PDA

View Full Version : 7. Rating Auditor Report (Paul Leblanc)



Lyle Craver
09-30-2011, 03:01 AM
This section is reserved for our ratings auditor Paul Leblanc

Paul Leblanc
10-01-2011, 01:36 PM
It has been an interesting 3 months since I accepted the position of Rating Auditor at the AGM. Before I begin my report I'd like to acknowledge the tremendous support I have received from Fred McKim and Roger Patterson. Roger has spent countless hours developing analysis tools to monitor the rating system and model potential changes. Fred has been a valuable link to the CFC office and a great resource to help me understand the background of the issues I am wrestling with.

Overall Comments on the Rating System. The average rating of all CFC members active in the past 12 months is 1190. This figure has been fairly consistant for the past 7 years (1170 plus or minus 35). A slow downtrend from 2004 to early 2009 has been replaced by a slow uptrend but we have not regained the 2004 level. Factors at play include the elimination of the old bonus point system, the introduction of the existing bonus point system and the introduction and subsequent elimination of participation points.

Bonus Point Formula. I am convinced that the existing bonus point formula needs to be replaced with a better model. The biggest flaw is that it awards bonus points on the basis of a percentage score without regard to the strength of the opponents. I am modelling alternatives that target truly exceptional performance and mostly I am finding it in new players who have completed the 25 games necessary to obtain an established rating but who continue to outperform their rating by large margins. I hope to finish this work in time to propose a new bonus point formula at the next meeting.

Handbook Amendments. Many articles in the handbook that deal with ratings are out of date. Article 702 (National Rating Committee) actually refers to individuals by name and is defunct. Article 739 refers to a rating statistician and outlines a cumbersome rating appeal process that pre-dates the internet. Article 712 deems players under 1400 to be inactive after 5 years but is not being followed. Article 717 has errors in the methodology for rating events with unrated and provisionally rated players. Article 719 allows events to be set aside for future ratings if there in certain cases but is not being followed in practice. Article 734 states that players with 3 games or less will not have published ratings but is not followed in practice. I intend to remove/amend all outdated information.

Rating Software Issues. Roger and Fred have identified several errors in the rating software that will be corrected. Two examples: the formula for assigning ratings to unrated players in a tournament where more than half the players are unrated (mostly junior events) is flawed; the software is inadvertently assigning bonus points to players with provisional ratings. These errors will be fixed shortly.

Incorrectly Rated Junior Events. Ten years ago, the CFC decided to allow Junior events with Active time controls to be rated as Regular events. Recognizing the damage that this was doing to the rating system (a 200 point drop in the average rating and the production of many under-rated juniors), the policy was reversed about 5 years ago. However, the practice continued. I have put a stop to it, however it has been a bit of a battle to get the word out to all TDs and organizers. The CFC office is not able to proof read all rating submissions or reverse incorrect ratings due to manpower constraints. I have been doing my best to contact all Junior event organizers and TDs. Some events are still slipping through the cracks, however. If after a reasonable time, this practice continues I may propose that we stop rating Junior events with Regular time controls for the loss-leader charge of 50 cents per player and limit this subsidy to Active rated events only.

Under-rated Juniors. I believe that by enforcing the rating regulations for Junior events and introducing a better bonus point formula we will help reduce this problem.

Comments are welcome.

Egidijus Zeromskis
10-01-2011, 01:58 PM
Rating ...Issues

I noticed that quite often the foreign players', who played several years ago in Canada, ratings are not updated to their current FIDE rating to use in the event calculation. Do you plan to take any steps to correct this?

Egidijus Zeromskis
10-01-2011, 02:11 PM
Incorrectly Rated Junior Events. Ten years ago, the CFC decided to allow Junior events with Active time controls to be rated as Regular events. Recognizing the damage that this was doing to the rating system (a 200 point drop in the average rating and the production of many under-rated juniors), the policy was reversed about 5 years ago. However, the practice continued. I have put a stop to it, however it has been a bit of a battle to get the word out to all TDs and organizers. The CFC office is not able to proof read all rating submissions or reverse incorrect ratings due to manpower constraints. I have been doing my best to contact all Junior event organizers and TDs. Some events are still slipping through the cracks, however. If after a reasonable time, this practice continues I may propose that we stop rating Junior events with Regular time controls for the loss-leader charge of 50 cents per player and limit this subsidy to Active rated events only.

Could you tell how many children in total where in this practice, and how many of them went further into adult chess? As I understand your main concern is under-rated juniors.

My son played in those "active" rated-as-normal events organized at Mr.Pelts' school. For parents it was a good way to track records. Does his rating was underrated? When it is 1100 or 1300, it does not matter :)

Fred McKim
10-01-2011, 02:55 PM
I noticed that quite often the foreign players', who played several years ago in Canada, ratings are not updated to their current FIDE rating to use in the event calculation. Do you plan to take any steps to correct this?

There is no automatic way to do this. It would be up to the event submitter to make a note to Gerry to revise the foreign rating used.

