PDA

View Full Version : 15. 2012-O Rating of Junior Events (Vlad Rekhson)



Lyle Craver
12-31-2011, 05:19 PM
Moved Vlad Rekhson / Seconded Simon Ong

That Junior only events will be rated with a regular rating provided that the time control is at least 30 minutes per side, or equivalent, based on 60 moves when increments are used.

(Editorial note: there has been a second motion by Field / Jensen saying

I move, seconded by Ken Jensen, that Junior events of at least G30 be regular rated, retroactive to December 1, 2011.

Governors should refer to the discussion on this motion in the President's Message for further details)

Paul Leblanc
01-01-2012, 08:42 PM
The current policy was put in place by the following motion (read carefully to take in the torturous language):

GL 9 of 2005/2006:

Motion 2006-12 (Moved Christopher Mallon / Seconded by Patrick McDonald)
To remove from the CFC Handbook section 711.2 concerning Junior Ratings:
"711.2 Rating of Junior Events.
All pure Junior and Scholastic tournaments will be regular rated unless 50% or more of the participants
have regular ratings over 1500, or the time control is less than 30 minutes per player per game. [See GL2
1999-2000, October 1999]"
Votes Yes (13) Barron, Bluvshtein, Craft, Craver, Dénommée, Dutton, Farges, Friesen, Nikouline, Pacey,
Smith, Stockhausen, Thorvardson
Votes No (0)
Abstentions (3) Ferner, Gauer, Wu

Christopher Mallon
01-01-2012, 09:40 PM
I don't think it's a good idea to go back to this. One group of players should not be using different rules for the same rating system.

Certain people have threatened or hinted about threatening to stop organizing events if we enforce our existing rule, but it makes no sense to govern based on threats.

Lyle Craver
01-01-2012, 10:26 PM
Moved Field / Jensen to add the phrase

"retroactive to 1 December 2011" to this motion

Please vote yes, no or abstain

Paul Leblanc
01-01-2012, 11:28 PM
I recommend governors reject this motion. Some of the reasons are:

1. It treats one group of chess players differently from the rest;

2. It distorts the rating system because many younger players who play twenty five 30 minute games against weak opposition get permanent ratings that are far below their actual playing strength. Then, instead of starting over with Provisional ratings when they start playing in serious tournaments, they bring artificially acquired low ratings with them. This impacts eligibility for class prizes and fosters ill will between juniors and experienced players;

3. The 30 minute events are likely violating other CFC rules. Are the moves recorded? Are games adjudicated at the end of a one hour round and if so what criteria is used to award a win? Are clocks used at all? I attended a junior event a couple of years ago where the TD's only instruction was that anyone making 3 illegal moves would forfeit the game.

4. There is a very viable alternative. Some organizers have adapted to my audits by giving the strongest players 60 minute each time controls and using Active rating for the less experienced kids. There is a separate initiative led by Bob Armstrong to rejuvinate the CFC Active rating system to make it more appealing to a wider audience.

Bob Gillanders
01-01-2012, 11:52 PM
I will be voting No on this motion. Games rated regular need to be 1 hour, there should be no exemptions for junior tournaments. We voted on this back in 2006, and it was a decisive vote in favour of stopping the practice of rating active junior tournaments as regular. I shared my views with a few others in an email recently, here it is:

Hi Guys,

I was going to wait for the governors meeting before joining the debate of this issue, but I will say the following beforehand:

1. Paul is on the right track. Enforce the rules on the books. Games from junior only tournaments should not be rated regular unless they are at least game in 1 hour.

2. When I became ED in 2007, I asked the question, "should these junior tournaments (it was obvious they were not long games) be regular rated?". Former ED David Gordon told me "all junior only tournament games are regular rated." I recall mentioning this to other CFC people at the time and nobody contradicted him, nor did I have a reliable handbook to consult. I was not aware of the motion in 2006 that should have stopped this practice, so sadly I continued to rate them regular. It is only now in 2011, with our new rating auditor Paul Leblanc, that we realize that we haven't been following our own rules. If somebody else brought it up earlier, I don't recall. Perhaps they were drowned out from all the noise.

3. When tournaments are submitted the default is regular rated. So unless the TD specifies active, it gets rated regular. I am happy to hear that Gerry is at least contesting some TD's about this.

4. Yes Virginia, unless you are talking about CYCC (OYCC, etc), most junior tournaments are played without clocks. Smaller tournaments maybe have clocks, or sometimes for just the top (older) boards, but school tournaments with 50-100+ kids, no way. And yes, most of the games are over quickly.

This is a big topic, and making any changes will be met with resistance from some junior organizers. Not so much because they think they are correct, but more that they get pressure from parents and kids for a rating. Everybody loves a rating. We need to sell the fact that our active (quick, whatever you call it) rating is worthy of existence.

At the Mississauga junior club we have our own rating system. It allows me some flexibility for assigning rating for new kids. We also have some logistical reasons that make using the CFC rating system problematical. However, I am planning for 2012 to CFC rate some of our top boards to get the juniors acquainted with CFC and encourage them to participate beyond our club. My narrative will simply be that the active (quick) rating is their junior rating, and when they start playing in adult tournaments, they can look forward to getting a real adult CFC rating.

Cheers,
Bob G.

Lyle Craver
01-02-2012, 12:16 AM
Two main points here:

(1) Do Governors agree with the whole idea in the first place of rating junior events "regular" that are not played at regular time controls

(2) Do Governors in general agree with the whole concept of 'ex post facto' motions - that is, motions that are to have retroactive effect.

The first question is a question of junior administrative policy.

The second is at the root of it a question of philosophy and jurisprudence which touches on matters across the board - not just involving juniors. Is it reasonable or just to change the rules after the game has been played? Are there circumstances where this is warranted?

These two issues are quite separate issues here and voting one way to #1 does not imply you should or should not vote the same way on #2

Regardless of how the amendment goes, Governors should carefully discuss the philosophical issue raised by it and retroactive motions generally.

Gordon Ritchie
01-02-2012, 01:06 AM
I failto see the rationale for this proposal and further agree with Lyle that retroactivity is bad practice.

Bob Armstrong
01-02-2012, 01:07 AM
I also will be voting against the motion to rate less than Game/60 all junior tournaments, as " regular rated ", for the reasons given by others. We need to keep the " regular " and new " quick " systems totally separate, and maintain the integrity of each.

Bob A

Chris Felix
01-02-2012, 11:30 AM
Retroactive is a terrible idea, and can cause many problems.

I will vote no to this, as I think treating players differently inside the same rating system will skew the rating system as a whole.

If Junior players are underrated, the problem is that they're not playing enough regular rated events, the solution should be to get them more involved somehow, change the time of the scholastic events or another solution that does not involve skewing statistical data.

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-02-2012, 12:16 PM
Will this motion damage the rating system?
A better question - Did this practice damage the rating system? (as it was practiced for several years) IMHO - no
vs Did it contribute to the Canadian chess and to the CFC? IMHO - yes.

As a parent I had some benefits from this practice: a track of son's results with regular and prompt updates. Personally I would not care the system used - CFC, CMA or a local rating system.

As Fred McKim wrote once, to process juniors' ratings the CFC looses monies through Director's time. (imho, it should not be a case, on other hand for a non-profit organization it might be a plus to support juniors.) Indirectly the website should generate monies when players/parents check ratings. Thus the CFC should be financially neutral on this matter in a semi-ideal world.

I'll support this motion. While I'm not sure that about the amendment. Why is it December 1, 2011? Not May, 1 or July 1 (Canada Day)

Christopher Field
01-02-2012, 12:37 PM
Please allow this clause to be presented as an amendment to this motion.
Here is the rationale:
Until 2009, and spring of 2010, I ran 2 junior-only, quick-play (30 minutes / player or slightly slower) tournaments each year. They were always regular-rated, whether or not there was a clause in the rules preventing this.

In 2010-2011, I was sick and did not run any of these tournaments. Although I was at the annual meeting in 2011, and heard Paul Leblanc state that as Rating Auditor he would enforce the rule regarding no regular-rating of quick-play events, I simply did not expect that he meant to include the CYCC Qualifier events.

I ran a CYCC Qualifier at G30 control on Dec 3 2011. I did not advertise it as an "active" event. The players and parents all expected it to be regular-rated. Instead, Mr Leblanc instructed Gerry to active rate it.

The result is that a lot of players (we had over 60) and their parents are not happy. Also, the active ratings produced are extremely inaccurate. IN the one section, they are based on 1 player with a pre-tournament active rating out of 29 players, whereas 13 of these players had pre-tournament regular ratings. In the other section, the active ratings are based on 5 out of 33 players with pre-tournament active ratings, whereas 16 of these players had pre-tournament regular ratings.

