PDA

View Full Version : 5B3 - NEW MOTIONS - Olympic Team Selection (Moved Victor Plotkin,Seconded Fred McKim)



Lyle Craver
11-18-2016, 10:48 PM
Motion 5B3. Motion #3. Rating for the Olympiad.

The formula uses FIDE rating only as a base for the National Team. The formula uses the average CFC-FIDE rating as a base for the Women Team. Any number is rounded to the nearest 1. 0.5 is rounded to 1. If 2 or more players have the same total number then the younger age will be used as the tie-breaker.

Michael Barron
11-20-2016, 01:35 PM
The purpose of this motion is to eliminate CFC Ratings for National Team selection.
The argument was made that CFC Ratings are irrelevant for our best players.

Is it really so?

Let's look at the top lists that could be produced on the CFC website:

CFC Ratings:
1 Bareev, Evgeny Toronto, ON 2708
2 Kovalyov, Anton Chateauguay, QC 2653
3 Preotu, Razvan Burlington, ON 2634
4 Hansen, Eric Calgary, AB 2626
5 Noritsyn, Nikolay Richmond Hill, ON 2614
6 Sambuev, Bator Montreal, QC 2605
7 Le Siege, Alexandre Montreal, QC 2567
8 Gerzhoy, Leonid Toronto, ON 2560
9 Samsonkin, Artiom Toronto, ON 2559
10 Hambleton, Aman Ottawa, ON 2547

FIDE Ratings:
1 Bareev, Evgeny Toronto, ON 2663
2 Kovalyov, Anton Chateauguay, QC 2636
3 Hansen, Eric Calgary, AB 2584
4 Sambuev, Bator Montreal, QC 2562
5 Le Siege, Alexandre Montreal, QC 2528
6 Castellanos, Renier Montreal, QC 2504
7 Gerzhoy, Leonid Toronto, ON 2472
8 Roussel-Roozmon, Thomas Montreal, QC 2466
9 Hambleton, Aman Ottawa, ON 2453
10 Noritsyn, Nikolay Richmond Hill, ON 2449

We see that for players, who rarely play in Canada, CFC Ratings are indeed irrelevant.
But for players, who often play in Canada, it's quite opposite - CFC Ratings are very relevant.
2 most notable examples are Razvan Preotu and Nikolay Noritsyn.

So, for me this motion looks like an attempt to discourage them to play in Canada, because it's practically impossible for them to gain FIDE Rating points in a typical Canadian tournament.
Is it really what we want? :confused:

Victor Plotkin
11-20-2016, 02:40 PM
The purpose of this motion is to eliminate CFC Ratings for National Team selection.
The argument was made that CFC Ratings are irrelevant for our best players.

Is it really so?

Let's look at the top lists that could be produced on the CFC website:

CFC Ratings:
1 Bareev, Evgeny Toronto, ON 2708
2 Kovalyov, Anton Chateauguay, QC 2653
3 Preotu, Razvan Burlington, ON 2634
4 Hansen, Eric Calgary, AB 2626
5 Noritsyn, Nikolay Richmond Hill, ON 2614
6 Sambuev, Bator Montreal, QC 2605
7 Le Siege, Alexandre Montreal, QC 2567
8 Gerzhoy, Leonid Toronto, ON 2560
9 Samsonkin, Artiom Toronto, ON 2559
10 Hambleton, Aman Ottawa, ON 2547

FIDE Ratings:
1 Bareev, Evgeny Toronto, ON 2663
2 Kovalyov, Anton Chateauguay, QC 2636
3 Hansen, Eric Calgary, AB 2584
4 Sambuev, Bator Montreal, QC 2562
5 Le Siege, Alexandre Montreal, QC 2528
6 Castellanos, Renier Montreal, QC 2504
7 Gerzhoy, Leonid Toronto, ON 2472
8 Roussel-Roozmon, Thomas Montreal, QC 2466
9 Hambleton, Aman Ottawa, ON 2453
10 Noritsyn, Nikolay Richmond Hill, ON 2449

We see that for players, who rarely play in Canada, CFC Ratings are indeed irrelevant.
But for players, who often play in Canada, it's quite opposite - CFC Ratings are very relevant.
2 most notable examples are Razvan Preotu and Nikolay Noritsyn.

