Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 59

Thread: Jason Cao – CFC rating 1921

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,235
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    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.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Christopher Mallon; 12-23-2010 at 12:44 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Duncan, British Columbia CANADA
    Posts
    154

    Thumbs down The Blog is obviously wrong again as always! Lies and offensive attacks against CMA

    Quote Originally Posted by 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?
    The Blog is obviously wrong again as always!

    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.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Mississauga ON Canada
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark S. Dutton, I.A.
    The Blog is obviously wrong again as always!

    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.
    I generally assume that by default for KS blog... no idea why I did not do so this time.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,158
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Serge Archambault
    Hello Everyone :-)

    First I'd like to take this opportunity to wish a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all chess lovers in Canada.

    As usual, I'll be myself :-).

    1. Kevin Spraggett is right, one of the messages I've written was deleted (not by me).
    2. Chris Mallon is right. I deleted one of my messages.

    So there's your truth for you.

    Now, about the subject. As I said, I had two messages about Jason's "Christmas gift".

    The one I deleted, I was talking about...

    I'll be corrected if I'm wrong but I believe over the years the CFC has had 2 major rating adjustments. The last one being a few years ago.

    Back then, I clearly remember suggesting the Glicko-2 rating system to many past so called rating auditors. I was told it was too complicated and people wouldn't understand. But maybe it's time to revisit this possibility as I feel time has proven the system to be good enough for at least the Australian Chess Federation to use it (and MANY other groups as well). In fact, I feel it exactly addresses most of the problems that might be created by the fast improving junior players.

    First, contrary to most of those who have written on the subject here, the guy who created it knows his stuff. His name is Mark Glickman (B.A. in Statistics at Princeton, M.A. and Ph.D. in Statistics at Harvard). He has been on the USCF rating committee since 1985 and Chairman since 1992. In 1995 he first created the Glicko rating system and then improved it in 2000 with the Glicko-2 system.

    To be honest, the guy has done so much about ratings and stuff I'll just give you the link to more info, for those interested. Mark Glickman.

    Finally, as Kevin Spraggett pointed out, a second message (much shorter) was deleted. It is true I believe the decision to grant Jason Cao 352 CFC rating points is a bad one. I believe it's no more than a poisoned gift that will only serve one purpose, to prevent him from winning some well deserved class prizes (medals, trophies, plaques, money, etc..) in a near future. It may just be enough for him to lose interest and for his parents to stop "milking" the CFC. It just makes no sense for so many reasons, it's not even worth the time to explain them all. The fact that he is a U10 World Champion is completely irrelevant for such a "move". That's why in my message, I was referring to Jeff Sarwer, who happened to not only also be a U10 World Champion, but to also having had to live through a very cruel adult chess world, way too soon. We all know what happened to him (chesswise I mean), right ?

    If having this opinion makes me public enemy no 1 so be it. But at least I know it's based on knowledge and past experience. It makes no difference you use the Correspondence Chess League of America rating system (1939), the Khachatoruv system (1946), the Ingo system (1948), the Harkness system (1950), the BCF Grading system (1958), or the Elo system (1960). They all were meant to measure the "relative" strenght of a player at a certain time with a specific pool of player. Also they were all designed to correct themselves over time (Jason has plenty of it) while more games are played with many more different players. It has nothing to do with the people involved at any level. And contrary to what I've read over and over again, even Jason's playing pool isn't really affected by this. If you agree that a perfect game of chess is by definition a draw (widely accepted idea), it's very difficult to argue otherwise. Mostly if you consider the fact a player improves playing better players, then they will all be long term beneficiaries of his talent.

    Take care.

    Serge Archambault
    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.

    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.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,158
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Serge Archambault
    Fred, I've read your message on Chesstalk (where you talked about Jeff Sarwer) and here also. You seem to imply the only reason Jeff left chess is because he had an "abusive" father (you'll correct me if I'm wrong). Maybe you should share with us the "part" you think you know. From what I know, Jeff himself doesn't believe his father is that much to blame.

    I don't know if you know about this but I invite you to go to this link and listen to this very very interesting (it was to me) interview: BBC World Service interview with Jeff Sarwer done on December 17th, 2010.

    We all can take out of this interview whatever we want, but at the end of the day, it was the chess world loss that Jeff stopped playing. Over the years we have seen too many young "prodigies" stop playing chess (whatever the reasons are...as very often we all understand MANY reasons might be involved). To some extent, we should all take responsability and learn from our mistakes when a sad story like that happens. I guess we all want to give our Elite (U10 to adult) players a chance to progress and keep on playing chess. I just don't see the benefits there is in giving a player 352 rating points he hasn't earned. Now if you're telling me this "gift" is just a small part of a larger plan of what the CFC is about to do to help and support Jason, I'm listening and willing to be less "critical" about what you guys are doing.

    Serge

    P.S. Re: Deleting my message. You might know or don't know this but 99% of the times, when I take the time to write some things, I do some research and get together informations, links and stuff like that just to try to provide what I consider to be relevant feedback. Too often here (and on Chesstalk) I see people giving out their opinions (hey, everybody is entitled to one) based on...their gut feeling at best and on their desire to be trolling at other times and all there is in between (like flooding opinions...ie stupidly repeating what a "friend" says without adding anything to the discussion, licking up someone's @$$, etc...). If I deleted my initial message, it's because I thought this was going to be the scenario here. Maybe I was wrong...we'll see.
    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.

    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.

  6. #26

    Default Building Anecdotal Adjustment into the System

    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.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Armstrong
    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
    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.

    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.

  8. #28

    Default Character of the Current CFC System

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec
    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.
    Hi Vlad:

    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

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,560

    Default

    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.

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter McKillop
    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?
    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.

    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.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •