Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Presidential Debate: Should we go to FIDE rated

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kerry Liles View Post
    Isn't that the sort of line item that should be featured prominently in an Annual Report? If not as a discrete item, at the very least a footnote? [admission here: I did not go back to check to see if it was highlighted in the GL somewhere... my apologies if it was]
    Kerry - this is actually old news. The potential extra costs due to the scheduling problems, then we eventually recovered those costs from FIDE/organizers. It has all been explained previously, but I'm not going to go searching for it.

    Other comments have also been critical of the financial statements. We are working to make them more readable and informative. Last week I met with Gerry to finalize the annual report. We are adding three new lines to the income statement to highlight our support for Canadian Open, The Closed, and the Olympic team. Formerly, these items would have been grouped with other stuff.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Mississauga ON Canada
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Gillanders View Post
    Kerry - this is actually old news. The potential extra costs due to the scheduling problems, then we eventually recovered those costs from FIDE/organizers. It has all been explained previously, but I'm not going to go searching for it.

    Other comments have also been critical of the financial statements. We are working to make them more readable and informative. Last week I met with Gerry to finalize the annual report. We are adding three new lines to the income statement to highlight our support for Canadian Open, The Closed, and the Olympic team. Formerly, these items would have been grouped with other stuff.
    That sounds good. I know reading fiscal statements can be an 'art' ... (as can composing them!) Anything that adds clarity is a good thing in my opinion. As I recall, many large corporate annual reports contain more pages of 'notes' (where the real information lies) than pages of ledger.

    All of this reminds me what I will call the 'newspaper problem' - a huge story hits the front page with all sorts of speculation... weeks later, a clarification is posted (next to the car stereo advertisements on the back page of the 7th section) - no where near the same importance or urgency of the original story...

  3. #13

    Default

    The Elo rating system is a measure of the relative merits of the players of a group. The Canadian group is distinct from the international group and the ratings should be different. FIDE has already forgotten that it had to adjust the rating of nearly all Myanmar players because they essentially play among themselves and this has enabled them to achieve ratings in excess of 2600 without possessing the required playing strength. Closer tu us, Bator Sambuev's 2750 CFC rating would probably be under investigation by FIDE if it was FIDE rating rather then a CFC rating. His rating of 2750 show how dominant he his in Canada but FIDE still considers him in 4th position among Canada's active players. Our rating is a much better depiction of GM Sambuev domination of the Canadian scene.

    Apart from this mathematical evidence, the main reason to stick with the CFC rating is a political reason: we control it. There is also a financial reason: it brings it rating fees instead of paying FIDE for a service that we are able to provide ourselves. The FIDE member countries that voted in favour of the FIDE rate everything approach are countries that do not have any system of national rating. The countries with a sound national rating system did vote against but at the end, we lost that vote.

    The control issue is very important to me. When I was the Rating Auditor, I could fix a CFC rating error with a single email to the executive Director, but it could take more then one month to fix an error with the FIDE rating. If the error is related to a tournament that has been played by a Canadian player in another country, then only this county's national Federation can make the formal request to FIDE. All we can do is complain, and I did complain when I was the Rating Auditor, but for a foreign Federation, the case of a Canadian player is rarely a priority.

    The only inconvenient is when FIDE wants us to pair players using their ratings. The problem is that a player who play few FIDE rated games compared to the number of his CFC rated games could have a substantial difference between his CFC and his FIDE rating. A player with a CFC rating of 2 400 but a FIDE rating of 2 200 cannot be paired like a 2 400 without destroying the norm chances of other players. A norm seeker would be better off against a 2350 FIDE then against this 2400 CFC.

    I can see only two drawbacks to our rating: it is not recognised by FIDE and this can give rise to Swiss pairings detrimental to both the player himself or his opponents.

    FIDE offers to rate our games, but I see no compelling reason to take the offer. I can only see compelling reasons to keep our nice rating system.

  4. #14

    Default

    On the topic of ratings, with the FIDE system now sitting at a floor of 1000, coupled with the fact that the rating list is continually increasing its frequency, with imminent plans for monthly publications, it seems the CFC might wish to consider the eventual abandonment of its domestic rating scale, or, less drastically, promoting the FIDE rating system ahead of its own. Among other benefits, this would allow for a natural transition from domestic certificates to FIDE certificates for higher titles. More importantly, it encompasses a facet of the appeal attributable to online chess - a standard, international measure of chess skill. As long as that measure is perceived to hold weight, the question of whether it actually holds any real value is moot.

    For those that feel that FIDE might be motivated to simply cut the legs out from under us and offer their services directly to tournament organizers, keep in mind that we serve as a domestic agent for their organization. Without revenue, we die, leaving FIDE with no official body operating on its behalf in Canada.

    Now, in the case of a total conversion, what would be required to achieve the wholesale adoption of the FIDE system?

    1. A willingness on FIDE's part to facilitate the conversion.

    The prospect of increased revenues seems to make this palatable.

    2. Relatedly, a reliable metric for conversion, or a readily-understood means of doing so on a case-by-case basis.

    Again, with monetary motivations, it seems a means can be found.

    3. Inclusion of all CFC members.

    Talk of bringing the FIDE rating floor as low as 650 (approximately equivalent to a BCF rating of 0) is seriously being discussed. However, even if the floor remains at 1000, all members are afforded the opportunity to compete in rated events until such time as they achieve rateable results. With a skill-level of 1000 being roughly equivalent to a competent beginner, it seems
    any member of the organization should be capable of achieving it in fairly short order.

    4. A clear benefit to the CFC.

    No longer would the CFC need to worry about tinkering with a system that some decry as being irreparably broken, instead, wholly leaning on a system recognized the world-over as the international standard for measuring chess ability. More importantly, unlike the CFC, which relies on voluntary efforts (with mixed results), FIDE invests in the study and modification of its rating system, with results to show for it. For those that fear a loss of revenue, rating fees could still be garnered nationally, with the CFC simply serving as a "FIDE rating broker," so to speak. Moreover, the membership database could be used as a means of categorizing information, as opposed to hosting it.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael von Keitz View Post
    On the topic of ratings, with the FIDE system now sitting at a floor of 1000, coupled with the fact that the rating list is continually increasing its frequency, with imminent plans for monthly publications, it seems the CFC might wish to consider the eventual abandonment of its domestic rating scale, or, less drastically, promoting the FIDE rating system ahead of its own. Among other benefits, this would allow for a natural transition from domestic certificates to FIDE certificates for higher titles. More importantly, it encompasses a facet of the appeal attributable to online chess - a standard, international measure of chess skill. As long as that measure is perceived to hold weight, the question of whether it actually holds any real value is moot.

    For those that feel that FIDE might be motivated to simply cut the legs out from under us and offer their services directly to tournament organizers, keep in mind that we serve as a domestic agent for their organization. Without revenue, we die, leaving FIDE with no official body operating on its behalf in Canada.

    Now, in the case of a total conversion, what would be required to achieve the wholesale adoption of the FIDE system?

    1. A willingness on FIDE's part to facilitate the conversion.

    The prospect of increased revenues seems to make this palatable.

    2. Relatedly, a reliable metric for conversion, or a readily-understood means of doing so on a case-by-case basis.

    Again, with monetary motivations, it seems a means can be found.

    3. Inclusion of all CFC members.

    Talk of bringing the FIDE rating floor as low as 650 (approximately equivalent to a BCF rating of 0) is seriously being discussed. However, even if the floor remains at 1000, all members are afforded the opportunity to compete in rated events until such time as they achieve rateable results. With a skill-level of 1000 being roughly equivalent to a competent beginner, it seems
    any member of the organization should be capable of achieving it in fairly short order.

    4. A clear benefit to the CFC.

    No longer would the CFC need to worry about tinkering with a system that some decry as being irreparably broken, instead, wholly leaning on a system recognized the world-over as the international standard for measuring chess ability. More importantly, unlike the CFC, which relies on voluntary efforts (with mixed results), FIDE invests in the study and modification of its rating system, with results to show for it. For those that fear a loss of revenue, rating fees could still be garnered nationally, with the CFC simply serving as a "FIDE rating broker," so to speak. Moreover, the membership database could be used as a means of categorizing information, as opposed to hosting it.
    Michael should you become President, I'm hoping you'll be willing to chat to those of us who hold an opposing view to yours. I don't agree with a lot of the statements you give here, but will let it ride for now.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,235
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    I think you are dead-wrong on Point 3. 1000 might be a competent ADULT beginner, but you would be throwing casual youth chess away.

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael von Keitz View Post
    1. A willingness on FIDE's part to facilitate the conversion.
    I would not count on that. In order to get a FIDE rating, you must play against FIDE rated players. There is nothing in the FIDE rules that would permit Canadian players to enter the FIDE rating list with their current CFC rating.

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred McKim View Post
    Michael should you become President, I'm hoping you'll be willing to chat to those of us who hold an opposing view to yours. I don't agree with a lot of the statements you give here, but will let it ride for now.
    I certainly don't plan to make any fundamental changes without the support of the assembly and, as always, I am open to criticism - its a means of improving one's own ideas.

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    I think you are dead-wrong on Point 3. 1000 might be a competent ADULT beginner, but you would be throwing casual youth chess away.
    Of all the potential barriers to a conversion, this strikes me as being one of the more minor issues, in that the floor can almost certainly be expected to fall over the course of the next few years. Before debating the minutiae, however, I would rather wait on the assembly, to see whether they support the concept in principle. If so, then we should certainly discuss the finer details.

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée View Post
    I would not count on that. In order to get a FIDE rating, you must play against FIDE rated players. There is nothing in the FIDE rules that would permit Canadian players to enter the FIDE rating list with their current CFC rating.
    I also do not see FIDE accepting CFC ratings on par. Instead, I would anticipate the need for some sort of conversion. For instance, the CFC has a reasonably sizeable pool of FIDE-rated players. Using their results against CFC-rated opponents, a method of conversion might be found.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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
  •