So, for me this motion looks like an attempt to discourage them to play in Canada, because it's practically impossible for them to gain FIDE Rating points in a typical Canadian tournament.
Is it really what we want? :confused:

If you want to make a point, please provide us with the real FIDE rating. The CFC site gives the wrong FIDE rating.

Garland Best
11-20-2016, 04:26 PM
Actually, I think Michael's point is valid. The formula should not penalize Canadian players that play almost exclusively FIDE tournaments, nor should it penalize those that play in non-FIDE events that are either CFC or FQE rated.

Personally, I prefer using FIDE rating exclusively should the player play enough FIDE rated games to meet the activity requirement. Should they meet the activity requirement only by including CFC or FQE events that are not FIDE rated, then it should be a weighted average, based on n FIDE rated games versus the remaining non-FIDE games.

Garland Best
11-20-2016, 04:33 PM
I also do not see why the rules should be different for women vs men.

Vladimir Drkulec
11-20-2016, 06:04 PM
I also do not see why the rules should be different for women vs men.

At least one or two parents of strong young female players have asked me a question on this very point. Why should the rules for female players be different?

Victor Plotkin
11-20-2016, 06:53 PM
I also do not see why the rules should be different for women vs men.

This is a very reasonable question. I hope, I am ready to answer it. Interesting, how many posts will I make in the next 7 days?

3 months ago, I posted my initial ideas on chesstalk. I compared, how relevant are CFC and FIDE ratings for different groups of players.

FIDE below 1800. FIDE is irrelevant.
FIDE between 1800 and 2000. CFC rating is more important.
FIDE between 2000 and 2200. Both CFC and FIDE ratings are important equally.
FIDE between 2200 and 2400. FIDE rating is more important.
FIDE above 2400. CFC rating is irrelevant.

Our women team has average rating around 2100 FIDE. So, I am completely OK with the current rules (50% CFC, 50% FIDE). At the same time, every member of the national team is (and hopefully will be) above 2400. That's why it is different.

I have another reason not to propose any change here for the women team. Many contenders are young and have K-factor of 40. Their FIDE rating is too volatile and thus less reliable. For the men team, every contender has a K-factor of 10, even the youngest players. K-factor changes to 10 after 2400, no matter how young the player is.

Victor Plotkin
11-20-2016, 07:08 PM
Actually, I think Michael's point is valid. The formula should not penalize Canadian players that play almost exclusively FIDE tournaments, nor should it penalize those that play in non-FIDE events that are either CFC or FQE rated.

Personally, I prefer using FIDE rating exclusively should the player play enough FIDE rated games to meet the activity requirement. Should they meet the activity requirement only by including CFC or FQE events that are not FIDE rated, then it should be a weighted average, based on n FIDE rated games versus the remaining non-FIDE games.

Garland, I believe your point was valid a few years ago, when many Canadian tournaments were not FIDE rated. It is different now. My last Canadian not-FIDE rated event was long time ago. Open section is FIDE-rated almost everywhere.

Now any game played in Canada is counted twice: for CFC and for FIDE rating. Game played abroad is counted only once. I can give an example to better explain my point.

Example 1. 2 players A and B have exactly the same CFC rating of 2600 and FIDE rating of 2500. They play 4 games with one another. 2 games in Canada and 2 games in USA. Player A scored 0.5/2 in Canada and 2/2 in USA. His rating will be 2505 FIDE and 2492 CFC. He won the match 2.5-1.5, but lost total of 3 rating points or 1.5 points on average. Is it fair? Why game between the same opponents counted twice? Actually, the game is counted 2.6 times, because CFC has a K-factor of 16. Player B got 13 rating points total for a single win. Player A got 5 rating points for a win. 13/5=2.6.

