PDA

View Full Version : My boycott of CFC Active events



Kevin Pacey
05-08-2009, 07:18 PM
Since the CFC Ratings Auditor/Committee nor the CFC Governors/Executive seems to be in any hurry to do anything about the longstanding obvious deflation of CFC Active ratings, I will now be boycotting CFC Active events until a correction to the CFC's Active rating system is made. I do not wish to pay an Active rating fee in order to continue to receive a clearly deflated rating.

Christopher Mallon
05-08-2009, 09:19 PM
Actually, the Active ratings WERE supposed to be corrected at the same time, but an error in the script prevented this. This was pointed out to the Exec and the Ratings Auditor at the time but apparently ignored - despite the fact that we also provided a corrected script which would have fixed it.

I had totally forgotten about all of that.

Kevin Pacey
05-08-2009, 11:05 PM
Arrggg!

On chesstalk, Egidijus Zeromskis posted figures [for the possible decline of] the number of Active chess events held in Ontario since 2007 [That's about the year regular (but not Active) CFC ratings were adjusted by the CFC]:

"Crosstable Selector allows to choose Regular or Active.

For ON:
2009 first half year - 5
2008 first half year - 14
2007 first half year - too many to count
etc
--"

Did demand for CFC Active events in Ontario drop at least partly because CFC members saw that Active ratings weren't going to be adjusted too? I recall one chesstalk poster back then inquired whether Active ratings were going to be adjusted as well. I believe he got no reply and he asked no further.

At least here in Ottawa the number of Active events held at the RACC has remained at about half a dozen a year, but the EOCA seems to be about the healthiest league in the province in terms of CFC member levels.

Christopher Mallon
05-08-2009, 11:58 PM
I ran 5 Actives per year when I was in Brantford but I think they discontinued that when they lost access to their good site. I'm not sure that the overall decline is caused by people not liking their ratings or what it might be.

Perhaps we should allow Active ratings to cover Blitz games as well? Blitz ratings were approved by the CFC years ago, but the money was never spent on the website/database/software to allow for them to be displayed and, to my knowledge, only three events were ever rated - all by me, using a ratings calculator program, one player at a time.

Egidijus Zeromskis
05-09-2009, 12:36 AM
An extended table of tournaments numbers for three provinces (different sections or age groups counted as separate tournaments. Y - total in that year.):



Y Y Y
AB BC ON
2009 1 21 2 5
2008 2 5 13 0 1 22 36
2008 1 8 1 14
2007 2 10 11 0 0 28 57
2007 1 1 0 29
2006 2 8 18 0 29 25 60
2006 1 10 29 35
2005 2 7 13 3 18 19 54
2005 1 6 15 35

May somebody explain the "active rating deflation" problem? Is it based on a long complicated formula (long variation - wrong variation) :confused: To my understanding, the rating system is good only for actively participating players.

Christopher Mallon
05-09-2009, 10:16 AM
The real problem is that active events are so few and far between. So a young player might play a few events, get an established active rating around 1400-1600, then not play again until they're an FM but still have that ridiculously low rating, which takes a ton of points out of the system if they play in an event. This is actually a true story... and I'm sure it's repeated a number of times.

From the table it looks like BC lost a very active organizer, just as a guess.

Random thought thrown out: What if active ratings were re-set to be identical to everyone's current Standard ratings, blitz time controls were allowed (so Active is 5-59 minutes per player) and perhaps a $1 reduction in rating fee for these events?

Kevin Pacey
05-09-2009, 10:54 AM
In Ottawa I'd say there is a fairly stable longstanding population of members with Active ratings, besides a fairly constant number of Active events as I mentioned previously. The only player I've encountered who was grossly underrated relative to myself (and other players that I know) came from the maritimes to our city recently. So for me personally a good enough solution would be for the CFC to impliment an Active rating boon similar to the one performed with the regular ratings about a couple of years ago, along with participation points being added to the Active rating system. In fact I would take these steps first and see how they work out before possibly tinkering with Canadian Active chess further in other ways.

