Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 55

Thread: 37A - Underrated Juniors

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    694

    Default

    Why can't we have a bonus system like we used to have 10-15 years ago that recognizes superior performance by awarding extra rating points for superior performance in a tournament with a specified number of rounds?
    I don't think rating inflation would be a problem because we no longer have the participation points that were pumping thousands of rating points into the system for several years. Instead, with bonus points for superior play, fewer points would be added and they would be offset by attrition as players who joined the system at lower ratings retire with higher ratings.
    Does anyone remember why we dropped that sensible system and replaced it with participation points that had no relation to playing strength?
    As for waiting for the Rating Auditor to come up with a statisticaly sound solution rather than applying a common sense solution, do your really think there is a chance that that is going to happen?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Leblanc View Post
    Why can't we have a bonus system like we used to have 10-15 years ago that recognizes superior performance by awarding extra rating points for superior performance in a tournament with a specified number of rounds?
    Yes, absolutely!
    It is as brilliant as it is simple.
    Somebody please dig up the old formula and put it in a motion, now!

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    694

    Default

    It was something like: In a tournament of 5 rounds or more, when a player gains more than 25 rating points, the number of points gained above 25 are doubled. For example, a rating point gain of 50 points becomes a gain of 75 points.
    Everyone's favourite example is World Under 10 Champion Jason Cao. If that formula had been applied to his result at his most recent adult tournament, the Langley Open, the 85 rating points that he gained would have earned a bonus of 60 additional points and would have resulted in a new rating of 1609 instead of 1549. He would have still been woefully under-rated but perhaps this sort of solution is more acceptable to commentators such as Hansen and Hebert who basically feel that "we did it the hard way, so should all the under-rated juniors".

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    I thought the CFC as a matter of policy did not publish provisional ratings till it was based on 3 or 4 games (sorry I'm working from memory here). When did this change? With the online nature of ratings we seem to have lost the "/x" codes but "/1" shouldn't ever be published.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,158
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    The formula is any points over 24 in a 4 game event, 26 in a 5 game event, 28 in a 6 game event, etc are doubled.

    In a 6 game event and you gain 40 points, it becomes 52 points.

    I'm not sure when we eliminated this - maybe when we introduced the bonus points for going over your maximum rating thing we have now.

    With one of the version changes to the rating program it started printing ratings that were only based on one or two games (we can see these online but they aren't "true" ratings). Probably once we had the ratings on the website..........

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred McKim View Post
    The formula has always worked this way...
    Yes, Fred, the formula has always worked this way...
    And we always had problems with underrated juniors...

    Probably we need to take a step back and decide first:
    Is our rating system perfect?
    Or it has some flaws that we need to identify and fix?
    Thanks,
    Michael Barron

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Barron View Post
    Yes, Fred, the formula has always worked this way...
    And we always had problems with underrated juniors...

    Probably we need to take a step back and decide first:
    Is our rating system perfect?
    Or it has some flaws that we need to identify and fix?
    No no no! The rating formula Fred is describing was abandoned many years ago, probably at least 10 years ago. (?) Does anyone know?

    It had generous bonus points which raised underrated juniors ratings much faster than present. It really could help out!

    A perfect rating system is impossible. If we wait for one, we will never do anything.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    694

    Default

    I am (almost) as eager as the president to get this issue sorted out. But I'd like to find out why we decided to kill the bonus point formula first and then out of courtesy I believe the Rating Auditor should be brought into the discussion. Bill, where are you?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    591

    Default

    I recall presenting a motion during Halldor's Presidency(?) when bonus points were still alive. There was a stipulation that bonus points could only be awarded in the cases of peak ratings. The motion removed this stipulation. At that time we could not access the rating code so it was not implemented.

    While we are at it, I believe the handbook cites specific individuals on a ratings committee (Robert Hamilton I believe was one name) and this is no longer true.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    591

    Default

    I recall presenting a motion during Halldor's Presidency(?) when bonus points were still alive. There was a stipulation that bonus points could only be awarded in the cases of peak ratings. The motion removed this stipulation. At that time we could not access the rating code so it was not implemented.

    While we are at it, I believe the handbook cites specific individuals on a ratings committee (Robert Hamilton I believe was one name) and this is no longer true.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •