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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec

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.

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garland Best

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée

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.