A reduction in Active rating fees would be nice too, if the CFC thinks it can afford it, or would win according to whatever cost/benefit analysis might be performed. My guess is that the revenue the CFC receives from Active events is relatively small at the moment, but trying to improve member satisfaction with Active chess in general is still important to the CFC's image since the CFC still appears to be committed to providing Active chess ratings.

Kevin Pacey
05-09-2009, 12:16 PM
A couple of other things related to Active chess that may be of interest:

A number of years ago Larry Bevand did a poll on chesstalk asking how many people cared about both their Active & regular CFC ratings, just their regular rating, or just their Active raing. There were at least some respondents who indicated by one answer or another that they cared about their CFC Active rating. My vaguest of memories tells me it was at least 33% of respondents, which flies in the face of what one Governor here in Ottawa recently told me. His off the cuff rejection of my concern about CFC Active rating deflation was that nobody other than myself cared about their CFC Active rating. Another Governor here whom I spoke with said nothing but gave some slight appearance of being sympathetic.

Also a number of years ago, I used to play in some of the Active events organized in Ottawa at Strategy Games, which were run by the CMA and ratings were based on CMA's Active rating system. The CMA Active rating system was even more prone to rapid deflation than the CFCs Active rating system at the time. However I didn't play long enough in such events while they were still being run to have a terrible CMA Active rating compared to my CFC one, and the CMA offered gift certificate prizes, which is more than the CFC Active events here offer to this day ($0 in prizes, no CFC gift certificates, but sometimes trophies as of this year depending who runs them).

roger patterson
05-09-2009, 02:26 PM
Random thought thrown out: What if active ratings were re-set to be identical to everyone's current Standard ratings, blitz time controls were allowed (so Active is 5-59 minutes per player) and perhaps a $1 reduction in rating fee for these events?

It's not so much the rating fee of $3 that is the killer - It's the tournament membership fee. That fee is the same as a weekend event even tough the typical active event is 5 hours of chess versus ~15-20 hours of chess for a standard weekend tournament. The active tournaments out here that I know of are run as non CFC events for that reason. It's unrealistic to have a tournament with a $10 or $15 entry fee and expect non CFC members to show up and fork over double or triple that. Especially as the only benefit that is received by players is an active rating, which despite what Kevin says, many people do not care about. And it was too expensive BEFORE the tournament membership fee was recently raised.

Another reason there are few active tournaments is that organizers are creatures of habit. They've organized 5 round weekend tournaments since time immorial and have not thought about doing so similarly with active tournaments. The Ottawa situation that Kevin speaks of has the RA organizing them because they somehow got put onto the club calender once and now are a permanant fixture year after year.

I find that active tournaments are a good way to transition casual club players into tournaments. They may feel they are just not good enough for full tournament play or are unwilling to pony up the full cost of entry fee and CFC membership and/or commit a full weekend. An active event for $10 gives them a taste and is not a hard sell.

BTW Chris, there are presently 2 active events a year in Victoria and about 1 a month in Vancouver, all non CFC events. Ironically, the ones in Victoria this year were even fundraisers for CFC causes (Olympiad and CYCC) but cannot afford to be CFC tournaments.

Andrei Botez
05-10-2009, 10:25 AM
From the table it looks like BC lost a very active organizer, just as a guess.



Is not the case. In that year, many of the junior events were rated Active.

Christopher Mallon
05-10-2009, 09:09 PM
Yes I remembered later that that was around the time they changed the rule to allow Junior events of any time control to be Standard rated.

Jason Lohner
05-18-2009, 11:49 PM
There is currently 3 active events posted on the BCCF webpage. One for May, June and July. All of them Non-CFC events. This is a prime example of why adding barriers to CFC events is a bad idea. 3/6 events posted are not CFC rated.

