14. 2012-N Rating Formula Motion (Paul Leblanc)
Moved: Paul Leblanc, Seconded: Fred McKim
Moved that the following amendments be made to the CFC Handbook, Chapter 7 Ratings
Remove last two paragraphs of article 702 (National Rating Committee):
Composition:
The National Rating Committee will be chaired by Robert Hamilton and will include as voting members; the President and the Rating Auditor.
The Committee shall seek input from experienced individuals such as Jonathan Berry, Vlad Dobrich, John McPhail, and Eduardo Azmitia in implementing both near term adjustments and long term monitoring processes for the rating system.
Remove article 735 Frequency of Lists:
Frequency of Lists. The CFC will publish the complete rating list in each issue of En Passant. Players who have played within the last year and are still current members will be listed.
The CFC will produce an alphabetic rating list for all CFC members active since 1981 still on computer files; this list plus photocopies of earlier rating lists will be available at a cost of $5.00. The computerized list will be revised annually. The list will not be divided into provinces, but will have the last known province of residence printed beside each name. [ref: Motion 85-17; GL, August 1985, p. 1-16]
To ensure publication, organizers should ensure that tournament reports reach the CFC Business Office by the 15th of each even number month (February, April, June, August, October, December).
Replace article 739 Appeals:
Old Article 739. Appeals. If a player thinks an error has been made in his published rating he has the right to appeal. If the believed error is of a simple nature which can be quickly checked (e.g. misprints, confusion between two players with the same name etc.) the player should write to the Rating Statistician and the matter will be sorted out expeditiously.
If the player is still unsatisfied with the Statistician's ruling, or if the error is of a non-straightforward nature, the player can formally appeal.
Appeals should be sent to the Rating Auditor together with a fee of $10.00, payable to the Chess Federation of Canada. If the result of the appeal is that the appellant's rating changes by 15 points or more, the fee will be returned in full. Alternatively, if the appeal results in an unrated player getting a rating, the fee will be returned in full.
On receipt of an appeal, the Rating Auditor will get from the rating statistician a list of game scores on which the rating was calculated. The Auditor will send this list to the appellant for its correctness to be checked.
If the list is agreed complete and correct, the Rating Auditor will recalculate the rating on that basis and give a ruling on the appeal.
If the appellant claims the list to be in error, the Rating Auditor will attempt to verify such errors, e.g. by writing to the Tournament Director who sent in the disputed results.
Games are only rated by the CFC if results are submitted to the Rating Statistician together with the appropriate fee and evidence of CFC membership of the players. Appeals on the basis of the non-rating of games which do not satisfy the above will not be upheld.
The Rating Auditor's decision on an appeal will be final.
The Rating Auditor is required to provide his detailed calculations on his rulings on ratings when so requested by a provincial affiliate.
Send all tournament reports to the Rating Statistician, whose address is:
The Chess Federation of Canada
356 Ontario Street, Suite 373. Stratford, Ont. N5A 7X6
New Article 739 Appeals
Appeals. If a player thinks an error has been made in his published rating he has the right to appeal. If the believed error is of a simple nature which can be quickly checked (e.g. misprints, confusion between two players with the same name etc.) the player should write to the CFC office and the matter will be sorted out expeditiously.
If the player is still unsatisfied with the CFC office ruling, or if the error is of a non-straightforward nature, the player can formally appeal to the Rating Auditor.
Games are only rated by the CFC if results are submitted to the CFC office together with the appropriate fee and evidence of CFC membership of the players. Appeals on the basis of the non-rating of games which do not satisfy the above will not be upheld.
The Rating Auditor's decision on an appeal will be final.
The Rating Auditor is required to provide his detailed calculations on his rulings on ratings when so requested by a provincial affiliate.
Replace old article 717. Order of Calculation: (note that this article also appears on the website under ``ratings``)
Old Article 717. Order of Calculation. When an event is rated, performance ratings under equation 714a are obtained, first for unrated players, then for provisionally rated players. For each rated player is calculated: Ro-400(W-L)/N. The mean of these is AR. When unrated plays unrated in this first pass, the opponent’s rating is estimated as AR-200+400(W-L)/N. After this, the previously unrated players are rerated on the basis of the ratings of their opponents just calculated. Finally, the players having established ratings are rated, first those with ratings below 800. A game with a previously unrated or previously provisionally rated player enters the rating of a player with an established rating on the basis of the opponent’s post-event (new) rating. In the case of a player having an established rating below 800, the following is used to calculate the rating of opponents having established ratings 800 and above: the higher of the player’s pre- and post-event ratings.
New article 717:
717. Order of Calculation. When there are unrated and provisionally rated players, players are rated in the following order and methodology:
1a. If the percentage of unrated players in the tournament is greater than 50%, the unrated players are assigned a preliminary average rating by the operator of the program.
1b. If the percentage of unrated players is equal to or less than 50%, then for each rated player, the value Rprelim = Ro-400*(W-L)/N is calculated (i.e. the performance rating of his opponents). The unrated players are assigned a preliminary rating of the average of Rprelim-200
2. Unrated players are then rerated to give a 2nd temporary performance rating using the temporary rating from step 1for unrated opponents and the ratings of provisional and established rated opponents
3. Provisionally rated players are rated to give an event performance rating and event post event rating using the temporary rating of unrated opponents calculated in step 2 and the ratings of provisional and established rated opponents
4. Unrated players are rerated to give a provisional post event rating using the temporary ratings of unrated opponents from step 2, the post event ratings of provisional rated opponents from step 3, and the ratings of established rated players
5. Established rated players are rated using the post event ratings of unrated players from step 4, the post event rating of provisional rated players from step 3, and the pre-event ratings of established rated players.
6. Bonus and participation points, if any, are added.
7. Adjustments, if any,to final ratings are made (e.g. for players affected by Handbook 716)
Commentary:
702 – Outdated
735 – Outdated
739 – Article has been updated to remove a cumbersome appeals process that pre-dated the internet and replace it with a more simple process
717 – Article has been updated to reflect the actual formulae used by the rating programme.
(Editorial note: this motion presents both the text being replaced and the proposed new text for the Handbook which is a very good practice particularly on highly technical motions like this one which I as Secretary hope others will adopt. I have italicized all Handbook text that is to be replaced by this motion)