Vladimir Drkulec
11-21-2016, 11:04 AM
It seems to me that Victor's explanation of why we would continue to use blended CFC and FIDE ratings for the women's team is a good one though it might cause at least a need to provide explanations when people point out the inconsistency of not using the same method for for the men and women.

I do get the impression that most of the top rated men prefer we use FIDE ratings.

Victor Plotkin
11-21-2016, 11:50 AM
I can add that women team players play often in class section (like U2200, or even U2000). In many tournaments, these sections are not FIDE rated.

If you want to have general rule about using FIDE only or blended CFC and FIDE, we can make a borderline at 2300 level. If the average rating of top-5 eligible players is below 2300, use blended FIDE-CFC rating. If 2300 or above, then use FIDE rating only. Right now, the averages are about 2600 and about 2100.

Michael Barron
11-21-2016, 01:07 PM
If you want to make a point, please provide us with the real FIDE rating. The CFC site gives the wrong FIDE rating.

You're right, Victor - the CFC site gives the wrong FIDE ratings.
Here is correct ones from FIDE website:

# Name Title Fed Rating G B-Year
1 Bareev, Evgeny g CAN 2666 0 1966
2 Kovalyov, Anton g CAN 2647 4 1992
3 Hansen, Eric g CAN 2603 1 1992
4 Spraggett, Kevin g CAN 2542 2 1954
5 Sambuev, Bator g CAN 2534 5 1980
6 Lesiege, Alexandre g CAN 2525 5 1975
7 Preotu, Razvan g CAN 2495 0 1999
8 Noritsyn, Nikolay m CAN 2479 0 1991
9 Roussel-Roozmon, Thomas g CAN 2463 5 1988
10 Tyomkin, Dimitri g CAN 2455 0 1977

Still my point stands:
FIDE rating is not accurate for players who play mostly in Canada.

At the moment Canada has 3 very strong players, whose place in the National team is guaranteed:
Evgeny Bareev, Anton Kovalyov and Eric Hansen.
The next group of players, who are the real contenders for remaining spots - Bator Sambuev, Alexandre Lesiege, Razvan Preotu, Nikolay Noritsyn - play approximately at the same level.
But their FIDE ratings are significantly different:
experienced players - Bator and Alexandre - have higher ratings,
while younger players - Razvan and Nikolay - have lower ratings.
Difference between Bator and Nikolay is 55 points.
It's quite a big difference, but does it reflect their current strength?
Do you recall - when last time Bator achieved a better result than Nikolay at the same event? :confused:

Pierre Dénommée
11-21-2016, 02:12 PM
We maintain separate rating system for good reasons. It gives us both money, the rating fees remains in Canada, and control, our Rating Auditor can correct CFC rating rapidly in case of error. As a former CFC Rating Auditor, I can say that when a rating error has been made outside of Canada, only the Federation of the Country in which the error has been made can correct the error. It is completely irrelevant that the title or rating of a Canadian player is at stake.

We should proceed cautiously to ensure that we are not diminishing the value of one of our main asset, our own Canadian Rating which contribute significantly to our bottom line.

Pierre Dénommée
11-21-2016, 02:15 PM
This is a very reasonable question. I hope, I am ready to answer it. Interesting, how many posts will I make in the next 7 days?

3 months ago, I posted my initial ideas on chesstalk. I compared, how relevant are CFC and FIDE ratings for different groups of players.

FIDE below 1800. FIDE is irrelevant.
FIDE between 1800 and 2000. CFC rating is more important.
FIDE between 2000 and 2200. Both CFC and FIDE ratings are important equally.
FIDE between 2200 and 2400. FIDE rating is more important.
FIDE above 2400. CFC rating is irrelevant.

Our women team has average rating around 2100 FIDE. So, I am completely OK with the current rules (50% CFC, 50% FIDE). At the same time, every member of the national team is (and hopefully will be) above 2400. That's why it is different.


When explained like that, it is clear that it is not discrimination against Women. I would have been forced to vote against any such discrimination because of my current CFC office.

Victor Plotkin
11-21-2016, 03:23 PM
Michael,

I was really surprised to read your post. Your example with Sambuev, LeSiege, Preotu and Noritsyn is excellent. Your explanation (young - experienced) is ... not exactly right.

Hopefully, many governors know about the gap between CFC and FIDE rating. This gap was created long time ago with "artificial inflation" in CFC rating (around 2007-2008). Right now, we don't have inflation in CFC rating, but the gap still exists. Another problem: the gap is very different in different provinces. In Ontario the gap is almost 150 points, in Quebec and BC the gap is around 70 points only. Why? Because during the period of "artificial inflation" Ontario players played more tournaments and got more bonus points. Sooner or later, the gap will be the same everywhere in Canada, but it will take many years. How many years? Around 20-30, in my opinion.

Now, if you take CFC rating into account, you discriminate players outside of Ontario. Ontario players have higher CFC rating not because they are younger. Many times, my CFC rating was very close to rating of GM Roussel-Roozmon, while his FIDE rating was about 150-200 points higher. He is 20 years younger than me.

Sambuev used to be a 2700 CFC player. Now he is around 2600. Why? Not because he lost 100 points of "strength". His FIDE is about the same level, around 2530-2550. Because he used to play mostly in Ontario, and now he plays mostly in Quebec.

Victor Plotkin
11-21-2016, 03:32 PM
Pierre,

I never asked to cancel CFC rating. I agree with you, CFC rating is very important for 99% of Canadian players. In some cases, for younger and lower rated players, CFC is more reliable than the FIDE rating. CFC rating is also great for CFC finance. My proposal was just to stop using it for the National Team.

Lyle Craver
11-21-2016, 07:12 PM
Victor - can we assume you have polled our top players and that they are on board with this?
If yes, how many did you poll and how many did you get responses from?

Victor Plotkin
11-21-2016, 07:34 PM
I spoke with a few members of Team Canada about it. The common reply was "CFC rating is a joke". We did not discussed this issue on our team meetings.

I spoke with other strong players about it. Vast majority liked my proposal. A few of them do not care. Probably, Michael Barron is the only player with the rating above certain level, who against it.

Lyle Craver
11-21-2016, 08:35 PM
My personal bottom line is that I'm skeptical that all 6 of theses taken together would be readily understandable and accepted by masters generally - while not against any particular proposal the sum total makes me wonder if we'll get the needed "buy-in" from those most affected by it. Perhaps I'm mistaken but it does seem every single Olympiad team over the last 20-30 years has a different selection procedure and there is ALWAYS someone second-guessing the criteria.

Obviously if you ask 30 masters you'll get at least 30 opinions but overall I'd be satisfied with just FIDE as the more complicated one gets the more we get accusations that we're doing it to favor one player or group over another.

It's the ultimate "damned if you do damned if you don't" situation. At least right after the Olympiad we're doing it at a time that minimizes kvetching!

Garland Best
11-21-2016, 09:44 PM
I would propose the following formula. Assuming a player has played in n FIDE rated games during the time period, where n is less than 20, their rating would be calculated as:

Rating = [ n * FIDE + (20 - n) CFC] / 20.

This would give weight to the FIDE rating, while allowing those without the opportunity to play in FIDE events to have their CFC rating count. This would work for both men and women, and avoid arbitrary weightings based on gender, current CFC or FIDE rating, etc.

Victor Plotkin
11-21-2016, 10:58 PM
Player, who is contender to the National Team, plays only FIDE-rated games. I do not remember the last time where player like Sambuev, Noritsyn or Preotu (all of them play mostly in Canada) played in a tournament with slow time control without FIDE rating. I want to repeat: nowadays almost every game in Canada in open section is FIDE-rated.

Some governors believe that my proposal is too complicated. This formula is much more complicated than my proposal.

Pierre Dénommée
11-21-2016, 11:14 PM
We could also consider migrating the CFC rating to the Glicko-2 rating system. The Australian Chess Federation has already done that. The system gives both a rating and a measure of the reliability of the rating. If the CFC rating of a given player is really unreliable, this will be shown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glicko_rating_system
http://auschess.org.au/acf/ratings/

Garland Best
11-22-2016, 12:17 AM
Well, let's look at examples. (Apologies i do not have full access to the FIDE database as i am not registered, so in some places I'm making an educated guess. Someone can please correct my calculations).

Going with Top 10 CFC rated players:

Evgeny Bareev: played 26 FIDE rated games over past 36 months, so just FIDE works.
Razvan Preotu: played more than 20 FIDE games this summer, so just FIDE works.
Eric Hansen: played more than 20 FIDE games this year, so just FIDE works.
Nikolay Noritsyn: played more than 20 Fide games over past 18 months, so just FIDE works.
Bator Sambuev: Lots of FIDE games, so just FIDE works.

And yes, no need to do any math for the top 20 Canadian players. They have all played sufficient FIDE games.

Let's move to the women:

Qiyu Zhou - easily has 20 FIDE games this year.
Agnieszka Matras-Clement - also meets the 20 game FIDE number
Alexandra Botez - played only 16(?) FIDE games the past 2 years, but has CFC rated events to make the difference. FIDE rating: 2051 CFC rating:2273 Rating = [16 * 2051 + 4 * 2273]/20 = 2095
Valeria Gansvind - has four rating entries, so i think she meets the 20 game requirement.
Natalia Khoudgarian - played only 15(?) games the past 2 years, all FIDE and CFC rated. Eligibility issue.
Lali Agbabishvili - played 20 FIDE games this year, so FIDE rating.
Jackie Peng: Not enough games to be eligible.
Nava Starr: Last FIDE event in September 2015. I'll assume 5 games. Has more than 15 CFC games. FIDE rating: 2127 CFC rating:2142 Rating = [5 * 2127 + 15 * 2142]/20 = 2131

I don't see how these calculations are more complicated, and for almost all players the FIDE rating is the one that ends up being used, 100%.

I think this is a win-win. You get your FIDE ratings used for the top players, while the others get rated based on their total games played, not just FIDE games, and we don't discriminate based on gender, age, etc.

Victor Plotkin
11-22-2016, 07:17 AM
Garland,

In your example we use FIDE rating only for the Woman Team also. Even for active player with FIDE around 2000-2100, CFC still is very reliable, especially for juniors (girls) with the FIDE K-factor of 40.

Another problem in your example: your propose to rely more on CFC rating for the less active player. Usually, CFC is higher than FIDE by 100-150 points. So, less active player gets a big advantage. I do not think we want it.

I don't see any problem if we use different formula for different teams. Their average rating is completely different (2600 and 2100). I see absolutely no gender discrimination here. We can use borderline of 2300. If Woman Team has the average FIDE above 2300, we switch to using FIDE rating only for them as well. Hopefully, the average rating for the National Team remains above 2300 for the foreseeable future.

Aris Marghetis
11-22-2016, 09:41 AM
Garland,

In your example we use FIDE rating only for the Woman Team also. Even for active player with FIDE around 2000-2100, CFC still is very reliable, especially for juniors (girls) with the FIDE K-factor of 40.

Another problem in your example: your propose to rely more on CFC rating for the less active player. Usually, CFC is higher than FIDE by 100-150 points. So, less active player gets a big advantage. I do not think we want it.

I don't see any problem if we use different formula for different teams. Their average rating is completely different (2600 and 2100). I see absolutely no gender discrimination here. We can use borderline of 2300. If Woman Team has the average FIDE above 2300, we switch to using FIDE rating only for them as well. Hopefully, the average rating for the National Team remains above 2300 for the foreseeable future.

Victor, I prefer the way you phrased it in the last paragraph (average rating vs. gender, there'll always be someone crying "gender foul". I also want to take a moment to say thanks for even having thought of all these angles, and how to bring them together. I respectfully caution any of my peers for overly picking on any single criteria. I have deep confidence Victor is building something much more just than we have ever seen before, and he's broken it down so we can vote on parts of it. However, doesn't it defeat the purpose of the exercise if we overly shoot down or reinvent-the-wheel on any single aspect, especially if the result is out-of-sync with Victor's overall vision? This is just my personal opinion, and of course you don't have to agree. So far, I expect to be voting with confidence for Victor. If it's a close call in my mind, I'm going with Victor's judgment.

Michael Barron
11-22-2016, 02:16 PM
Michael,

I was really surprised to read your post. Your example with Sambuev, LeSiege, Preotu and Noritsyn is excellent. Your explanation (young - experienced) is ... not exactly right.

Hopefully, many governors know about the gap between CFC and FIDE rating. This gap was created long time ago with "artificial inflation" in CFC rating (around 2007-2008). Right now, we don't have inflation in CFC rating, but the gap still exists. Another problem: the gap is very different in different provinces. In Ontario the gap is almost 150 points, in Quebec and BC the gap is around 70 points only. Why? Because during the period of "artificial inflation" Ontario players played more tournaments and got more bonus points. Sooner or later, the gap will be the same everywhere in Canada, but it will take many years. How many years? Around 20-30, in my opinion.

Now, if you take CFC rating into account, you discriminate players outside of Ontario. Ontario players have higher CFC rating not because they are younger. Many times, my CFC rating was very close to rating of GM Roussel-Roozmon, while his FIDE rating was about 150-200 points higher. He is 20 years younger than me.

Sambuev used to be a 2700 CFC player. Now he is around 2600. Why? Not because he lost 100 points of "strength". His FIDE is about the same level, around 2530-2550. Because he used to play mostly in Ontario, and now he plays mostly in Quebec.

Victor,
You describes a problem with CFC rating, and I agree with you.
I describe a problem with FIDE rating - it puts too much weight on past results, and thus distorts the current situation.

Yes, Sambuev used to be a 2700 CFC player. Now he is around 2600. Why?
Because the situation changed - he doesn't dominate Canadian chess anymore.
He used to be Canadian Champion - not anymore.
He used to win majority of Canadian events with perfect score - not anymore.
Now we have several young players who can successfully compete with him.
The CFC rating reflects the new reality, while FIDE rating is lagging behind.

No rating system is perfect - what's why we use a combination of both.
The practical effect of this motion - is a punishment for players who regularly play in Canada, what's why I strongly oppose it.

Victor Plotkin
11-22-2016, 03:31 PM
Thank you for accepting my point about problems with CFC rating. I truly appreciate it.

Your discussion about Sambuev is misplaced. Chesstalk is a much better place to do it. You will get a lot of interesting replies. I promise you.

I recall, we had a conversation by phone about my proposals. If I could not convince you that time, I have no chance to convince you now. So I will not try anymore. Your best choice is to vote against my proposals.

I wish you a good performance at World Senior.

Ilia Bluvshtein
11-22-2016, 08:15 PM
Victor, I prefer the way you phrased it in the last paragraph (average rating vs. gender, there'll always be someone crying "gender foul". I also want to take a moment to say thanks for even having thought of all these angles, and how to bring them together. I respectfully caution any of my peers for overly picking on any single criteria. I have deep confidence Victor is building something much more just than we have ever seen before, and he's broken it down so we can vote on parts of it. However, doesn't it defeat the purpose of the exercise if we overly shoot down or reinvent-the-wheel on any single aspect, especially if the result is out-of-sync with Victor's overall vision? This is just my personal opinion, and of course you don't have to agree. So far, I expect to be voting with confidence for Victor. If it's a close call in my mind, I'm going with Victor's judgment.

Aris, I agree with your post 100%.

Victor, take it easy and thank you for well thought motions. I'll vote Yes to all 6 motions.

Garland Best
11-22-2016, 11:48 PM
Folks, in case anyone has the wrong impression, I also recognize and appreciate the thought that Victor has placed in drafting his proposal. I just want us to consider other possible options, hopefully better ones, before committing to a final formula.

I just want to make it clear that my posts are given as constructive criticism, with the goal of giving us the best formula possible. It was never intended to "shoot down" Victor. Far from it. But the voting should be based on whether we believe each portion of the proposed formula is objectively the best option, or if a better one exists. And if we think there is a better option we should voice that option and be prepared to defend it. Isn't that the point of these meetings?

Vladimir Drkulec
11-23-2016, 01:09 PM
We could also consider migrating the CFC rating to the Glicko-2 rating system. The Australian Chess Federation has already done that. The system gives both a rating and a measure of the reliability of the rating. If the CFC rating of a given player is really unreliable, this will be shown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glicko_rating_system
http://auschess.org.au/acf/ratings/


I don’t see the advantage of migrating to someone else’s rating system.

Vladimir Drkulec
11-23-2016, 01:24 PM
Victor Plotkin is the masters representative. We should listen to him when discussing items that largely affect only our top players like our Olympiad team members. My impression is that most of the top players are not enthusiastic about the current selection committee setup. I do understand Michael Barron's point about wanting to encourage top players to play in the CFC but at a certain point players do reach a point where if they want to progress they need to concentrate on higher level competition. The more players that we have in this category, the more successful we will be at future Olympiads.

Pierre Dénommée
11-23-2016, 05:44 PM
I don’t see the advantage of migrating to someone else’s rating system.

The advantage is that the system identifies unreliable ratings. The actual system is quite old, it does not take the Standard Deviation into consideration. Sandbaggers who looses to 1500 players and defeat 2400 players would have their rating flagged as unreliable by the new system. Australia considers that only very reliable and reliable ratings should be used on the Australia top players list.

Any formula that gives both a value and a measure of the confidence of that value is preferable to a formula that only gives a value. Doing ratings the Elo way is becoming more and more obsolete as time pass. Instead of being subjective, the reliability of a rating becomes both objective and measurable. FICS has already moved away from Elo ratings and new endeavours, such a Couter-Strike GO computer gaming, have begun rating with the Glicko formula.

When enough member countries will have moved away from Elo, FIDE will likely follow.

Lyle Craver
11-23-2016, 08:28 PM
To Garland, I've never found navigating the FIDE list particularly difficult - the main thing I have to remember is to set the country to Canada. Nearly everything I do on the FIDE site is NOT logged in.

If there are obvious errors Hal is the best way to get it looked after. For instance some years ago FIDE had me as female and Lynn Stringer as male! I e-mailed Hal, they took care of it quickly! On another occasion they forgot to remove Abe Yanofsky from the International Arbiter list - everybody knew Abe was a GM but few knew about his IA...

Garland Best
11-23-2016, 10:22 PM
Can we at least ammend the motion to have the split based on rating rather than by gender? 5 years from now no one in the general public will know the logic discussed here and cry gender discrimination.

Victor Plotkin
11-23-2016, 10:36 PM
Can we at least ammend the motion to have the split based on rating rather than by gender? 5 years from now no one in the general public will know the logic discussed here and cry gender discrimination.

Yes, Garland. Change the wording to:

The formula uses the FIDE rating only as a base for the team if the average FIDE rating of top-5 eligible players is above 2300. The formula uses the average FIDE and CFC rating as a base for the team if the average FIDE rating of top-5 eligible players is below or equal 2300.

Vladimir Drkulec
11-24-2016, 12:03 PM
The advantage is that the system identifies unreliable ratings. The actual system is quite old, it does not take the Standard Deviation into consideration. Sandbaggers who looses to 1500 players and defeat 2400 players would have their rating flagged as unreliable by the new system. Australia considers that only very reliable and reliable ratings should be used on the Australia top players list.

Any formula that gives both a value and a measure of the confidence of that value is preferable to a formula that only gives a value. Doing ratings the Elo way is becoming more and more obsolete as time pass. Instead of being subjective, the reliability of a rating becomes both objective and measurable. FICS has already moved away from Elo ratings and new endeavours, such a Couter-Strike GO computer gaming, have begun rating with the Glicko formula.

When enough member countries will have moved away from Elo, FIDE will likely follow.

I have not seen many obvious examples of sandbagging recently though I do recall some instances in the 1970s and 1990s. I don’t think it is practical to change systems at this point.