Personally in the last 6 months I have played in 2 non cfc events and only one CFC event.

Kevin Pacey
06-08-2009, 01:02 PM
It's not so much the rating fee of $3 that is the killer - It's the tournament membership fee. That fee is the same as a weekend event even tough the typical active event is 5 hours of chess versus ~15-20 hours of chess for a standard weekend tournament. The active tournaments out here that I know of are run as non CFC events for that reason. It's unrealistic to have a tournament with a $10 or $15 entry fee and expect non CFC members to show up and fork over double or triple that. Especially as the only benefit that is received by players is an active rating, which despite what Kevin says, many people do not care about. And it was too expensive BEFORE the tournament membership fee was recently raised.

Another reason there are few active tournaments is that organizers are creatures of habit. They've organized 5 round weekend tournaments since time immorial and have not thought about doing so similarly with active tournaments. The Ottawa situation that Kevin speaks of has the RA organizing them because they somehow got put onto the club calender once and now are a permanant fixture year after year.

I find that active tournaments are a good way to transition casual club players into tournaments. They may feel they are just not good enough for full tournament play or are unwilling to pony up the full cost of entry fee and CFC membership and/or commit a full weekend. An active event for $10 gives them a taste and is not a hard sell.

BTW Chris, there are presently 2 active events a year in Victoria and about 1 a month in Vancouver, all non CFC events. Ironically, the ones in Victoria this year were even fundraisers for CFC causes (Olympiad and CYCC) but cannot afford to be CFC tournaments.

Now the tournament fee is $20 as of May 1, in case anyone doesn't know. Recent discussion on chesstalk indicates that an interesting alternative for organizers might be to have seperate section and/or entry standard for non-CFC players at regular [or Active] events, with cheap entry fees and no cash prizes, but with trophies offered for those who do well in the tournament/their section.

There were actually only a couple of Active events on the RA club calender last year - the others were one day weekend Active events, now organized by Aris, which have a different format than when you left town. I don't particularly like the format for these myself: only 3 rounds for a higher fee, and no cash prizes still (there are now trophies for these events - but I have little desire for any more of these personally, especially living in a small apartment, unless perhaps I am standing beside a VIP or, say, Miss Canada, being photographed or filmed for posterity when I receive a trophy, which hopefully would be a major one).

For the record, I didn't imply that it's untrue many people don't care about their Active rating. Instead I offered my admittedly vague recollection of a chesstalk poll which showed that many people do care. At least more than a few.

Kevin Pacey
07-01-2009, 05:55 PM
It would be nice to know if at this year's CFC Annual Meeting any governors/executives are going to raise the matter of the CFC Active rating system being deflated - as Chris Mallon's first post in this thread acknowleged.

The CFC's Rating Auditor has an especially shameful role in this typical piece of CFC neglect :mad: .

Kevin Pacey
07-20-2009, 09:17 PM
Now that the new CFC Executive has been elected at the CFC AGM in Edmonton, I would hope that the new Rating Auditor would expeditiously place the CFC Active rating system under scrutiny and subsequently correct its evident and serious deflation.

Bob Armstrong
07-21-2009, 01:22 AM
Hi Kevin:

I'd suggest you also e-mail Bill Doubleday a copy of this post - direct communication may also help.

Bob

Kevin Pacey
07-21-2009, 11:20 AM
Hi Bob

I sent Bill a request on the subject at hand, by email just now. It's sort of nice to see the new CFC Executive is listed under the 'Contacts' link on the CFC website already. I previously was unsuccessful sending an email to Bill on a different matter, possibly because I had technical difficulties (I can't quite remember). Anyway I'll see what comes of the email I sent him today.

Kevin Pacey
08-05-2009, 09:01 PM
Hi Bob

I sent Bill a request on the subject at hand, by email just now. It's sort of nice to see the new CFC Executive is listed under the 'Contacts' link on the CFC website already. I previously was unsuccessful sending an email to Bill on a different matter, possibly because I had technical difficulties (I can't quite remember). Anyway I'll see what comes of the email I sent him today.

No reply yet from Bill. Now that my memory has been jogged, this isn't the first time my e-mails have been ignored, i.e. not because of technical problems.

Complaining to friends can be awkward, especially if you owe them favours :o . I'll give Bill (and Eric by extension) more time to straighten out the CFC's Active rating system. It seems too late for me not to avoid playing in my club's first Active event in September though.

Bob Armstrong
08-05-2009, 09:18 PM
Hi Kevin:

My practice is usually to give someone a week to respond. Then I forward the original message with a new note : " in case you may have missed this in your " inbox ", since I have had no reply after one week "...........

We all miss things from time to time, or put off replying 'til later, and then it falls off the radar - I don't think a jog after one week is harassment.

Bob

Pierre Dénommée
08-13-2009, 12:06 AM
Since the CFC Ratings Auditor/Committee nor the CFC Governors/Executive seems to be in any hurry to do anything about the longstanding obvious deflation of CFC Active ratings, I will now be boycotting CFC Active events until a correction to the CFC's Active rating system is made. I do not wish to pay an Active rating fee in order to continue to receive a clearly deflated rating.

They are not deflated, they are statistically not significant. Go to the crosstable section and you will see that there are almost no rapid rated tournaments in Canada. If you play 100 regular games and 6 rapid games in a year, your rapid rating cannot follow your true playing strength. This does not mean that the rating is deflated : it only means that it is based on a too small number of games to be significant. Regular and rapid games are as different as a 5 000m and a marathon : proficiency in one does not necessary imply proficiency in the other. You can get an accurate rapid rating only by playing many rated rapid games.

Kevin Pacey
08-13-2009, 02:36 PM
They are not deflated, they are statistically not significant. Go to the crosstable section and you will see that there are almost no rapid rated tournaments in Canada. If you play 100 regular games and 6 rapid games in a year, your rapid rating cannot follow your true playing strength. This does not mean that the rating is deflated : it only means that it is based on a too small number of games to be significant. Regular and rapid games are as different as a 5 000m and a marathon : proficiency in one does not necessary imply proficiency in the other. You can get an accurate rapid rating only by playing many rated rapid games.

In the past I have played way more than, say, 6 CFC Active games a year in Ottawa, as did many of the opponents I faced. For our area, at least Active ratings became deflated just like regular ones did. Besides myself, a number of Active 'master' players became Active 'expert' players, just as was the case with regular ratings before deflation was corrected.

Chris Mallon has posted earlier in this thread that he attempted to get the Active rating system corrected (after a programming snafu occurred on his watch that otherwise would have allowed the correction). He was involved with the CFC ratings committee that approved the Regular and Active ratings to be 'corrected'. Were you a dissenting member on the committee (assuming you made any contribution), and thus you did not impliment the 'correction' to Active ratings, as Chris wished, before or after Chris was no longer CFC president?

Kevin Pacey
08-27-2009, 08:17 AM
In the past I have played way more than, say, 6 CFC Active games a year in Ottawa, as did many of the opponents I faced. For our area, at least Active ratings became deflated just like regular ones did. Besides myself, a number of Active 'master' players became Active 'expert' players, just as was the case with regular ratings before deflation was corrected.

Chris Mallon has posted earlier in this thread that he attempted to get the Active rating system corrected (after a programming snafu occurred on his watch that otherwise would have allowed the correction). He was involved with the CFC ratings committee that approved the Regular and Active ratings to be 'corrected'. Were you a dissenting member on the committee (assuming you made any contribution), and thus you did not impliment the 'correction' to Active ratings, as Chris wished, before or after Chris was no longer CFC president?

No reply still, even though Pierre has visited this Discussion Board since the day of my post as quoted above, according to the Members List.

