Originally Posted by
Serge Archambault
The short answer is: Of course we should continue with the CFC rating!!! Actually I don’t see both systems as opposites. I see them as working well together as their purpose is to identify different things. Of course I’d like to see more FIDE rated tournaments and would like to explore ways of making it easier to tournament organizers. We’re all for virtue.
Based on the question, though, I’m not sure if it has more to do with the relevance of the CFC rating or the way the rating SYSTEM works at the CFC. But one thing is for sure, I think I’ve made it clear not so long ago, I’m absolutely against tempering with any kind of rating system. Even though in some cases the rating doesn’t show the appropriate immediate strength of a player. I know for a fact they are all based on a mathematical formula that is designed to balance itself out over a short period of time.
One very good question I’ve always found is: Why have a rating system ? What good does it do to the average chess players or even only for casual players ? Only bragging rights ? To be honest, I’m not sure I can give a complete answer to the question. But a few things can be identified to answer part of it.
First, clearly ratings have interested players for as long as I can remember. In some parts of the country, even chess clubs maintain a local rating for their players. The way I’ve always seem the rating (today being a bit different with FIDE lowering their minimum rating over the last decade) is some kind of motivation for players to not only compare themselves to others, but to follow their progression (in fact, I believe FIDE lowered its rating floor exactly for that reason, trying to get a hold of all tournament players on the planet). I believe that if more chess clubs were to maintain a regular rating, very often we would see some kind of progression in CFC rated events as well. And this would lead to a renewed interest for tournaments from all chess players of every class all across Canada.
I do remember when I was younger getting a club rating first, then, when I felt I was strong enough I started to play in FQE rated tournaments more regularly, that’s also how I got to eventually play in CFC rated events (the first one being in North Bay 98 I believe). Again, when I thought I just wasn’t a complete patzer in CFC rated events (ok, ok, to this day I consider myself only to be a wood pusher still), I allowed myself to participate in a FIDE rated event (2001). In fact, my first performance result with a FIDE rated tournament was over 200 points higher than my FQE or CFC rating.
From my point of view, a CFC rating is absolutely a must. Not only is it generating at least some revenue, but also it reunites people all over the country in some way. That the Maritime rating is lower than, say, the Ontario one (there can be so many reasons for it), that a junior’s rating has less reliability than an adult one (in most cases anyway) , shouldn’t lead to the conclusion that the CFC rating system doesn’t work. It just doesn’t mean the same thing. At the same time, I see the CFC rating as a way to guide our tournament players.
In general, I believe the CFC, by offering less and less service to its members, by trying to lower its prices on everything as much as possible, by trying to cut down on everything, is cheapening the value of chess in general. It should be the other way around. After all, the way I see it, offering more, supporting all players, beginners, Elite and all there is in between, providing resources to all players, arbiters and organizers should be the CFC primary goal and “raison d’être”.
Serge