Ken Jensen
10-01-2011, 03:19 PM
Do you realize these Junior related moves are effectively designed to eliminate Junior players from participation in the CFC?

I do not understand how regular rating junior events produces under rated juniors who negatively impact adult ratings. Can you please explain that to me? It would seem the more rated games kids play the more closely their rating matches their skill. So if you want ratings to accurately reflect skill I would think you would want them to play lots of rated games. Would you prefer chess players avoid CFC events until they are 1800 rated adults? Or do you want them to show up unrated to adult events and only start their CFC rating then? What am I missing?

I can understand the 200 point reduction in average rating. To me that means you had a lot of junior members and their ratings tended to reduce the overall average. Getting rid of those low rated members increased the CFC average. So is the goal to have an active healthy CFC or is it to have a high average rating? If it is the later we could evict all members with ratings below 2400 and the CFC average would go way up. :cool:

Seriously though these statistical solutions are impacting participation and the future potential of the CFC. A fundamental question needs to be answered. Are Juniors an important part of the CFC or a nuisance barely tolerated? These moves indicate the latter. I feel juniors are the future and their participation should be encouraged.

It appears to a junior organizer like myself that the CFC collective wishes Juniors would stop showing up at adult events where they play strong and ruin the day for the regulars. The suggestion that the CFC should stop rating junior events can be read as " the CFC should stop having Junior members." Understand that the only thing the CFC has to offer a 12 year old chess player is a rating. Take that away and 99% of kids playing chess have no use, or interest in the CFC. They can get a rating from CMA, USCF or in our area NWSRS. They are here for a CFC regualr rating. They have zero interest in a CFC active rating.

How many of the current adult CFC members got there without being a junior first? If you want members and revenues to go with them you can grow your own with Juniors. Chess participation and skill is like a pyramid. The elite players are just the tip top. A small group that marks the peak of canadian chess skill. Beneath them are many more strong talented players. Each level grows from a layer beneath it. Each lower layer has much more participants than the one above. What is the foundation of this pyramid? Juniors.

Attract and nurture juniors and you will have steady growth in membership and revenues. Unfortunately the CFC chooses to chip away at juniors and try to get them out of the rating pool. Becareful what you wish for. You just might get it. Every action against juniors weakens the CFC . Maybe it is meant to be just a gentleman's club and no more. Chase away the juniors and you will soon find out.

How successful could the CFC be if it actually nurtured junior chess? Ask Larry at CMA what his membership numbers are, or his annual budget. Which provinces have CMa activity compared to those with CFC?

So be aware that when you talk about improving the average CFC rating by getting rid of juniors you are talking about a CFC without Juniors. You may argue that the CFC doesn't need juniors, and you may be right. I won't argue. I do know that every move you make in this direction drives away some participation. How much can he CFC afford to drive away? The CFC continues to score failing grades in Junior chess.

I apologize for the rambling.
I felt it necessary to make sure people are aware of the consequences of these actions.
I'll get off my soap box now.

Ken Jensen

Paul Leblanc
10-01-2011, 05:07 PM
Hi Ken. I guess I could start by saying that I am only enforcing the rules as they stand. 30 minute events are not currently eligible for Regular rating. I happen to agree with the rule but this is a democracy and you could make a motion to change the rule.
What I have observed by looking at many all-junior 30 minute events is that the ratings of the players are very low and once they play 25 games without serious opposition, juniors receive an artificially low established rating. They then "graduate" to events with experienced players and instead of earning a Provisional rating that reflects their true playing strength, they greatly outperform their established rating and cause unnecessary angst to their opponents.
What would be wrong with rating Junior 30 minute events as Active events? Why would that not be inclusive of youth players?

Ken Jensen
10-01-2011, 09:23 PM
Hi Paul,

I have been told by BC's juniors and their parents that they have no interest in active ratings. If a junior event is not CFC regular rated it will not be a CFC event. This sentiment is echoed by other Junior organizers. I have heard from more than one that they will simply drop the CFC now that the rating rule change is being enforced. Others have said they will get around the issue by simply making the time control 60 minutes, knowing that the juniors games will be done in 20 minutes no matter what the time control.

If the situation you describe exists I suggest it represents a flaw in the player development program, not the rating system. The BC Junior program consists of monthly Junior Open events where kids compete by rating. The Beginners play in the U800 section and stay there until they win enough to progress. The Intermediate section is where kids develop their skills to the 1200 level. Once they reach 1200 they move to the U1500 Advanced section. The kids above 1500 play in the Adult Open events. In this program I have yet to see a new player get his 25 games in and end up with a rating substantially below his skill level.

What I have seen is bright young kids who study chess several days a week, meet with a personal coach at least once a week and play in a dozen tournaments a year. With this kind of study they can progress very quickly. They show up at an adult tournament and face an opponent who has played one event a year for the last 30 years. These kids are sharp, and they will make you pay if you slip up. Who's "fault" is the result? Is it the keen youngster who's pushing the envelope of his game? Is it the old regular who's a little rusty? Is it the rating system?

