permanent players, but I don't see any reason why they shouldn't apply to provisional players also.

I think we should increase the minimum rating to 400 (this would equate to someone who has just learned the rules).

Again, we're not even sure we can modify the rating system at the moment.

It would be possible to manually increase all of the modifed ratings each week to some minimum (besides 200), but I think 1000 as a start is too high...

[Valer Eugen Demian]

Bill there are so many kids playing now in tournaments, that I think that starting them at 1000 would lead to some real inflation in certain areas (especially elementary children - might be OK for junior high and high school)). I've run kids tournaments for 30 years and I can tell the sifference between a 400, 600, 800 and 1000 player.

Rule 716 Applies to low rated players. Established players won't ever go below 800 once they get there and will never go below their highest rating if below 800. Provisional players will never go below 200.

At one time we had a rule that
a) if a player below 1200 had a performance rating (on 5 games or more) of 1200 or above their pre tournament rating would be considered 1200.

b) if a player below 1200 had a performance rating (of 5 games or more) above their pre tournament rating (but less than 1200), the performance rating would be their new rating.

These rules only applied to permanent players, but I don't see any reason why they shouldn't apply to provisional players also.

I think we should increase the minimum rating to 400 (this would equate to someone who has just learned the rules).

Again, we're not even sure we can modify the rating system at the moment.

It would be possible to manually increase all of the modifed ratings each week to some minimum (besides 200), but I think 1000 as a start is too high...

I am in full agreement (based on personal experience with kids and juniors since 1994) with Fred here!

[Garland Best]

I still don't know how our software works.

What code is the software written in?

[Christopher Mallon]

What code is the software written in?

Pretty sure it was Visual Basic. The OLD Visual Basic.

[Christopher Mallon]

Bill there are so many kids playing now in tournaments, that I think that starting them at 1000 would lead to some real inflation in certain areas (especially elementary children - might be OK for junior high and high school)). I've run kids tournaments for 30 years and I can tell the sifference between a 400, 600, 800 and 1000 player.

Rule 716 Applies to low rated players. Established players won't ever go below 800 once they get there and will never go below their highest rating if below 800. Provisional players will never go below 200.

At one time we had a rule that
a) if a player below 1200 had a performance rating (on 5 games or more) of 1200 or above their pre tournament rating would be considered 1200.

b) if a player below 1200 had a performance rating (of 5 games or more) above their pre tournament rating (but less than 1200), the performance rating would be their new rating.

These rules only applied to permanent players, but I don't see any reason why they shouldn't apply to provisional players also.

I think we should increase the minimum rating to 400 (this would equate to someone who has just learned the rules).

Again, we're not even sure we can modify the rating system at the moment.

It would be possible to manually increase all of the modifed ratings each week to some minimum (besides 200), but I think 1000 as a start is too high...

I don't really agree with changing it for provisional players - their ratings can already fluctuate a lot.

Rather, I think it's time we considered a FIDE Rule. Games vs. Unrated players DO NOT COUNT towards your rating. You might even expand this to include provisional rated players.

The different K-factors is a good idea but figuring out where to draw the line should be fun.

The ratings committee was Robert Hamilton, myself and Pierre Denommee. The result was the one-time ratings boon, since that was exactly all that we could get Pierre to agree to, and he was ratings auditor at the time. Then he stopped doing anything related to that committee so we didn't end up doing any long-term monitoring.

[Fred McKim]

I'm not a fan of the "games vs Unrated" don't count in CFC events.

Back in the days of FIDE ratings only being 2200+, you could assume that most FIDE tournaments were significant and players would "try" vs unrateds.

If this rule was in place for insignificant events, players could throw games to unrateds and face "no consequences". Then manipulate the ratings by playing them with artificially higher ratings.

[Paul Leblanc]

Bill, welcome to the discussion. Glad to have you aboard.
As I'm sure you know my basic aim is to accelerate the rating gains of rapidly rising players, particularly juniors, and if possible to mitigate the rating point losses of their unfortunate opponents. I will support almost any idea you come up with to address this issue.
My gut feeling is that such a measure need not generate rating inflation. We had inflation in the system according to Roger Patterson's analysis but I believe that with the elimination of the participation points as of the 2010 AGM we should start to see mild deflation as players generally retire with higher ratings than when they started playing.

[Michael Barron]

Hello all

I still don't know how our software works, but I had an exchange with Fred McKim about the hard to understand paragraph in the handbook regarding unrated players. Apparently Fred and Johnathon Berry built in a deflation of 200 points into the calculations many years ago. If this is still hidden in the program, it could be part of the reason why ratings from juniors tournaments come out so low.

I don't have any faith in ratings below 1000 and would support starting new players at 1000 based on a phantom five games.

Another idea I am considering is a scaled k factor starting high (maybe 64) for the lowest rated and dropping gradually to 16 at 2200 and above. This would speed the rise of weak players as they improve and would take fewer points away to fund the rise.

Bill Doubleday

Thank you, Bill!

You hit the nail on the head! :)

We need to understand the root cause of underrated Juniors.
Ridiculously low ratings - is one of the reasons.

We all understand the meaning of different levels of rating:
2000 - expert,
1800 - A class,
1600 - B class,
1400 - C class.
There is a certain set of chess skills corresponding with each class.
If the rating difference is 200 points, we could expect 3-1 score in 4 games match.
If the rating difference is 400 points, we could expect 4-0 score in 4 games match.

But what is the meaning of rating of 800?
Or 300?
Could we expect that a player rated 800 will consistently beat a player rated 300? :rolleyes:

I could show a dozens examples to the contrary...

I would think, if a player could record the moves and play with clocks, he deserves a rating of 1000.
If another player could consistently beat this beginner player, he deserves a rating of 1400 - C class.

Let's leave ratings below 1000 for CMA... :D