The pairings were of course based on the regular ratings. Also, all of the pre-tournament active ratings were extremely out-of-date.

These are the reasons why - based on there being a need to have junior-only events regular-rated - this change needs to be retroactive to Dec 1, 2011, so that the CYCC Qualifier on Dec 3 2011 may be re-submitted and regular-rated, to correct these errors.

Chris Field.

Christopher Field
01-02-2012, 12:43 PM
As I stated above, the amendment is primarily to allow the CYCC Qualifier of Dec 3 2011 to be regular-rated.
1. It was not advertised as an "active" rated event.
2. It had been the practice of the CFC Office to regular-rate junior-only events.
3. The players involved, and their parents, expected it to be regular-rated.
4. The active ratings produced are extremely unrealistic, based on very few pre-tournament ratings - in one section, only 1 player out of 29; in the otehr, 5 players out of 33 - and based on very out-of-date ratings in any case.

Chris Field.

Christopher Field
01-02-2012, 01:02 PM
First of all, we allow junior-only events to be rated, at a nominal fee of 50 cents / player, and without requiring players to be members, in order to attract more junior players to the CFC.
The main attraction is getting a regular CFC rating.

The CYCC Qualifiers, in particular, are expected to be regular-rated.

Does this effectively attract players? -- Yes.

Do some of these new players go on to play in regular tournaments and become members? -- Only a small number, but it is certainly a source of new members.

Does regular-rating these tournaments adversely affect the rating system? -- I submit, NO. In the first place, only a small number of the players in these events go on to purchase memberships and play in regular tournaments. In the second place, most - not all - young players really can play quality games quickly.

How do we fix the situation of having junior members whose ratings are lower than their playing strength? -- This problem, as has been noted, is a long-term problem, pre-dating the issue of quick-play regular-rated tournaments by 30 or more years. Simply put, once a junior becomes a member, if he is studying (with or without a tutor), his playing strength will rise faster than his rating simply because he can only play a few tournaments, while he studies every day. Perhaps a special formula can be used for junior players, to give a higher post-rating based on a high performance rating, and hence move their regular ratings up faster to reflect improvement.

Chris Field.

Christopher Mallon
01-02-2012, 01:07 PM
It seems that the unhappiness of the parents is more over semantics than anything else. They want their kids to have a "regular" rating. We should change the names to "Rapidplay" and "Longplay" ratings, that way one is not better than the other just by name bias.

Chris Felix
01-02-2012, 01:44 PM
I do see the point of giving them regular ratings, as their rating will grow rapidly once they start playing regular events (if they do).

Even these G30 ratings will be roughly equivilent to what they will be playing at later in life.

But isn't the problem that they are given regular ratings to begin with? If no CYCC events are rated as regular, they do not have a regular rating until they play in a longer event. Their rating will be accurately reflected at that point through the provisional rating system.

Upon further thought, if this was the regular CFC practice to regular rate Qualifiers, then these small statistical errors are already in the system anyway, and it most likely isn't going to hinder the rating system in any kind of noticeable way.

I also didn't realize how much having a regular rating really promotes them to playing chess later in life, and in all honesty if the parents are fighting this much for them to have a regular rating and to continue playing chess, the method must be working.

Maybe it's an exception that has to be made for the eventual greater good of getting these kids to continue playing chess.

EDIT: I don't see the issue with regular/active/blitz or regular/rapid, or classical/rapid etc. I don't think it's necessary to change regular/classical to longplay.

Bob Armstrong
01-02-2012, 03:48 PM
Hi Chris:

The actual CYCC itself is not Game/30, but Game/90 I believe.

However, some of the provincial/regional qualifiers were played at Game/ 30 ( though the 2011 OYCC was at Game/90 ).

Bob A

Bob A

Chris Felix
01-02-2012, 04:43 PM
Thanks for that clarification Bob.

I find it a little weird that provincial qualifiers are ran as an active tournament to qualify for a regular rated event, but I imagine it's the best way to get the games over in a decent amount of time.

Vladimir Drkulec
01-02-2012, 05:09 PM
I don't think the aim should be to get the qualifiers over in a decent period of time. I understand that some kids' parents are hung up on getting a regular rating but I do think that this does damage the integrity of our rating system. Game in 30 minutes is totally different from game in 60 minutes though they do share some common characteristics. I would be more comfortable with making game in 60 minutes active rather than making game in 30 regular rated for anyone.

I will be voting against this motion.