Changing the rating system to fix this problem is like getting a new camera because the pictures from the old camera had too many flowers in them.

From what I'm hearing you would prefer juniors show up at their first adult event with no rating, so their provisional rating can be set against the skill of their adult opponents. It seems there is a difference in the intensity level between the Junior program and the adults events. It should be noted that these same juniors compete internationally and their ratings are generally comparable to their counterparts.

My conclusion is that these kids are strong. They study hard and play hard. They are also future adults. To punish them for outworking their older opponents sends the wrong message. To chase them away is removing the foundation from the chess pyramid. Without the juniors the CFC eventually resolves to the old regular who plays the same 1 event a year.

Sorry for another long winded post...

Ken Jensen

Vladimir Drkulec
10-01-2011, 09:29 PM
Do you realize these Junior related moves are effectively designed to eliminate Junior players from participation in the CFC?

I do not understand how regular rating junior events produces under rated juniors who negatively impact adult ratings. Can you please explain that to me? It would seem the more rated games kids play the more closely their rating matches their skill. So if you want ratings to accurately reflect skill I would think you would want them to play lots of rated games. Would you prefer chess players avoid CFC events until they are 1800 rated adults? Or do you want them to show up unrated to adult events and only start their CFC rating then? What am I missing?

You are missing that active junior events will be rated under the CFC system for active ratings and regular time control junior events will rated under the regular system. It is ridiculous to allow active events to be rated as if they are regular time control events. When I was trying to get the most active player ranking for Canada it was disconcerting to see juniors close the gap by playing an impossible number of games in a weekend (impossible if they were playing at least game in an hour time controls).

This has been the rule for some time now. The new rating auditor is just making an effort to make sure the rule is enforced.

Vladimir Drkulec
10-01-2011, 09:35 PM
All of our junior rated tournaments in Windsor are at least game in an hour. I don't think we hold any active events aside from non-rated events though we do have the problem of some of the kids not using their time effectively but we are working with them to correct that tendency.

Christopher Mallon
10-01-2011, 10:07 PM
I dust this suggestion off every couple of years so here goes again.

Why not make everyone under the age of.. 12? exist in a state of perpetual provisionality?

Yes I made up a word there. Anyway, what I mean is, just keep track of their 24 most recent games and always use those for their ratings. That should solve the whole under-rated junior problem in fairly short order as it makes it much easier for the junior rating pool to obtain new points, while not taking every single one of those points away from older players.

Vladimir Drkulec
10-02-2011, 06:54 PM
I dust this suggestion off every couple of years so here goes again.

Why not make everyone under the age of.. 12? exist in a state of perpetual provisionality?

Yes I made up a word there. Anyway, what I mean is, just keep track of their 24 most recent games and always use those for their ratings. That should solve the whole under-rated junior problem in fairly short order as it makes it much easier for the junior rating pool to obtain new points, while not taking every single one of those points away from older players.

That would reduce the problem but not solve it. I haven't really found the kids 12 and under to be the big problem. I would say that age 12 to 16 is more of a problem but that is probably because aside from this weekend I usually play in tournaments that don't allow playing up.

Christopher Mallon
10-02-2011, 07:47 PM
I pulled 12 out of a hat. The number should be set based on some actual statistical analysis.

Bob Gillanders
10-02-2011, 08:11 PM
Incorrectly Rated Junior Events. Ten years ago, the CFC decided to allow Junior events with Active time controls to be rated as Regular events. Recognizing the damage that this was doing to the rating system (a 200 point drop in the average rating and the production of many under-rated juniors), the policy was reversed about 5 years ago. However, the practice continued.

First of all, great report Paul. It states clearly the important issues that we face.

As for rating all junior tournaments as regular, I guess I was part of the problem. :o I remember questioning back in 2007 why all Junior tournaments were regular rated, but was assured that was current practice. I would be interested in exactly when the policy reversal was done. Obviously it was never communicated (or carried out) to the office. :(

Anyway, in spite of Ken's objections, I think you are on the right path.:)

Bob Gillanders
10-02-2011, 08:26 PM
I would like to float an idea that has been rattling around in my head for a while. I would wager I'm probably not the first to think of it, but here it is:

For games played against under rated juniors, your rating is calculated based on their performance rating not their current rating.

Example

Middle aged guy (1800) loses to superstar kid (1300).
But for the tournament, superstar kid has performance rating of 1800.

Current system - Middle aged guy loses 30 rating points.
Proposed system - Middle aged guy loses only 16 points.
The superstar kid still gains 30 points under either systems.

Whether this change can be easily made to the current software, that is another question. Paul, can you add this idea to your list of potential solutions. I believe I may have mentioned it to you at the Canadian Open dinner. :)

Bob Gillanders
10-02-2011, 08:44 PM
I have been told by BC's juniors and their parents that they have no interest in active ratings. If a junior event is not CFC regular rated it will not be a CFC event. This sentiment is echoed by other Junior organizers. I have heard from more than one....


Really? If that really is the case, then perhaps another solution can be found, but what if it was explained to the kids and parents that the active rating (or rename it junior rating) was for junior only tournament and regular rating was for when they played in adult (mixed) tournaments. That should work, no?

Kids love their ratings. At the Mississauga junior club we have our own rating system. I would like to switch it over to the CFC rating system, and if I do, it will be sent in as active. Most of the kids don't use clocks, and those that do, it's 25 minute games.

Except for the stronger players, I don't think they care which rating it is, CFC CMA, Mississauga, whatever.

Bob Gillanders
10-02-2011, 08:57 PM
Do you realize these Junior related moves are effectively designed to eliminate Junior players from participation in the CFC?
........
........
I apologize for the rambling.
I felt it necessary to make sure people are aware of the consequences of these actions.
I'll get off my soap box now.

Ken Jensen

Ken, nobody (well..99% nobody) wants to drive away juniors.
We are only trying to address the complaint from adults that they feel they are being punished by losing extra rating points to under rated juniors.

Anyway, stop apologizing for rambling. We desperately need to hear from our junior organizers. :)

What do you think of my suggestion 3 posts up? I think it may bridge the issue between you and Paul!

Paul Leblanc
10-02-2011, 09:32 PM
Yes Bob, I like your idea. In fact I thought I was the first one to think of it!

Perhaps the situation develops after Super-kid's 25th game when his provisional rating stops going up fast and he gets an established rating? I'd be interested in your thoughts on this as the current modelling I am doing with bonus points is to give a boost to "new players" (i.e. mostly juniors) who have just graduated to established ratings. It isn't turning out to be as easy as I thought to separate the Super-kids from the average beginners.

Then there is Chris Mallon's idea to extend the provisional ratings beyond the 25th game. Would there be any unintentional side-effects to that? The CFC data base doesn't always show the age of players so I have been using the term "new" player (going by the number of rated games on a person's record). You and I are "really old" players.

By the way, I did some work using Performance Ratings that turned out to be very discouraging since some wild Performance Ratings come out of junior events with many unrated players. My current modelling is looking at a version of the old bonus point system where Super-kid is rewarded with extra points if he gains a large number of points in one event.

I would like to also include some kind of rating point refund for Super-kid's hapless opponents too. I just have to be careful to model ideas to ensure I don't cause undesireable inflation.

Paul Leblanc
10-02-2011, 09:35 PM
Regarding Junior event ratings, a couple of the organizers that I spoke to have started dividing their tournaments into sections where the more experienced kids play 60 minute time controls and the games are rated Regular. The less experienced kids play Active chess.

Ken Jensen
10-02-2011, 09:39 PM
I pulled 12 out of a hat. The number should be set based on some actual statistical analysis.

I would be interested in seeing the statistical analysis behind this story. How was it shown conclusively that the problem is "Under Rated Juniors". I am sceptical. I work with about 600 kids a year and in my experience there are as many over-rated kids as under-rated. This is typical of any rating system. Cases of non provisional ratings being substantially out either way are rare.

Have we determined that it is not a problem with the ratings calculation formula? I am not familiar with the ratings math. Try as I might I have never been able to duplicate the CFC results consistently. I continue to be baffled when performance ratings well below pre-event ratings can result in an increase in rating, and vice versa.

Is it a case that the ratings calculator is a zero net sum operation? In other words does every junior rating point have to come at the expense of an existing adult player?

An analysis of the statistics should identify these problem "over-rated" players. Comparing the data over time will show their rating trend and what their comparable rating should be at any given time. Of course it may reveal that their competion underperformed.

The root of the problem seems to be different reference points. Are you saying that a junior who earns a rating of 1500 playing against juniors is stronger than an adult rated at 1500 from playing adults? If it is a statistical fact it should be easy to calculate the difference and adjust the formula for junior events accordingly. That way when juniors and adults meet they are comparable.

Ken Jensen

Ken Jensen
10-02-2011, 10:23 PM
...what if it was explained to the kids and parents that the active rating (or rename it junior rating) was for junior only tournament and regular rating was for when they played in adult (mixed) tournaments. That should work, no?
...
Except for the stronger players, I don't think they care which rating it is, CFC CMA, Mississauga, whatever.

No, kids will not buy CFC active ratings. In BC I know there is constant pressure, or competition for event ratings. Our players have a choice between CFC, CMA NWSRS and various house ratings.
The tug of war between CFC and CMA is ongoing. So far CFC has won a large market share on the argument that it is The National Rating. As soon as you go away from regular to active the balance shifts away from CFC.

In BC most active events go unrated or house rated. I can guarantee that any current CFC rated event that you strip of it's regular rating will be lost to the CFC. Is that the plan? It may help the under rated juniors problem.:(

There are a lot of active events in BC. Some are CMA rated. Some are house rated, many are not rated. NONE are CFC Active rated. That's not entirely true, since 2006 there have been 5 CFC Active rated tournaments in BC. That is why I say that if your solution to the high performing juniors "problem" is to deprive them of a rating until they are adults the CFC will not have any juniors.

