6c. Rating Auditor's Report

[Michael von Keitz]

Rating Auditor Report here.

[Paul Leblanc]

I'm in Ontario at the moment and have not yet received the end of 3rd quarter rating data from the CFC office. I hope to have some comments to place here within the next couple of days.

[Fred McKim]

In the tournaments I have organized, I ususally see one underrated person each event taking a nice 100 point jump. No more participation points to inflate everyone and no more silly performance bonus points for the 2400+ players (not that I have anything against those guys)

[Christopher Mallon]

I know Paul hasn't posted his report yet, but I would like to say that I was very unimpressed with a recent occurrence.

I reported an issue of duplicate players in the CFC ratings database with some events on one member# and other events on the other member# (Olympic Waive events - thus memberships weren't checked). Paul forwarded my issues to the office.

Despite the fact that one of the events was less than a month old, the office could apparently do nothing.

I'm not bringing this up as an attack on anyone, but rather to say that if this is something that in fact can't be fixed... then it's something that we need to be able to fix.

[Paul Leblanc]

I received the quarterly data from the CFC office Wednesday but am still on the road and it looks like I'll have to post the report after this meeting.
Otherwise, it was a fairly smooth quarter rating-wise. I note Chris' comment above.

I've been examining an issue raised by one of our masters that CFC and FIDE ratings have drifted apart considerably. This is a somewhat complicated issue because the gap seems to vary by player strength and also by region.

On the positive side, I met with some of the USCF rating committee members at the US Open in August and their opinion is that the CFC and USCF rating systems are at the moment pretty well equivalent. U.S. Organizers will generally accept CFC ratings at par for Canadian players with no USCF or FIDE rating.

I'd like to thank Chris Mallon for developing the rating calculation formula that players can use to estimate their post-event ratings. It incorporates the new bonus formula and there is a link to it on the CFC website.

[Marcus Wilker]

I know Paul hasn't posted his report yet, but I would like to say that I was very unimpressed with a recent occurrence.

I reported an issue of duplicate players in the CFC ratings database with some events on one member# and other events on the other member# (Olympic Waive events - thus memberships weren't checked). Paul forwarded my issues to the office.

Despite the fact that one of the events was less than a month old, the office could apparently do nothing.

I'm not bringing this up as an attack on anyone, but rather to say that if this is something that in fact can't be fixed... then it's something that we need to be able to fix.

We had a similar situation at Annex Chess Club, where we at first believed a player was a preexisting CFC member by the same name, but later found out he wasn't. In that case, after we brought it to Gerry's attention, our player was separated from his double.

[Paul Leblanc]

A cursory examination of the September rating data shows no signs of inflation or deflation. The new bonus point system seems to be functioning as designed so far.
There has been a downtrend over the past year or so in the number of games submitted for Regular rating. This is due to junior events with fast time controls being shifted to Active ratings. This trend is beginning to stabilize and the number of incorrectly submitted events for I have had to intervene has dropped dramatically.