Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Presidential Debate: Should we go to FIDE rated

  1. #21

    Default

    Hello again Michael

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael von Keitz
    1. A willingness on FIDE's part to facilitate the conversion.

    The prospect of increased revenues seems to make this palatable..
    What kind of "increased revenues" are you expecting ? In your plan, do you foresee any loss in revenues for the CFC ? If so, how do you suggest we get back the loss ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael von Keitz
    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.
    Same question again, what kind of money do you think we're talking about here ? You'd really like to work on a case-by-case basis for every Canadian chess player with a CFC rating ? Going back until... ? Who would do that ? FIDE ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael von Keitz
    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.
    Can you give us links to those "serious discussions", please ? What happens to the juniors (or even adults for that matter) rated below 1000 ? What is supposed to be the benefit of any CFC player to have an INTERNATIONAL rating if they play in local events only ? Both Pierre and I have brought up the Myanmar case. Still, you seem to think the important point to make is the FIDE rating is "perceived to hold weight". What are the grounds for you to believe that ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael von Keitz
    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.
    I believe it's healthy for a Federation to question the validity of its rating system. Goals from Executive to Executive may change over time and explain some of the changes made. Canada's rating is not better or worse than any other country maintaining a National Rating. You seem to think only FIDE invests in the study and modification of its rating system. I'm sure all the Rating Auditors the CFC had over the years, that I know for a fact have put MANY more hours to it than what you're probably ready to realize, will be very happy about that statement. In fact many Federations invest a lot in it. Too bad you decided not to join the discussion when, not so long ago, we talked about it right here. I invite you to take a look at what Dr Mark Glickman has done with his Glicko system (and Glicko2) at the USCF, for starters. In any case, I'm still waiting to see valid proof that our CFC rating system is so bad. Just to claim it is seem unsufficient to me. Regardless, even if it was, dropping it to a system that has not proven any better (which in fact is using the same Elo system in the first place) instead of adjusting it to better serve the needs of the CFC makes no sense to me.

    If elected President, I'd like to work with the Rating Auditor and the Executive to identify the possible solutions on how our National Rating could be a greater asset for the CFC.

    Take care.

    Serge Archambault

  2. #22

    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.

  3. #23

    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.

  4. #24

    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.

  5. #25

    Default

    What kind of "increased revenues" are you expecting ? In your plan, do you foresee any loss in revenues for the CFC ? If so, how do you suggest we get back the loss ?
    My meaning was that FIDE might reasonably be able to expect increased revenues from the CFC. If it were to be made, I certainly don't anticipate the deal being free. If we were to make the conversion, of course, potential changes to our fee structure would need to be investigated. Be aware that I am not suggesting we make the change tomorrow, or even wholesale, as we might wish, for instance, to initially phase in a portion of the membership and analyze those results first.

    Same question again, what kind of money do you think we're talking about here ? You'd really like to work on a case-by-case basis for every Canadian chess player with a CFC rating ? Going back until... ? Who would do that ? FIDE ?
    Yes, FIDE. Again, I don't think that comes with a pricetag of $0, but, if the assembly of governors were to give me approval, I would follow up with FIDE regarding their expectations (cost, conversion method, etc.) and we could have a more informed discussion from there.

    Can you give us links to those "serious discussions", please ? What happens to the juniors (or even adults for that matter) rated below 1000 ? What is supposed to be the benefit of any CFC player to have an INTERNATIONAL rating if they play in local events only ? Both Pierre and I have brought up the Myanmar case. Still, you seem to think the important point to make is the FIDE rating is "perceived to hold weight". What are the grounds for you to believe that ?
    For an executive summary, see this link. For the full minutes of the meeting, I invite you to seek them out.

    I believe it's healthy for a Federation to question the validity of its rating system. Goals from Executive to Executive may change over time and explain some of the changes made. Canada's rating is not better or worse than any other country maintaining a National Rating. You seem to think only FIDE invests in the study and modification of its rating system. I'm sure all the Rating Auditors the CFC had over the years, that I know for a fact have put MANY more hours to it than what you're probably ready to realize, will be very happy about that statement. In fact many Federations invest a lot in it. Too bad you decided not to join the discussion when, not so long ago, we talked about it right here. I invite you to take a look at what Dr Mark Glickman has done with his Glicko system (and Glicko2) at the USCF, for starters. In any case, I'm still waiting to see valid proof that our CFC rating system is so bad. Just to claim it is seem unsufficient to me. Regardless, even if it was, dropping it to a system that has not proven any better (which in fact is using the same Elo system in the first place) instead of adjusting it to better serve the needs of the CFC makes no sense to me.
    Canada is not a Myanmar. Our players compete internationally and where I see FIDE ratings holding value is in providing a metric by which players might compare themselves with peers from around the world and, perhaps, provide themselves with extra incentive to improve. I refer to it as being "perceived to hold weight" because I fully realize that the system does not perfectly lend itself to 1-to-1 comparison, but I am not convinced that the average member necessarily cares about that. Whether the CFC rating scale is statistically superior or not, I think it's more important to ask whether the mere psychological value of an "international" measure of your skill is important to the average player. Though my evidence is anecdotal, I think this might be the case. If required, as the voice of the membership, I expect the governors will set me straight.

  6. #26

    Default

    Michael

    First, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. One thing though, your link doesn't refer to a "serious discussion" as you mentionned it to be. Only to a matter possibly being discussed in a later meeting.

    As I said in another thread, maybe you should have consulted with the Rating Auditor before including this in your platform. At least, even if you were not to agree with him, you'd have some basics of what's in stake here.

    Have you consulted with any FIDE official on your plan ? Are they open to such a task ? Do you have any...ANY example of other countries going that way and having FIDE do that kind of work for them ? I'll ask again, what kind of money are we talking about here ? Are you aware of any...ANY example of FIDE paying any kind of fee for that kind of conversion ?

    You say: "Canada is not a Myanmar. Our players compete internationally" How many Canadian players, annually, compete "internationally" ? Are you aware that only 272 Canadian players have a FIDE rating (not counting inactive players) ? What is your justification for making that kind of a change and eliminate our National rating for those 272 players ? Did you know that FIDE has about 150 000 FIDE rated players ? What would lead you to believe FIDE would be willing to do anything for the long lasting opposing CFC for what constitutes only a small unsignificant drop to them ?

    Serge Archambault

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Serge Archambault View Post
    First, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.
    You are welcome!

    One thing though, your link doesn't refer to a "serious discussion" as you mentionned it to be. Only to a matter possibly being discussed in a later meeting.
    Considering this is an executive summary of a meeting of the FIDE Ratings Commission, if they are discussing placing it on their agenda, it seems to me serious discussion must have preceded the notion.

    As I said in another thread, maybe you should have consulted with the Rating Auditor before including this in your platform. At least, even if you were not to agree with him, you'd have some basics of what's in stake here.
    As I said, I stand to be corrected. This is one of those issues I can tolerate seeing fall through, but I don't see the harm in generating some discussion surrounding the topic.

    Have you consulted with any FIDE official on your plan ? Are they open to such a task ? Do you have any...ANY example of other countries going that way and having FIDE do that kind of work for them ? I'll ask again, what kind of money are we talking about here ? Are you aware of any...ANY example of FIDE paying any kind of fee for that kind of conversion ?
    I certainly don't have any data on other countries doing so, as I am sure you can verify. That said, if we were to be the first, I think that would suit the definition of "trailblazing." I also do not wish to approach FIDE at this time, as I do not have a mandate from the incoming Assembly of Governors and I'm not certain what the final form of the suggestion might be (if any form of it at all were of interest to the assembly). For instance, perhaps we work with FIDE to have all 1900+ CFC-rated players FIDE rated in order to provide feeders in the U2000 section of events, which could lead to a trickle down effect.

    You say: "Canada is not a Myanmar. Our players compete internationally" How many Canadian players, annually, compete "internationally" ? Are you aware that only 272 Canadian players have a FIDE rating (not counting inactive players) ? What is your justification for making that kind of a change and eliminate our National rating for those 272 players ? Did you know that FIDE has about 150 000 FIDE rated players ? What would lead you to believe FIDE would be willing to do anything for the long lasting opposing CFC for what constitutes only a small unsignificant drop to them ?
    To be honest, my Internet is a little finicky at the moment, or I would doublecheck the exact number, but 272 players strikes me as being approximately 15% of our membership. That is hardly something to sniff at. As for increased revenues, no matter how small, I don't think FIDE would balk at the idea. After all, without Kirsan's personal reserves, how financially viable would the organization truly be?

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

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