That said I believe you are on the right track by looking at the ratings calculations applied to juniors and adjusting as necessary so Junior Ratings and related skill match the equivalent adult rating. :)

The old rules that applied regular ratings to junior games as short as 30 minutes were made on the realization that for most juniors that is a "long" game. The strategy, like the USCF's was to get juniors inetgrated into the system early and develop them into adults.

Getting rid of the 30 minute rule was the first shot at the under rated junior "problem". It is along the same thought lines of "deprive them of a rating until they play only adults". Unfortunately it may have had the opposite effect. With fewer rated games the kid's ratings are even slower to adjust, and more likely to be out of date.

We will never be able to compensate completely for the effect of intensive study and progress at the chess board which young kids can demonstrate. No more than we can stop them from growing three sizes in a year.:)

Ken Jensen

Paul Leblanc
10-02-2011, 11:20 PM
We looked at all players with 25 to 50 rated games from 1 April 2007 to the present. There were 9,100 data points. We were looking to see if an outstanding performance in one event was an indicator that we had a fast-rising player on our hands worthy of bonus points.
We set the criteria at a 50 point gain in a single event as well as the attainment of a personal high rating and followed those players to their 75th rated game. It turned out that 83% of them did indeed continue to a higher rating and the average gain was a further 71 points.
The control group, all players with between 25 and 50 rated games, regardless of whether they had an outstanding single event, also gained further rating points. 71% of them went upwards and the average gain was 50 points.
This is against a background where the average rating of all players in the CFC remained static.
So, the tentative observation is that this group is under-rated. I have much more work to do on this before translating it into a recommendation to change the bonus point system.

Ken Jensen
10-02-2011, 11:48 PM
It sounds to me like you have the target in sight. :cool:
You know the numbers.

Extrapolating backwards through your data set you can determine with confidence that these players were 100 points low, or what ever number the data supports. Then through the magic of hindsight you can fiddle with the math to find a formula that produces a more appropriate rating. Be it bonus points, provisional ratings or new math, this solution will not only retain juniors, it will encourage and excite them. :D

Ken Jensen

Bob Gillanders
10-03-2011, 02:08 AM
Is it a case that the ratings calculator is a zero net sum operation? In other words does every junior rating point have to come at the expense of an existing adult player?


Yes, that is the basic problem.
Ratings are a zero sum game. The winner gains rating points, and the loser loses an equal number of rating points.
This causes a natural rating deflation over time. Most players gain rating points over the years, then eventually stop playing, removing a larger number of rating points from the pool than when they entered. Bonus points and participation points are used to combat this deflation.

Fred McKim
10-03-2011, 07:56 AM
Ken: The performance ratings shown in the Crosstable listings do not include the "protection" for having played opponents > 400 points away. So this performance rating is only a raw estimate. Players winning all of their games against players averaged 500 points lower will have a performance rating 100 points below their pre-rating, but will still gain a handful of points.

Fred McKim
10-03-2011, 07:59 AM
I have performed all sorts of informal surveys and studies over the years. Generally speaking juniors who play frequently are generally 100 points underrated, while those who are among the top 10-20% are probably 200 points underrated.

Obviously when junior plays junior, we are only going to see relative changes in the their rating, it's when they get playing the more static adult population we see these numbers coming into play and corrections of some sort should be made.

Ken Jensen
10-03-2011, 11:53 AM
I agree with your observations Fred. The problem of pegging a junior's skill level with a rating is challenged by the the moving target aspects. It's hard enough to get an accurate rating of a static player. As you describe active juniors typically change 100 points a year or more. If they do not play enough rated games in that time there will be major jumps in rating when they do. We hold regular adult/junior mixed events to help that transition and make sure the juniors get lots of rated games.


For what it's worth I have seen the impatient juniors waiting for their rating to catch up. They have solved a problem in their game and are playing 200 points above their rating, but the rating only moves 50 points a trournament. So it takes them 3 or 4 tournaments to get adjusted. The problem of course comes in when they improve further before they have found 4 CFC rated events to play in.

Ken Jensen

Halldor P. Palsson
10-03-2011, 02:04 PM
We never lose an opportunity to drive folks away from the CFC. The CFC Active rating system has been a farce for a long time that nobody takes seriously.

The 30 minute all junior regular rating is a great way to get juniors into regular organized chess. It is also fast enough that a chess school can have some instruction and a tournament game in one session for their students.

Faster games for learn to play juniors is a great idea. My introduction into chess 45 years ago at the junior leval was 7 min a side, next level to 15 min and then 45 min. The main objective is to get kids to have fun playing lots of chess and learning the game. After winning events at the 45 min level or getting 75% in two we got to play with adults at regular controls entering at the lowest category.

What is missing in the junior rating discussion is that we have to put a floor of 800 or 1000 on the CFC system. Some European national systems are run this way - no ratings lower than 1000. That way the entrants come in over rated by 300-400 points and do not deflate the system as is the case now because they start from 600 and exit 1400-1600.