I would hope that even he would acknowlege that adding bonus and participation points to the Active rating system (if not giving it a boost in the manner done for Regular CFC ratings as well) would be a good thing, if only from a customer relations point of view for the CFC.

However I really think Pierre should step down as CFC Governor and make room for someone more productive from his province. I knew when it was time for me to resign as a Governor.

Hugh Brodie
08-27-2009, 10:13 AM
Pierre is no longer the Rating Auditor - it is now Bill Doubleday.

Kevin Pacey
08-27-2009, 07:48 PM
Pierre is no longer the Rating Auditor - it is now Bill Doubleday.

I know, as can be seen on the previous page of this thread.

Someone else would better serve the CFC's interests in Quebec than Pierre, IMO, as the FSQE debacle would illustrate. Then there's that unproductive tenure as Rating Auditor. IMO a province that has as few Governors as Quebec should have more of them who would be able to be productive if and when they serve on the Executive.

Kevin Pacey
08-28-2009, 03:24 PM
Then there's that unproductive tenure as Rating Auditor.

It's not only my opinion on the above point. Here's Chris Mallon on chesstalk, circa 14 July 2009, posting about why he (Chris) ran for Rating Auditor this year:

Re: CFC AGM day 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I put my name in so that we wouldn't have Pierre doing nothing for another year. I'm sure Bill will do a great job and if I'd known he was interested I would have supported him.
__________________
Christopher Mallon
President,
Ontario Chess Association
CFC Governor
FIDE Arbiter"

I should also mention that rightly or wrongly I felt somewhat humililated when I once unquestioningly seconded a motion by Pierre when he served as CFC Treasurer at one point, when he ought to have had cost-benefit analysis to back it up. The motion failed miserably. My fault too, but at least I was a newbie and wasn't on the Executive. At least in the end I was not alone: every Governor who voted to affiliate the FSQE, and subsequently had to reverse themselves by disaffiliating it, ought to have felt a twinge of humiliation.

Christopher Mallon
08-28-2009, 03:38 PM
Pierre is no longer a Governor for Quebec at all.

The FQSE was a Win-Draw scenario. The CFC had nothing to lose but much to gain. In the end, the CFC lost nothing, I'd hardly call it a debacle.

If nothing else it showed the FQE that the CFC *is* in fact interested in Quebec ... and they can take that however they like, but if someone could ever get something like the FQSE going with the *right* people in charge.....

Kevin Pacey
08-29-2009, 11:55 AM
Pierre is no longer a Governor for Quebec at all.

Good news as far as I'm concerned.


The FQSE was a Win-Draw scenario. The CFC had nothing to lose but much to gain. In the end, the CFC lost nothing, I'd hardly call it a debacle.

If I recall correctly, Neil Sullivan once pointed out on chesstalk that the CFC was losing members in Quebec because of the [in]actions of the FSQE when it still was affiliated. So the CFC did in fact have something to lose.

Christopher Mallon
08-29-2009, 08:52 PM
The CFC was losing members everywhere. We lost fewer per capita in Quebec than anywhere else.

The main way in which this benefited the CFC I think was in at least briefly scaring the FQE. That might be a useful piece of information for the future.

Bob Armstrong
08-29-2009, 09:07 PM
Hi Chris:

It was my impression that Quebec players generally ridiculed the FQSE as completely ineffective. I doubt the FQE was much concerned.

I had hoped from some of the things posted earlier this year, that maybe we could get onto a road of some limited type of cooperation between CFC and FQE. But it seems nothing came of it again. Too bad.

Bob

Christopher Mallon
08-29-2009, 09:36 PM
Bob,

I was referring to beforehand when it was first announced.

Considering all they ever did was ask for money and volunteers I can understand what anyone says after the fact.

Kevin Pacey
08-30-2009, 06:08 PM
The CFC was losing members everywhere. We lost fewer per capita in Quebec than anywhere else.

The CFC may have lost even fewer Quebec CFC members if not for the FSQE.


