In fact no moderator has done anything here in almost two weeks, and not since November 12th on Chesstalk.
Other than deleting spam user accounts that is.
... forum won't let me just show the picture, but you can click on it below.
In fact no moderator has done anything here in almost two weeks, and not since November 12th on Chesstalk.
Other than deleting spam user accounts that is.
... forum won't let me just show the picture, but you can click on it below.
Last edited by Christopher Mallon; 12-23-2010 at 12:44 PM.
The Blog is obviously wrong again as always!Originally Posted by Kerry Liles
Lies and offensive attacks against CMA and CFC **caution not for children!
Chris Mallon denies censoring or removing any messages here.
Move on to a reliable source based on facts not fiction.
I agree.Originally Posted by Mark S. Dutton, I.A.
I generally assume that by default for KS blog... no idea why I did not do so this time.
It all gets curiouser and curiouser. I certainly didn't see your posting about the Glicko Rating system, although I am aware of it and it might be something our Rating Auditor should look at. I'll send him the link. You're right it's beyond mere mortals to calculate as it involves standard deviations and square roots. I don't really understand why you would have deleted it, Serge.Originally Posted by Serge Archambault
I did see your posting about Jason and the implied reference to Jeff Sarwer before it too disappeared. If you didn't delete it and Chris didn't delete it then I don't know what to think. Jeff Sarwer's tribulations (none of his own doing) have been well documented for anybody who wants to investigate. Any suggestion our new world champion might suffer a similar situation is loony.
Serge: I like reading your posts, as they usually contain a counter perspective to the average poster. I just listened to the interview with Jeff Sarwer. Thanks for sharing the link. The only time I met Jeff was at the World Chess Festival in 1988, where as World U10 Champion, he was given a "gift" by the organizers (I was one of that group) of being allowed to play in the FIDE rated only International Open, although he had no FIDE rating. Obviously that was less contentious than this situation.Originally Posted by Serge Archambault
I post a lot. I think the majority of readers can tell what is opinion and what is fact - I don't try to mask it. Being on the current Executive and a Governor for over 30 years, I can often share useful facts but at the same time I think my opinions are from me as a person.
I think this was a good decision. And I think it follows a general principle that is sound, so I don't see it as just a " special one-time " event. I don't think it should be done just because Jason is a " World Champion ".
The principle I see operating here refers to players " losing " rating points, from my perspective. I believe a player should lose rating points when he plays below his current rating. One way of showing that he has done that is to lose to a lower-rated player.
If I am an 1800 player, and I lose to a " true " 1500 player, then I have played badly ( and obviously the opponent has played " over his head " ). I deserve to lose rating points to him. And it may be deserved by him, if he is just incrementally improving, slowly getting a bit better as he plays.
But what is the case if I play Jason, rated 1569. If I lose, is it because I have played badly = below my rating?? It looks like I could play at the 1800 level, and play as well as I can ( as I always do , of course !! ), yet may well lose to Jason. Why? Because Jason is in fact better than me. He is supposed to beat me now, given his improvement over the last year or less. So why should I lose a high number of rating points to him, when I have not necessarily played below my own current and accurate rating? And there is strong and obvious evidence that Jason is stronger - his recent performance ratings, and his FIDE rating.
So it seems to me that if something can be done, so that I can play Jason, and play well but lose, and not lose about 26 rating points, it should be done. I deserve to lose some points if I lose to Jason, according to the normal correct working of the rating system - ie. I am 1800, and Jason is 1921 - I deserve to lose about 12 rating points. I'm quite OK with that, because I believe the current transfer of rating points between opponents is a generally workable system.
So in my view, if there is strong and sufficient evidence that a player is in fact 300 rating points stronger than his current rating, then I see an adjustment upward as maintaining the integrity of the system.
And this is why I see this as not just a " one-on " situation. I think there should be a mechanism for submission of evidence of this situation to the Rating Auditor, and he should be empowered to grant the appropriate increase.
This does not exclude either, some system adjustment that would take into account that many juniors quickly leave their initial ratings behind in terms of actual strength, as they play a lot, and study like sponges. I see no reason both improvements to the system should not occur.
I believe our current system builds in deflation, because it is incapable at the moment of recognizing rapid improvement, and rewarding it with new " system rating points ", not hapless " opponent rating points ".
How's that for walking right into the middle of the firestorm? Anyone agree with me, or am I a voice crying in the wilderness?
Bob
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; 12-24-2010 at 02:20 AM.
I think the best way of addressing this in an imperfect way is to award bonus points for rating gains above a threshold in a tournament as the CFC did in the past and does now for players rated under 2000. It is inconsistent to argue that CFC ratings are inflated as you did before when arguing for FIDE ratings and then to applaud any action which inflates CFC ratings.Originally Posted by Bob Armstrong
Alas I am inconsistent too as while I can see the merits of the arguments of those who oppose this boon, I don't see it as a bad thing either. Lightning struck and we have a world champion. Enjoy the moment.
Hi Vlad:Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec
2 points re your response:
1. CFC System Not Inflationary ( Now ) : To argue that the CFC rating is inflated relative to the FIDE rating, is not to argue that the CFC rating system is inflationary ( though it has been recently with participation points I think - I think it overcompensated in the total re the underrated junior deflation issue ). I think there are other reasons for the FIDE/CFC rating differential, due to, among other reasons:
a) slighty different formulas for calculating ratings;
b) the lack of lower-rated players in the FIDE pool, and
c) FIDE having a much larger pool than Canada.
2. CFC System Deflationary: Awarding " fast improved ( 300 rating points above their current rating ) " players ( not just juniors ) " system points " ( instead of hapless " opponent points " ), is not inflationary, even though it increases the total points in the pool. What it does is prevents the deflation of the ratings of the hapless vicitims, to allow these fast-improved players ratings to slowly rise ( and there are numbers of hapless victims along the path of their current trajectory ).
Bob
Wow, this sure has stirred up a lot of controversy. Well, I guess whenever you are dealing with ratings, there is no shortage of opinions.
For months and years we have heard endless complaints about underrated juniors. It is a difficult problem that plagues all rating systems. Various solutions have been discussed, but no consensus yet on how to fix the problem.
When we reviewed Jason's case, it was clear that he was one of the most extreme cases. His rating was lagging far behind his playing strength solely due to the limitations of the rating formula. So we decided on his FIDE rating as better indicator of his current strength. An attempt to correct the error!
I can appreciate the arguments of our critics. They are valid concerns and I appreciate the feedback. It has been an interesting discussion. However, when I talk to members at the clubs, they tend to understand and agree with our decision. Perhaps we should have a straw poll of governors at the next online meeting.
Stuart - no need to "adjust" my rating to 1608, I think it will get there soon enough.
The point is that if in fact Jason is highly under-rated,(and the evidence that he was is beyond any reasonable doubt), it is unfair for a player who is playing at his regular strength to lose rating points merely because Jason is so badly underrated.Originally Posted by Peter McKillop
There is no question that he was underrated, and a rating system that cannot recognize this and adjust accordingly is fundamentally unfair.
Why should a 1700 player lose a bunch of rating points by losing to Jason when he is in fact playing at better than 1900 strength? If we have a clear case of someone either vastly over or under rated, then fairness requires that we recognize this if it is supported by the evidence.
Suppose I have a stroke and my playing strength declines to about 1200. If my rating stays at 2050 CFC why should a 1600 player who beats the new weaker me be rewarded as if he has achieved a 2450 performance when in fact he actually attained a 1600 performance? It would be better to recognize my new weaker level and reward him accordingly.
How can you call that fair? A fair rating system has to recognize sudden changes in a single player's strength when the evidence shows it. A criteria that considers a few two or more sigma over or under perfromances is perfectly reasonable. One does not suddenly play one or two sigma above or below one's previous strength over an extended period unless something drastic has changed, and a fair rating system must recognize it.