Pierre Dénommée
10-03-2011, 02:31 PM
I have moved a motion to abolish the Active rating fee and to create a new category of membership allowed to play only Rapid Games and Regular tournaments specifically allowed by the Executive. The motion has been defeated despite the fact that it has been done elsewhere. I still see the Active rating as a promotional tool that is to be used to attract players to Regular games.


We never lose an opportunity to drive folks away from the CFC. The CFC Active rating system has been a farce for a long time that nobody takes seriously.

Vladimir Drkulec
10-03-2011, 04:20 PM
We never lose an opportunity to drive folks away from the CFC. The CFC Active rating system has been a farce for a long time that nobody takes seriously.

Nobody takes it seriously and that may be a good thing. For one thing I am more likely to play in an active tournament where I might have to play people six hundred rating points below me because I don't take my active rating seriously. I will only do that locally in regular chess and even then I won't do it often.



The 30 minute all junior regular rating is a great way to get juniors into regular organized chess. It is also fast enough that a chess school can have some instruction and a tournament game in one session for their students.


So it is okay to corrupt our regular rating system for the sake of convenience because some juniors who do not pay a membership fee and pay a significantly reduced rating fee do not care about active ratings?

When John Coleman broached the idea of rating the games played by the kids in our Friday night classes they overwhelmingly voted against it even though pretty much all of the kids are members of the CFC. The Friday night classes are very healthy and we are currently operating at room capacity with others trying to join the class. We are getting decent turnouts from the kids at the available tournaments especially the one day events.

I am very active in local children's chess as a coach and mentor and while I do see these kids as the future it is wrong to corrupt our rating system to pander to the sensibilities of certain parents. The kids just want to play and have fun. They really aren't as fixated on ratings as adults are.

If the kids' parents want the kids to play for regular ratings, insisting that they play according to the rules and play games of at least one hour sudden death time control hardly seems onerous to me.

Bob Gillanders
10-03-2011, 05:31 PM
When John Coleman broached the idea of rating the games played by the kids in our Friday night classes they overwhelmingly voted against it even though pretty much all of the kids are members of the CFC.

"they overwhelmingly voted against it" - Vlad, who is "they". The kids, the parents, or the club members. :confused: and why?

Vladimir Drkulec
10-04-2011, 01:03 AM
"they overwhelmingly voted against it" - Vlad, who is "they". The kids, the parents, or the club members. :confused: and why?

The kids had the votes and it was quite one sided. They just didn't want the games to be CFC rated which was curious to all of the adults involved including me. I think they probably felt that they wanted to be away from the pressure of CFC rated play. Between John Coleman, Denton Cockburn and the tournaments run by Fazle Baki they get lots of local opportunities for CFC play. Right now we don't even record the result of the games but only the fact that two individuals played. We try not to pair the same kids twice in a month's time. Every game gets analyzed by an adult and for the stronger kids we try to have their games analysed by a master or NM strength player with improvements suggested for both players.

Lyle Craver
10-04-2011, 01:16 AM
So would you fine folks welcome a motion for the January meeting to abolish the active system from say 4/30 possibly with a proposal to rate any games active after 12/31 regular as a way of phasing them out? (Or perhaps some other transitional rule?)

I'm less convinced on the transitional stuff but I am very convinced we needed to have the conversation about 1 vs 2 rating systems a couple of years ago. My personal view is that I would have no trouble with "1/4 K" events as has been discussed in the US but don't think parallel systems plus FIDE (and for some folks FQE) ratings really serves the cause.

Last time I seriously looked at the subject was 2-3 years ago when someone sent me a paper done for the USCF - I've got the academic background to understand it but am sure it was one of the files I lost when I lost both hard drives in spring '09.

Fred McKim
10-04-2011, 10:10 AM
So would you fine folks welcome a motion for the January meeting to abolish the active system from say 4/30 possibly with a proposal to rate any games active after 12/31 regular as a way of phasing them out? (Or perhaps some other transitional rule?)

I'm less convinced on the transitional stuff but I am very convinced we needed to have the conversation about 1 vs 2 rating systems a couple of years ago. My personal view is that I would have no trouble with "1/4 K" events as has been discussed in the US but don't think parallel systems plus FIDE (and for some folks FQE) ratings really serves the cause.

Last time I seriously looked at the subject was 2-3 years ago when someone sent me a paper done for the USCF - I've got the academic background to understand it but am sure it was one of the files I lost when I lost both hard drives in spring '09.

I think some of us enjoy having the Active Rating System, so I certainly would not be in favour of such a motion. To correspond with the rest of the world we might want ot change the name to "Rapid" Ratings.

Lyle the idea of 1/4 K is also interesting, and I would support that initiative.

My situation is that I want to be able to run one day tournaments that last about 6-7 hours that players will receive CFc "credit" for, as I can get numerous players from two-three hours away. I suppose we can play watered down CFC games at G/60 - then I need to have a 10-11 hour tournament.

