Item # 17 - Modifications to the Can. Rating System / Report of the Rating Auditor

[Stuart Brammall]

I agree that the geography of Canada makes having a rating system which is consistent difficult....
An anecdote: When I began playing chess at the Hart House Club there were a number of players there who began at the same time. We all played in the CUCC reserves 2006-7 and recieved provis. of between 1000 and 1300. We all almost never played outside the club. We never played against the established players in the club. After a year or two of Friday night blitz we were all much improved--- Anyone of one of us on varying occassion would play an event elsewhere and have an 1700-1900 perf. Then the player who played an event outside would generously donate his new wealth of rating points to the rest of us at the next in house event... since we were all close to the same strength. Now (4 years later) most of us have caught up to the national pool (Though there are still a few guys in the 1500s).

The problem in this case was demographic--- though outsiders said we were underrated, in fact our rating were accurate within the pool we played in. To us it was everyone else who was overrated.

The problem of isolated rating pools is one which I do not think will be corrected by the means suggested in this thread. When I looked at the junior Paul mentioned, I noticed that although they would have occasional perfs. above the their current rating, within their localized pool they still performed at their current rating.

It seems this issue, which stems from demographic/geographic factors should require such similar solution... the issue being that the only way to determine how deflated/inflated a pool is is by having them play against outsiders---
which they don't do consistently enough to provide relavent data. :$

[Christopher Mallon]

The best way we have to reduce the impact of regional pools is to promote major national events such as the Canadian Open, CYCC (and to a lesser extent, Closed and Junior type events). Also helping would be any "traveling matches" where one city sends a team to another city to play.

[Fred McKim]

There have been several provincial adjustments made over the years, often after a number of players from an area have played in a Canadian Open or such event. To the best of me recollection the last such adjustment was to NL back in the 80's.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

I agree that the geography of Canada makes having a rating system which is consistent difficult....
An anecdote: When I began playing chess at the Hart House Club there were a number of players there who began at the same time. We all played in the CUCC reserves 2006-7 and recieved provis. of between 1000 and 1300. We all almost never played outside the club. We never played against the established players in the club. After a year or two of Friday night blitz we were all much improved--- Anyone of one of us on varying occassion would play an event elsewhere and have an 1700-1900 perf. Then the player who played an event outside would generously donate his new wealth of rating points to the rest of us at the next in house event... since we were all close to the same strength. Now (4 years later) most of us have caught up to the national pool (Though there are still a few guys in the 1500s).

The problem in this case was demographic--- though outsiders said we were underrated, in fact our rating were accurate within the pool we played in. To us it was everyone else who was overrated.

The problem of isolated rating pools is one which I do not think will be corrected by the means suggested in this thread. When I looked at the junior Paul mentioned, I noticed that although they would have occasional perfs. above the their current rating, within their localized pool they still performed at their current rating.

It seems this issue, which stems from demographic/geographic factors should require such similar solution... the issue being that the only way to determine how deflated/inflated a pool is is by having them play against outsiders---
which they don't do consistently enough to provide relavent data. :$

The analysis is right on the money! All those juniors listed might or might not win a junior tournament against players of their own age and roughly same rating pool... Now if I could only lure them back at our club to "donate" their latest rating points gains

[Lyle Craver]

On what do you base that comment and what are your criteria for making that conclusion?

[Stuart Brammall]

I base it on the study Chris mentions.

[Christopher Mallon]

The only study I mentioned was one that hasn't happened yet!

[Fred McKim]

Back to feedback points:

These would be given to everyone who played a rapidly improving junior - defined as a junior who had gained 100 or more points in the past 12 months (or in the past 25 games or so).

We would just have to figure out the correct number of points to use. I picked 100 points as historically I've found most active juniors improve at that rate.

[Lyle Craver]

The main reason why I hate facing 'up and coming juniors' across the board has nothing to do with my rating and everything to do with the fact that no one ever thinks you played well if you win but you always 'played like a chimp' if you lose - lots of blame but never any praise.

You pretty much have to play a Fischer - D Byrne game to get any credit! (I'm sure you all know the game I mean)

[Les Bunning]

What system does the USCF use? They have more resources than we do. We should be using the same system as them.
Les Bunning