Jason Cao – CFC rating 1921

[Paul Leblanc]

Well Stuart, to start with I believe we put a stop to rating inflation by eliminating the participation points this year.
Jason's case is exceptional whichever way you look at it. Undefeated in Canadian youth events (where unfortunately few rating points are gained), rating going up 100 points per adult tournament and a World Championship and FM title culminating in a 1921 FIDE rating.
I believe we have made a move that protects the integrity of the rating system by putting Jason and his next few over the board opponents on an equal footing.

[Stuart Brammall]

I agree that this instance will not cause significant inflation, however I do feel that the decision is indicative of the same train of thought which led to the rating boon and participation points, a train of thought which leads to both a misunderstanding and misuse of the rating system.

Ratings are supposed to be supported by a players past results, and that is simply not the case here. As a 1900 player I am sure that you, as I, have had many performances over 2000 and probably even one or two over 2200... and yet your rating is 1900. Although one can provide anecdotal evidence for your, and my, strength being over 2000, anecdotes are not data. Jason highest CFC performance ever was 1870... he is surely to be the only rated player ever with a rating higher then he has ever performed.

On another matter, while the youth events in BC may be jokes as far as rating is concerned, you can be assured that the events here in Ontario, such as last year’s CYCC, are not. The kids who tied for first with Cao (Zotkin, and Zhang) are definitely not under-rated, they play far too much chess for their ratings to not be accurate. I play them both regularly and yes, they are improving, and they get tougher for me to beat every time... but then their rating is a little higher every time we play... that’s the way the system works.

Cao’s perf at the CYCC was 1502, I see no reason why this is not a legitimate performance.

[Paul Leblanc]

To prove my conviction that you are wrong, I propose a small wager. As far as I know Jason's next "adult" event will be the Grand Pacific Open next April. I will take 1921 as my prediction of his performance rating and you can have the 1502 that you have mentioned. If your figure is closer than mine I will pay your entry fee to the Canadian Open in Toronto next summer. If my figure is closer you will pay mine.
Maybe Jason will play in the Canadian Open too and will have a chance to beat both of us!

[Stuart Brammall]

Paul,
I believe you that the young man was some what under-rated, however I feel 1921 is excessive. Also, it is not so much the young man having the new rating as the fact that it was not earned that I am arguing against. I think 300 points should have been lost if they are to be given out. If the young man really is so under-rated it would only have taken three or four events to correct.

I do not like to bet on things which I cannot control (that why I play chess instead of poker ), so any wagers will need to be of the gentlemen's sort. I would not however take your bet anyway... I have been trying to argue that using one performance rating only to predict results (and set rating) is rediculous... and yet that is what you offered me. The truth is I can admit to not having enough data to be able to predict the young man's true strength, given that he has only played in five real (not B.C. junior) events. I do feel however that to arbitrarily change a rating in such a fashion you should be confident enough to wager the following: That the young man will perform at no less then 1921 in his next real event. (Gentlemen's wager, of course)

[Paul Leblanc]

So you do admit that taking my bet would be a losing proposition for you. Shall we say then within one standard deviation of 1921 (or higher) with the loser eating crow on this issue?
cheers,

Paul

[Stuart Brammall]

That I readily accept. I sincerely hope that both Jason and yourself make trip out to Ontario, or that I make a trip out to B.C., it would be a great pleasure to play with a world champ, as it would also with a veteran such as yourself.
Regards

[Alex Ferreira]

... he is surely to be the only rated player ever with a rating higher then he has ever performed.

Sorry to disappoint you, Stuart...
CFC has had its tricks, as is playing us into now. One can only assume there's more to come.

http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=127516

Please scroll down to September 2006.
My highest rating ever was 1917.
All of a sudden my rating became 2092.
Why? Not because it was inaccurate due to lack of participation, but because I should be rewarded for being active.

Before this absurd nonsense by CFC, I had had two performances over 2000, in 2004 and earlier 2006. Because I was only 9 at the time and a fast improving junior, I have lately been able to, on the occasional weekend justify having a 2092 rating, but it's a on-going struggle

Alex F.

[Fred McKim]

Sorry to disappoint you, Stuart...
CFC has had its tricks, as is playing us into now. One can only assume there's more to come.

http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=127516

Please scroll down to September 2006.
My highest rating ever was 1917.
All of a sudden my rating became 2092.
Why? Not because it was inaccurate due to lack of participation, but because I should be rewarded for being active.

Before this absurd nonsense by CFC, I had had two performances over 2000, in 2004 and earlier 2006. Because I was only 9 at the time and a fast improving junior, I have lately been able to, on the occasional weekend justify having a 2092 rating, but it's a on-going struggle

Alex F.

Alex I think most of us aware of the rating adjustment that was made several years ago, immediately prior to the introduction of participation points. Presumably your prior performance ratings for the two prior years were undervalued....

In my opinion there should have been a cap placed on it at 75 or at least 100 points, but I wasn't part of the Ratings committee.

I can assure you that the CFC has no tricks planned for the membership as far as ratings goes.

The rating auditor is still examining the issues of under-rated junior players and how to allow for them to progress thorugh the system without devaluing everyone elses ratings, but it's a really difficult problem to deal with.

[Kerry Liles]

Kevin Spraggett's blog post today(?) at:

http://kevinspraggett.blogspot.com/2...87351013235231

claims that a number of posts on the subject of the awarded rating points for Jason Cao - on both this board and the Chesstalk board - have been censored. I presume the censorship manifests as "removal of the post" rather than any sort of editing?

Can a moderator of this board comment on this?

I believe Chris Mallon is an adminstrator of both boards - perhaps this dual arrangement is NOT a good idea?

[Fred McKim]

Kevin Spraggett's blog post today(?) at:

http://kevinspraggett.blogspot.com/2...87351013235231

claims that a number of posts on the subject of the awarded rating points for Jason Cao - on both this board and the Chesstalk board - have been censored. I presume the censorship manifests as "removal of the post" rather than any sort of editing?

Can a moderator of this board comment on this?

I believe Chris Mallon is an adminstrator of both boards - perhaps this dual arrangement is NOT a good idea?

Chris can answer this himself, but I asked about this last night after seeing Kevin's blog accusations. According to Chris, Serge deleted his own post (which I did read and knew was gone) and there were NO posts deleted by the moderator.

So if there is anyone out there who had a post deleted speak up !