Vlad Rekhson
01-02-2012, 07:19 PM
The main point of my proposal is to deal with reality of most kids tournaments. For kids that are under 1400, whether the time control is G/30 or G/60 doesn't really seem to matter too much as they finish their games long before reaching that. On the other hand, the higher rated kids obviously use more time.
Now, I don't think that we should be complicating things by saying that if the rating of juniors is below 1500 then G/30 would be regular and if their rating is above its active. This will complicate things further both for participants and organizers.

I realize that taking more time to think would typically raise a level of a child, but I don't think that having two different ratings would necessarily encourage them to do so.

Instead, I think that it would simply make the organizer's lives easier if they use the same rating for the G/30 and G/60 events and it would be easier for kids and parents to understand what the rating is, rather than looking for two different (and if you include Chess N'Math 3 different) rating systems.

Christopher Field
01-02-2012, 07:31 PM
Vlad Drkulec writes:

I don't think the aim should be to get the qualifiers over in a decent period of time. I understand that some kids' parents are hung up on getting a regular rating but I do think that this does damage the integrity of our rating system. Game in 30 minutes is totally different from game in 60 minutes though they do share some common characteristics. I would be more comfortable with making game in 60 minutes active rather than making game in 30 regular rated for anyone.

Please note: this motion concerns junior-only events. In these events, most of the players are new and not members. But even more experienced juniors tend to be able to play as strong a game in 30 minutes as most of us older folks may play in 60 or more. Not all, but most.
The second point is that only a few of the non-members will go on to join and play in regular tournaments. BUT we need those that do. AND they are less likely to try out with the junior-only events if these events cease to be regular-rated.
Finally, rating junior-only events at G/30 in the regular rating system is NOT what results in having juniors playing at a level way above their rating. The low-rated junior problem, as has been pointed out, is a long-time problem, pre-dating this. Other changes to the system can be made to address this problem directly.

We need to re-instate the special treatment of junior-only events in order to continue to attract players to join the CFC.

Chris Field.

Michael Barron
01-02-2012, 10:23 PM
Did this practice damage the rating system?

Yes, Egis, unfortunately, this practice had damaged the rating system. :(

One example - the necessity to add manually ~400 points to the CFC rating of World Champion Jason Cao last year.

Another example is here:
http://chess.ca/crosstable?tournament_check_number=201011054&key=120102

Class A player with provisional rating 1946 enters this scholastic event, wins all 5 games, and... loses ~500 rating points!

The end result:
This Class A player enters next CFC event with the artificial rating 1464!

Hope, we all agree that this is a problem.

How could we solve this problem? :confused:

The simplest solution - just to follow the rules.

Of course, there could be other solutions as well, and I'm interested to hear them... :)

Vladimir Drkulec
01-02-2012, 11:21 PM
We need to re-instate the special treatment of junior-only events in order to continue to attract players to join the CFC.

Chris Field.

I just don't see how having everyone play by the same rules is going to cause anyone to stop playing or attract fewer players to join the CFC.

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-02-2012, 11:26 PM
Yes, Egis, unfortunately, this practice had damaged the rating system. :(

One example - the necessity to add manually ~400 points to the CFC rating of World Champion Jason Cao last year.

Over the cfc lifetime many rating rises were done even before rapid scholastic events. As for a Jason case not many were happy with this artificial increanment.


Another example is here:
http://chess.ca/crosstable?tournament_check_number=201011054&key=120102

Class A player with provisional rating 1946 enters this scholastic event, wins all 5 games, and... loses ~500 rating points!

The end result:
This Class A player enters next CFC event with the artificial rating 1464!

Hope, we all agree that this is a problem.


And still her rating was provisional, thus we saw big swings. Did you notice that her first rating 1946 was given for one game?


(
The simplest solution - just to follow the rules.

Of course, there could be other solutions as well, and I'm interested to hear them... :)

Next time, or the next tread about fast-advancing juniors/youth.

Halldor P. Palsson
01-03-2012, 03:14 AM
We used to rate G/30 all junior events in the regular rating system. When the rule was abolished the CFC continued to rate these events. Rating kids G/30 regular helps a certain number of chess schools and brought us a few new members per year.

By a way background, the chess schools tend to use short lesson and play a game format for their sessions. Sessions typically last an hour or two. The CFC regular rating is a selling point - allowes the schools to market that they are more serious than the learn to play environment these kids usually came from.

The rating of G/30 all junior events per se has no impact on the regular rating system as it pertains to adults - this is a closed pool of junior players only and a large majority of those juniors does not go any further in chess.