Considering all they ever did was ask for money and volunteers I can understand what anyone says after the fact.

I'm not sure, but I vaguely recall FSQE mailing tactics to Quebec CFC members being mentioned on a discussion board some years ago. Such mail may have been offputting to at least some Quebec CFC members. In any case, once the CFC gave the FSQE its blessing, the reputation of the CFC may have become intertwined with that of the FSQE inside Quebec, at least to some extent. That may have been what Neil Sullivan was refering to.

Kevin Pacey
04-25-2010, 09:46 AM
Here's something I've posted on chesstalk this morning:

"I've played in another Active event (the 2010 RA Spring Open). Had to collect another cheque at my club :D .

One thing that I noticed afterwards was that the current CFC rating system for regular ratings:

http://chess.ca/ratings_system.htm

appears to be being also currently applied to CFC Active ratings, i.e. both participation and bonus points are being awarded, as the crosstable for the 2010 RA Spring Active seemed to reveal when I checked the pre- and post-event Active ratings for just Joey Qin and I:

http://chess.ca/xtableSQL.asp?TNum=201003056

so one might say my little boycott of Active events was much ado about nothing (in the interest of transparency I am prepared to seemingly have to eat some humble pie :o ).

However that still leaves the matter of Active rating points that had/have been lost due to deflation.

For the regular CFC ratings, a ratings committee a few years ago did adjust the rating system AND add in 'free' activity points for games played in what the committee deemed to be the deflationary period of approx. 2004-2006. However the committee did neglect to add such activity points to the Active ratings of players who played in that period (or any other such period).

The current Rating Auditor W. Doubleday is still looking intently at correcting the Active ratings, I happen to know.

Taking all this into account, and the fact that I may need to continue to collect cheques at the RA club, I am happy to formally end my one man boycott of Active events :) ."

Christopher Mallon
04-25-2010, 01:47 PM
As posted earlier, the script that was run on the database to add the bonus points accidentally added the points intended for Active ratings to the Regular ratings. So you DID get the points, they just went onto your regular ratings.

To my knowledge, the CFC never ran the corrected version of the script submitted almost immediately after the discrepency was noticed. I'm not sure it's really fixable anymore.

Kevin Pacey
04-25-2010, 07:48 PM
As posted earlier, the script that was run on the database to add the bonus points accidentally added the points intended for Active ratings to the Regular ratings. So you DID get the points, they just went onto your regular ratings.

To my knowledge, the CFC never ran the corrected version of the script submitted almost immediately after the discrepency was noticed. I'm not sure it's really fixable anymore.

Interesting. If you did look at the linked crosstable for the 2010 RA Spring Active which I provided, and did calculations, I would think you might conclude Joey Qin (for example) did receive Active rating bonus AND Active rating participation points according to the current (regular!?) CFC rating system, and thus the CFC's Active rating system appears to me to be likely to be the same as for regular ratings nowadays.

My own (rough) calculations were based on knowing that the current regular rating system can, in the execution of it's first step of calculating new ratings after events, be approximated by Step 1) of an older CFC rating system, as applicable for established ratings (25+ games played), which was, I believe:

Step 1) (Initial New Rating) = (Old Rating) + 16 * (W-L) + .04 * (rating difference [maximum of 350 per opponent]) for players rated under 2300 (co-efficents were halved for 2300+ players formula).

Step 2) (Penultimate New Rating) = (Initial New Rating) + bonus points.

Step 3) (Final New Rating) = (Penultimate New Rating) + participation points.

For Steps 2) and 3) bonus points and participation points were awarded a bit differently than they are nowadays, I seem to recall. However in Joey's case I thought he received bonus and participation points for his Active rating as explained in the link I gave for the CFC's current (regular!?) rating system.

Paul Leblanc
04-25-2010, 08:37 PM
Can someone explain the formula for bonus points? What do the percentages mean? The following is article 714.d from the CFC Handbook and I don't see an explanation of how to apply it.