Paul Leblanc
10-04-2011, 10:12 AM
Lyle, exactly what are you suggesting? The way I read your post, you want to lower the time control for all CFC Regular rated events to 30 minutes starting on 31 December.

Paul Leblanc
10-04-2011, 10:13 AM
Sorry, I meant MINIMUM time control

Christopher Mallon
10-04-2011, 10:33 AM
Why not merge active/blitz into Rapid, allow games from 5 to 59 minutes?

Lyle, the 25 minute games are quite useful especially in school situations, as you can have one round per hour on the hour which is easy for people to remember.

Fred McKim
10-04-2011, 11:24 AM
Lyle, exactly what are you suggesting? The way I read your post, you want to lower the time control for all CFC Regular rated events to 30 minutes starting on 31 December.

I think he's only proposing that during a phase out period.

Patrick McDonald
10-05-2011, 12:17 AM
I, as an active junior events organizer ABSOLUTELY support that kids half hour games SHOULD BE RATED ACTIVE while the regular time control games SHOULD BE RATED REGULAR.

If kids want to work on their regular ratings, play regular games.

Generally, kids that are only playing the active time control games are still early in their development as chess players, unless they enjoy playing both types, in which case they probably don't want those quick games affecting their "serious" games ratings.

Once a junior starts playing regular time control games, they are generally much more developed as chess players and are then ready for working on those regular ratings.

This also allows them to get the active rating working on their development and then jump into their regular ratings once they are better developed and start with a much higher rating as their initial regular rating.
Otherwise, they will be constantly battling to raise their rating to where it should be (because they got their first rating when they were just starting and so it started rather low).

Pierre Dénommée
10-05-2011, 11:23 AM
Because those games are not played using the same rules unless they are properly supervised and in Canada, they are almost always never properly supervised, except for the tiebreak of the Canadian Championship. In unsupervised blitz, article 10.2 does not apply, so players are allowed to win on time without trying to win by normal means. Rating those games regular would corrupt the entire rating system. Furthermore, whether properly supervised or not, the players are not required to record the game in both rapidplay and blitz.

Unsupervised rapidplay is a different form of competition that is played under different rules and that should be rated separately.

Creating demand for the Active rating is a marketing issue. Lowering the rating fee to 0$ with electronic submission would be a good marketing ploy, as it a separate membership for playing active games.


Why not merge active/blitz into Rapid, allow games from 5 to 59 minutes?

Halldor P. Palsson
10-06-2011, 02:49 PM
To abolish the Active rating system faster time controls for the regular rating system would have to be adopted. Currently the rules permit game in 60 min as the fastest time control without increments. Under increments 30 min + 30 sec a move is the fastest time control allowed.

If allowing game in 45 min or 25-30 min with translation to increments gets rid of the Active system I think it is worthwhile.

I think these new faster time controls might get used in one section Swisses in round 1 mis-matches to compress the 3-games a day schedule. They could also be used by folks to run one day regular rated tournaments.

The Active system has long been ignored by the CFC and held in low regard by the membership. If we are keeping the Active rating system at least manage it. A first step might be to reset those ratings to highest regular ratings and then watch them deflate again.

Christopher Field
10-06-2011, 06:50 PM
I hope that regular ratings will still be used for CYCC qualifiers.
This is the way they have always been done, and the players and parents expect it. They are run with 30-minute per player time, so that 6 rounds may be played in one day. They have been very successful, and I believe that we want to keep them going and to encourage more. As has been mentioned, we certainly need to attract kids to tournament chess. This is one of the best ways we have.

I strongly question whether rating these games in the regular system is really the source of under-rated juniors.
When they start, the younger juniors mostly play very fast. It makes little difference what the time control actually is.
As they gain in experience, they will slow down of course.

Chris Field.

Lyle Craver
10-06-2011, 09:19 PM
I confess I feel bad about internally groaning when I see a junior next to my name on the pairing sheets.

Where adults get into trouble with juniors is when the junior has not played a rated game in 3-4 months then plays again. This may mean they've been doing other things but it may also mean they've been taking lessons, playing 24x7 on ICC etc.

I well remember my best tournament ever when I (then 1750 or so) beat 2 masters (both as black) and drew with an expert and reached 1900 - then in the very next tournament lost to two brothers who were then 1450 but were both 1900+ within 3 months...obviously they had been playing outside CFC events during that time and their ratings climbed at the maximum possible rate for most of that time.

Vladimir Drkulec
10-06-2011, 09:58 PM
I hope that regular ratings will still be used for CYCC qualifiers.
This is the way they have always been done, and the players and parents expect it.

There is no provision in the current rules to provide an exception for CYCC qualifiers. Players and parents should learn to live with the disappointment of having to follow the rules like everyone else and stop trying to cheat.

Paul Leblanc
10-07-2011, 12:29 PM
I'm just leaving for Toronto and the Annex Chess Club Thanksgiving Open. As soon as I find internet access I'll post a summary of our discussions and let you know my plans between now and the next meeting.
Thank you all for participating.