The impact occurs when some kids start regular tournaments with adults. The kids can arrive rated CFC 800-1100, which maybe far too low. A typical pattern for these players is that they play adults/juniors in regualr tournaments and gain 400-600 points and then they exit the system. There is little joy in the CFC membership of D-C-B players who are the principal source of said 400-600 points.

Christopher Mallon
01-03-2012, 10:31 AM
The rating of G/30 all junior events per se has no impact on the regular rating system as it pertains to adults - this is a closed pool of junior players only and a large majority of those juniors does not go any further in chess.

The impact occurs when some kids start regular tournaments with adults. The kids can arrive rated CFC 800-1100, which maybe far too low. A typical pattern for these players is that they play adults/juniors in regualr tournaments and gain 400-600 points and then they exit the system. There is little joy in the CFC membership of D-C-B players who are the principal source of said 400-600 points.

These two statements are contradictory. First you state that there is no impact, then you proceed to demonstrate a rather serious impact.

Mostly-closed rating pools are bad enough in any circumstances, we don't need to be encouraging them.

Paul Leblanc
01-03-2012, 12:08 PM
Halldor and Egidijus: The Jason Cao case happened before I became rating auditor but the injustice of his situation got me interested in the problem of under-rated juniors.
Jason showed up at his first non-junior event with a provisional rating of 874 and over the next 5 serious tournaments his performance rating averaged 700 points higher than that. Not only was Jason's rating held back artificially by his junior games but his opponents over the next 5 events suffered unnecessarily.

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-03-2012, 12:36 PM
Halldor and Egidijus: The Jason Cao case happened before I became rating auditor but the injustice of his situation got me interested in the problem of under-rated juniors.
Jason showed up at his first non-junior event with a provisional rating of 874 and over the next 5 serious tournaments his performance rating averaged 700 points higher than that. Not only was Jason's rating held back artificially by his junior games but his opponents over the next 5 events suffered unnecessarily.

IMHO, it is a problem of the rating formula than tournaments (Nothing stops beginners to start play >1 hour games. For rating purposes it would give similar effect. Maybe everything would be slower as not many games would be rated.)
+
The CFC must encourage a mixture of tournaments: between various chess schools, club, towns, cities, regions, provinces, etc.
Even adults' rating can stagnate if they would play in one "closed" club.

Fred McKim
01-03-2012, 12:44 PM
IMHO, it is a problem of the rating formula than tournaments (Nothing stops beginners to start play >1 hour games. For rating purposes it would give similar effect. Maybe everything would be slower as not many games would be rated.)
+
The CFC must encourage a mixture of tournaments: between various chess schools, club, towns, cities, regions, provinces, etc.
Even adults' rating can stagnate if they would play in one "closed" club.

Our motion for a quick rating system is to actually promote chess played at these quicker levels, and for children at the lower rating levels they can treat these as valued ratings.

Mark S. Dutton, I.A.
01-03-2012, 01:12 PM
I recommend governors reject this motion. Some of the reasons are:

1. It treats one group of chess players differently from the rest;

2. It distorts the rating system because many younger players who play twenty five 30 minute games against weak opposition get permanent ratings that are far below their actual playing strength. Then, instead of starting over with Provisional ratings when they start playing in serious tournaments, they bring artificially acquired low ratings with them. This impacts eligibility for class prizes and fosters ill will between juniors and experienced players;

3. The 30 minute events are likely violating other CFC rules. Are the moves recorded? Are games adjudicated at the end of a one hour round and if so what criteria is used to award a win? Are clocks used at all? I attended a junior event a couple of years ago where the TD's only instruction was that anyone making 3 illegal moves would forfeit the game.

4. There is a very viable alternative. Some organizers have adapted to my audits by giving the strongest players 60 minute each time controls and using Active rating for the less experienced kids. There is a separate initiative led by Bob Armstrong to rejuvinate the CFC Active rating system to make it more appealing to a wider audience.

I agree with our Rating Auditor!

Our "Essential Rules" require a minimum of 1 hour per side to be a regular rated game. Some of the games at these events are completed in "minutes" - faster than some blitz games.

They should not be treated as REGULAR rating.

To accommodate the new Juniors, rating these events REGULAR causes a deflation of the regular ratings of Adults. We will have to be more creative to bring the juniors "into line" with the CFC regular rating system - but not following our Handbook is not a wise choice at all.