B: Result Bonus (Performance Rating must exceed highest CFC Rating ever)
0% - 59% No points
60% - 70% 5 Points
71% - 89% 10 Points
90% + 15 Points

Kevin Pacey
04-25-2010, 08:37 PM
As posted earlier, the script that was run on the database to add the bonus points accidentally added the points intended for Active ratings to the Regular ratings. So you DID get the points, they just went onto your regular ratings.

To my knowledge, the CFC never ran the corrected version of the script submitted almost immediately after the discrepency was noticed. I'm not sure it's really fixable anymore.

Actually, I was assuming you mean literally 'bonus points'. If by "...the bonus points..." you meant the 'free' rating points awarded as a boon on a one-time basis as 'activity points' for games played in the approx. 2004-2006 deflationary period (as deemed by your ratings committee) for regular (and Active?) ratings then your post makes better sense to me.

Steve Douglas
04-25-2010, 08:47 PM
Actually, I was assuming you mean literally 'bonus points'. If by "...the bonus points..." you meant the 'free' rating points awarded as a boon on a one-time basis as 'activity points' for games played in the approx. 2004-2006 deflationary period (as deemed by your ratings committee) for regular (and Active?) ratings then your post makes better sense to me.

That's how I read Chris Mallon's post. Which means that anybody that had an active rating got "more" extra-super-special-don't-you-just-love-them bonus points. This is the first I've heard of this fubar. And it probably doesn't amount to much since it just inflated (errr, un-deflated?) some of the regular ratings more than others (all ratings were born equal, etc.).

But this does beg two questions: why has this not been heard of before? And what exactly is the point of having a ratings auditor if this sort of nonsense just "happens"??

Steve

Kevin Pacey
04-25-2010, 08:49 PM
Can someone explain the formula for bonus points? What do the percentages mean? The following is article 714.d from the CFC Handbook and I don't see an explanation of how to apply it.

B: Result Bonus (Performance Rating must exceed highest CFC Rating ever)
0% - 59% No points
60% - 70% 5 Points
71% - 89% 10 Points
90% + 15 Points

I believe it means you can get bonus points firstly only IF your event Performance rating exceeds your highest CFC Rating ever (regular or Active depending on the event being rated)

and if so then you may get bonus points as follows:

If your actual score for an event is:

0% - 59% of the number of rounds (say you score 1 out of 5 in a five round weekend swiss, you've got 20%)

then you are awarded no bonus points,

but if your actual score for a five round event is 3 out of 5

then you fall into the 60% - 70% category and are awarded 5 bonus points

etc.

Christopher Mallon
04-25-2010, 08:55 PM
That's how I read Chris Mallon's post. Which means that anybody that had an active rating got "more" extra-super-special-don't-you-just-love-them bonus points. This is the first I've heard of this fubar. And it probably doesn't amount to much since it just inflated (errr, un-deflated?) some of the regular ratings more than others (all ratings were born equal, etc.).

But this does beg two questions: why has this not been heard of before? And what exactly is the point of having a ratings auditor if this sort of nonsense just "happens"??

Steve

That's correct.

I'm not sure very many people ever got THAT many points out of it, who really plays in that many active events anyway? But it DID keep the active ratings down.

Fred McKim
06-14-2010, 09:31 AM
This is another area that has to be addressed by the RA and the Rating committee.

Rating deflation will genrally happen when more Standard events are held than Active events.

Probably PEI is one of the least deflated areas, and our Active ratings may actually be inflated. I presently run pretty well all of the CFC events here. Right now that is 3 standard and 3 active, each year.

I know that NB has one or two a year and I don't think that NS has had one for several years.

The first step back is the adjustment: I would suggest that as of Sept 1, everybody's active rating be set to their CFC rating - 100, unless they are already at that level or better. This could be done on an annual basis (with some tweaking), until we find a better solution. This might be sufficient.