Jason Cao – CFC rating 1921

[Bob Gillanders]

Tomorrow, Jason will receive an early Christmas present of 352 rating points from the CFC. His CFC rating will be adjusted upwards from 1569 to 1921 to match his FIDE rating.

The CFC executive, as well as rating auditor, Governor Bill Doubleday, has approved the adjustment. The adjustment comes from a request from Governor Paul Leblanc who wrote:

“Prior to the WYCC, Jason’s performance record in his last open event was 1870 at the Langley Open, confirming that his playing strength is much higher than his current CFC rating of 1569. It would be an injustice to Jason and his opponents if he continued to be rated at such a low level in upcoming events.”

I must point out that this is not a repudiation of the CFC rating system, but a one time extraordinary adjustment. I think we can all agree that Jason is an extraordinary young man. All rating systems, including ours, have difficulty in rating youngsters who show rapid improvement. A lag is common, and will correct itself over time. There are no plans to adjust ratings wholesale nor to change the formula, but that should not bar us from using some discretion on a case by case basis.

Besides, Jason’s opponents will be intimidated enough facing a World Champion, they don’t need the added pressure of huge rating losses!

Merry Christmas Jason!

[Stuart Brammall]

Not to belittle the young man's accomplishments, but I do not think this is a reasonable solution. His performance at the CYCC was only 1502.

A bit of Satire:

I would like to request that my own rating be adjusted according to my performance in last weekends Hart House Holidays... It should be about 2154, which therefore confirms my gross uder-rated-ness. Please right me a cheque for the 200 rating point difference.
If you only give cheques for perfs that differ by more then 300 points from one's rating, I refer you instead to the 2010 mills invitational where my perf was 2216.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Jason's current Vicoria Chess club rating is 1901 after the Jack Taylor memorial. His rating on that system peaked at 1912 after our September fundraiser, in which he turned in a performance of 2241, better than my own peak performance for this year of 2212. My experience in playing him is that he is currently very close to my strength and I have a VCC rating of 1920. I barely beat him on time in our last rated game, and we are currently quite evenly matched, a situation I expect to change very soon and not in my favour.

All in all a CFC rating of 1921 seems perfectly reasonable, and perhaps an underestimation. It would be grossly unfair for players of 1800 or so to lose huge amounts of rating points to him with a loss, and even more of a travesty to make him play a whole bunch of tournaments with a rating far below his actual playing strength.

[Stuart Brammall]

His performance at CYCC was only 1502...
Ratings should be based on results, and the kids result indicate a 1569 rating.

I question the comparability of the VCC rating to CFC ratings. I do not know what your rating formula is, but even if it is identical to the CFC formula it is still an isolated rating pool. Would you ever try to argue that your CFC rating should be adjusted to your internet rating?

Further Satire:
I suggest that the following idividuals, in light of their most recent performances, have there ratings adjusted down to an appropriate level, due to their obvious over-rated-ness:

-Governor Paul LeBlanc...........down 86 points to 1811
-Rating Auditor Doubleday.......down 153 points to 1937
-CFC President Gillanders........down 204 points to 1608

Also, I would suggest Ed's rating be given provisional status, because he hasn't played a rated game in more then ten years.

[Stuart Brammall]

It would be grossly unfair for players of 1800 or so to lose huge amounts of rating points to him with a loss, and even more of a travesty to make him play a whole bunch of tournaments with a rating far below his actual playing strength.

I disagree completely and here is why: ratings show strength relative to the entire pool only, and it should not be pretended that they estimate chess ability in an absolute sense.
Example: Suppose there are only two rated players, myself (~1950) and some GM (~2600). Suppose further that we play a never-ending series of matches, and at some point my strength catches up to his. Does this mean that I have data indicating my rating to be 2600? No, what the data suggests is that we both should be rated the same at ~2275.

If the strength of the pool increases and one's strength does not increase at pace, then one's rating must, and should, go down.

You guys should just bite the bullet and play the kid. If you win congrats, if not, be comfirted in that your rating is now more accurate as is his. If he is actually ~1900 strength, it should only take four events for him to catch up, provided they are open events.

[Fred McKim]

I disagree completely and here is why: ratings show strength relative to the entire pool only, and it should not be pretended that they estimate chess ability in an absolute sense.
Example: Suppose there are only two rated players, myself (~1950) and some GM (~2600). Suppose further that we play a never-ending series of matches, and at some point my strength catches up to his. Does this mean that I have data indicating my rating to be 2600? No, what the data suggests is that we both should be rated the same at ~2275.

If the strength of the pool increases and one's strength does not increase at pace, then one's rating must, and should, go down.

You guys should just bite the bullet and play the kid. If you win congrats, if not, be comfirted in that your rating is now more accurate as is his. If he is actually ~1900 strength, it should only take four events for him to catch up, provided they are open events.

Stuart: It seems we've been over this before. The view of the majority of people is that the ratings in the pool should hold over time, in addition to being relative within the pool.

This is why there are adjustments to the CFC pool every so often.

I predict that FIDE will introduce a deflation countering measure within 3-5 years, once all of the present juniors in the pool start siphoning off points from more established players, as they slowly start bubbling up the rating system.

[Stuart Brammall]

Hi Fred,
It does not make sense that rating should be stable if a player's relative strength is not. Also even if that is the goal it has not been achieved... otherwise the kid's rating should stay at a stable 1569.
If you want a player whose relative strength is decreasing to maintain constant rating you will necessarilly be causing inflation. If you do not mind this then why not just say ratings can never go down, and can only go up? Then no one will complain about having to play kids. But if you want a rating system which which is useful for doing things like making sections, and predicting results, you should stop the ill-considered tweaking before it gets out of hand.

[Fred McKim]

Hi Fred,
It does not make sense that rating should be stable if a player's relative strength is not. Also even if that is the goal it has not been achieved... otherwise the kid's rating should stay at a stable 1569.
If you want a player whose relative strength is decreasing to maintain constant rating you will necessarilly be causing inflation. If you do not mind this then why not just say ratings can never go down, and can only go up? Then no one will complain about having to play kids. But if you want a rating system which which is useful for doing things like making sections, and predicting results, you should stop the ill-considered tweaking before it gets out of hand.

The CFC Executive effectively added 343 rating points yesterday to the rating pool. The effect of this over the next year is that Jason's opponents won't lose a total of 200-300 points by playing him. Why Jason ? He is our only world Champion in over 20 years.

When Jeff Sarwer became World U10 Champion, the FIDE rating floor for men was at 2200 (so he didn't receive a FIDE rating) and there were no FIDE titles awarded for that event.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

The CFC Executive effectively added 343 rating points

The CFC Exs could do more. Smth like to match his title - FM with a equivalent rating 2301

I think that the best gift (affordable by the CFC) to Jason Cao is proclaiming him a HONORARY MEMBER.

[Peter McKillop]

... It would be grossly unfair for players of 1800 or so to lose huge amounts of rating points to him with a loss, and even more of a travesty to make him play a whole bunch of tournaments with a rating far below his actual playing strength.

Hasn't it always been this way though? I don't understand the urgent need to change the system now. If your VCC rating is a reasonable reflection of your playing strength, and if you should lose to Jason while he is rated several hundred points below you, won't your VCC rating tend to move back to where it belongs as you play in more events over time?