Did you know ... that from our Handbook http://chess.ca/section-7

"710. ESSENTIAL REGULATIONS

711. Rateable Tournaments. To be rated under the CFC "standard" rating system the time control must be at least 60 minutes per player for the game (or for 60 moves with increment). To be rated under the CFC Active rating system the time control must be at least 15 minutes but less than 60 minutes per player for the game (or for 60 moves with increment)."

There may be many complicated time controls. The intention is to stick to the maximum game time. Non sudden death time controls shall not have a rate of play exceeding one move per minute. For both rating systems, all secondary time controls must be a minimum of 5 minutes long.

All games in a tournament should fit the same category. All time controls of a tournament must be advertised and/or posted prior to the tournament. Any Active rated tournament must be advertised as such prior to the tournament.

During a rated event, no player is allowed to be in competition with more than 1 opponent, including opponents in other events. [CFC Executive motion carried, 2001-02]

The Executive Director has discretion to accept or refuse any tournament for rating where the intent of this rule has not been followed. [see Motion 90-11, as amended, GL, September 1990, p. 1-13 - 1-14]"

Halldor P. Palsson
01-03-2012, 01:37 PM
The deflationary impact of junior ratings impacts the CFC. Anyone active as a TD at the club/local level has heard the lament that player X quits chess because his rating has fallen 200+ points and he is no longer an A,B,C or D player.

The easiest way to deal with the deflation is to set a floor for juniors at 1000 for CFC rating purposes. At that level many would come into the system with some surplus points.

The issue with juniors G/30 ratings are the 400-600 ratings of the players with the best getting a 900 rating and migrating to adult tournaments. They come into the system under rated. My estimate is that well over 90% of the players never make the transition to CFC rated adult chess from the G/30 all junior world.

Additional rating systems are an utterly bogus solution. The existing Active system has never been looked after and is very deflated.

Paul Leblanc
01-03-2012, 05:51 PM
I believe the intention of the Quick Chess motion (Armstrong/McKim) is to start everyone's Active rating at their existing Regular rating then go from there. That should bring the Active ratings into line.
Bob, if you are monitoring this you may be able to elaborate.

Fred McKim
01-03-2012, 06:00 PM
I believe the intention of the Quick Chess motion (Armstrong/McKim) is to start everyone's Active rating at their existing Regular rating then go from there. That should bring the Active ratings into line.
Bob, if you are monitoring this you may be able to elaborate.

Paul: The mechanism is explained in the motion. Should the motion not pass, I think we`ll have to look at adjusting the Active ratings to a more reasonable level for deflated players.

Pierre Dénommée
01-03-2012, 11:53 PM
I cannot vote in favor of a motion to rate regular a game played under the rapid rules.

Ellen Nadeau
01-04-2012, 09:54 PM
I speak for Youth only tournaments in Northern Ontario.

We do have league tournaments 30 min a side with 200-400 participants and provide clocks for all the tables. All players from 4th grade to 12th write their moves.

I understand the varying perspectives presented on this item and have great sympathy with Chris Field. The CFC was negligent in not being clear about how youth tournaments were to be rated and this has caused problems for a CFC organizer who promoted a YCC regular rated tournament with 30 minutes time control (He should be congratulated anyway for promoting YCCs tournaments).

After reading Paul Leblanc's comments concerning the Quick Chess Motion I had hopes that a sort of compromise could be found where in future all- junior events the TD can take the regular rating for pairing and then the office will rate active based on this instead of starting over with 200-400 zero rated players. When I went back to read the Quick Chess motion this is not what I undertand can happen. Can someone clarify this point?
Our region is the second biggest region in Canada for CFC rated chess tournaments because of youth chess. Imagine telling several hundred players that their rating is zero,the impetus to continue rating with the CFC disappears.

Ratings integrity is important, but please don't leave our youth orgaizers out to dry by saying that tournament can't be rated regular now when the ED's over the last years didn't even know. If regular rating of juniors can be used in future junior events to help establish reasonable active ratings quickly it's okay by me.

Fred McKim
01-04-2012, 11:04 PM
Quick chess ratings would be started at regular ratings.

If the motion fails, we retain the status quo, unless the rating auditor makes some provisions for events with no or few rated players (but these players having regular ratings).

Paul Leblanc
01-05-2012, 01:42 AM
I would be more than happy to start all the juniors (and anyone else) with an Active rating equal to their Regular rating. Perhaps we can examine this option in the slim chance that the Armstrong/McKim Quick Chess motion does not pass.