Patrick McDonald
10-07-2011, 01:18 PM
Chris, Vlad,
First of all, I think "trying to cheat" is much too strong. There really is no malice or any attempt to get around rules behind the kids and their parents' interest in regular ratings.

The reason that kids and parents hold the regular ratings higher than the active ratings is because that is what they are told.
What they really want is to compete with each other and to be able to track their progress ... ratings (whether regular or active) will achieve this. If we, as organizers, position this properly, they will be just as interested in their active ratings as their regular ones.

The games are different. Kids play Active games and should concentrate on their active ratings in their early developmental years.
Once their interest starts turning to wanting to take more time with their games, they should start looking to working on their regular games and ratings.
They would actually get more satisfaction with this approach. They can watch their active ratings rise through their development. When the "graduate" to regular time games (and actually start using that time) if their regular rating has not been falsly established through rating active development games as regular, they will actually start their regular rating much higher in general than otherwise.

This also has the benefit of established players not worrying as much about playing these Under-Rated kids.

Does this make more sense out of Paul's suggestion and direction?

Christopher Mallon
10-07-2011, 01:40 PM
Part of the problem may be the term "Regular" ratings... Perhaps if we renamed them Speed and Long ratings or something similar, there would be less emotional attachment to your "regular" rating above all else.

Vladimir Drkulec
10-07-2011, 02:09 PM
Chris, Vlad,
First of all, I think "trying to cheat" is much too strong. There really is no malice or any attempt to get around rules behind the kids and their parents' interest in regular ratings.

I was a little over the top but only a little. If you submit a tournament as a regular time control event when in fact it was active that is cheating When I was trying to become the most active adult player in Canada, I all but gave up trying to be the most active player because of this magical ability of some of the kids to play an impossible number of games in a weekend. Of course I was still able to do it because I suddenly had some Windsor players who wanted to play chess and I didn't have to rely only on out of town events.

In Windsor, I don't see this preoccupation with regular vs. active ratings among the children or their parents. Improve the children's chess strength and their ratings will follow.



The reason that kids and parents hold the regular ratings higher than the active ratings is because that is what they are told.
What they really want is to compete with each other and to be able to track their progress ... ratings (whether regular or active) will achieve this. If we, as organizers, position this properly, they will be just as interested in their active ratings as their regular ones.

The games are different. Kids play Active games and should concentrate on their active ratings in their early developmental years.
Once their interest starts turning to wanting to take more time with their games, they should start looking to working on their regular games and ratings.
They would actually get more satisfaction with this approach. They can watch their active ratings rise through their development. When the "graduate" to regular time games (and actually start using that time) if their regular rating has not been falsly established through rating active development games as regular, they will actually start their regular rating much higher in general than otherwise.

This also has the benefit of established players not worrying as much about playing these Under-Rated kids.

Does this make more sense out of Paul's suggestion and direction?

I totally agree with Paul's suggestions and direction. What I don't agree with is the idea that we are driving juniors away by making everyone play by the same rules. As you point out, active ratings can be just as important as regular ratings with the right marketing (and attitude). I was actually happy to see London go to active events for their monthly Saturday tournaments because at game in an hour I'm not sure that I want to put my regular rating on the line where I have to play people 400 to 600 points below me. Ratings are a zero sum game these days and in the case of playing someone four to six hundred points below you, they are a zero rating point gain game even when you win. In the case of an active event that is not as much of a concern.

Paul Leblanc
10-08-2011, 11:10 PM
Bonus point formula. There was no disagreement with my plan therefore I will continue the search for the "holy grail" bonus point system, probably along the lines that I mentioned. Bob Gilanders reminded me that it is desireable to incorporate some sore of rating point rebate to players upset by under-rated new players.

Handbook amendments. I received no comments therefore I will draft a motion for the next meeting.

Rating software issues. Again, no comments therefore I will have the errors fixed.

Incorrectly rated junior events. This generated most of the discussion with people pro and con about evenly divided. Since the existing rules in the Handbook do not allow 30 minute games to be rated as Regular, I will continue to enforce the rules until told otherwise. This may come to a head in the upcoming CYCC Regional Qualifiers.

Lyle Craver
10-13-2011, 12:52 AM
Summary:
Paul Leblanc gave his report on the Ratings Auditor position focussing on problems with the Bonus Point Formula, updating Handbook sections relating to ratings, known software issues, problems with rating of junior events relating to Active vs Standard time controls. There was some controversy on the last point some of which was quite heated. It was strongly suggested juniors were not interested in Active ratings. There did NOT seem to be a consensus on the use of Active or Regular ratings for Junior events.

The question was raised about CFC ratings for foreign FIDE-rated players being out of date.

There were several suggestions about dealing with the problem of under-rated juniors.

It seems clear that the area of junior ratings will continue on to the January meeting with more concrete proposals likely.

Lyle Craver
Secretary, Chess Federation of Canada