7. Rating Auditor Report (Paul Leblanc)

[Christopher Mallon]

I dust this suggestion off every couple of years so here goes again.

Why not make everyone under the age of.. 12? exist in a state of perpetual provisionality?

Yes I made up a word there. Anyway, what I mean is, just keep track of their 24 most recent games and always use those for their ratings. That should solve the whole under-rated junior problem in fairly short order as it makes it much easier for the junior rating pool to obtain new points, while not taking every single one of those points away from older players.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I dust this suggestion off every couple of years so here goes again.

Why not make everyone under the age of.. 12? exist in a state of perpetual provisionality?

Yes I made up a word there. Anyway, what I mean is, just keep track of their 24 most recent games and always use those for their ratings. That should solve the whole under-rated junior problem in fairly short order as it makes it much easier for the junior rating pool to obtain new points, while not taking every single one of those points away from older players.

That would reduce the problem but not solve it. I haven't really found the kids 12 and under to be the big problem. I would say that age 12 to 16 is more of a problem but that is probably because aside from this weekend I usually play in tournaments that don't allow playing up.

[Christopher Mallon]

I pulled 12 out of a hat. The number should be set based on some actual statistical analysis.

[Bob Gillanders]

Incorrectly Rated Junior Events. Ten years ago, the CFC decided to allow Junior events with Active time controls to be rated as Regular events. Recognizing the damage that this was doing to the rating system (a 200 point drop in the average rating and the production of many under-rated juniors), the policy was reversed about 5 years ago. However, the practice continued.

First of all, great report Paul. It states clearly the important issues that we face.

As for rating all junior tournaments as regular, I guess I was part of the problem. I remember questioning back in 2007 why all Junior tournaments were regular rated, but was assured that was current practice. I would be interested in exactly when the policy reversal was done. Obviously it was never communicated (or carried out) to the office.

Anyway, in spite of Ken's objections, I think you are on the right path.

[Bob Gillanders]

I would like to float an idea that has been rattling around in my head for a while. I would wager I'm probably not the first to think of it, but here it is:

For games played against under rated juniors, your rating is calculated based on their performance rating not their current rating.

Example

Middle aged guy (1800) loses to superstar kid (1300).
But for the tournament, superstar kid has performance rating of 1800.

Current system - Middle aged guy loses 30 rating points.
Proposed system - Middle aged guy loses only 16 points.
The superstar kid still gains 30 points under either systems.

Whether this change can be easily made to the current software, that is another question. Paul, can you add this idea to your list of potential solutions. I believe I may have mentioned it to you at the Canadian Open dinner.

[Bob Gillanders]

I have been told by BC's juniors and their parents that they have no interest in active ratings. If a junior event is not CFC regular rated it will not be a CFC event. This sentiment is echoed by other Junior organizers. I have heard from more than one....

Really? If that really is the case, then perhaps another solution can be found, but what if it was explained to the kids and parents that the active rating (or rename it junior rating) was for junior only tournament and regular rating was for when they played in adult (mixed) tournaments. That should work, no?

Kids love their ratings. At the Mississauga junior club we have our own rating system. I would like to switch it over to the CFC rating system, and if I do, it will be sent in as active. Most of the kids don't use clocks, and those that do, it's 25 minute games.

Except for the stronger players, I don't think they care which rating it is, CFC CMA, Mississauga, whatever.

[Bob Gillanders]

Do you realize these Junior related moves are effectively designed to eliminate Junior players from participation in the CFC?
........
........
I apologize for the rambling.
I felt it necessary to make sure people are aware of the consequences of these actions.
I'll get off my soap box now.

Ken Jensen

Ken, nobody (well..99% nobody) wants to drive away juniors.
We are only trying to address the complaint from adults that they feel they are being punished by losing extra rating points to under rated juniors.

Anyway, stop apologizing for rambling. We desperately need to hear from our junior organizers.

What do you think of my suggestion 3 posts up? I think it may bridge the issue between you and Paul!

[Paul Leblanc]

Yes Bob, I like your idea. In fact I thought I was the first one to think of it!

Perhaps the situation develops after Super-kid's 25th game when his provisional rating stops going up fast and he gets an established rating? I'd be interested in your thoughts on this as the current modelling I am doing with bonus points is to give a boost to "new players" (i.e. mostly juniors) who have just graduated to established ratings. It isn't turning out to be as easy as I thought to separate the Super-kids from the average beginners.

Then there is Chris Mallon's idea to extend the provisional ratings beyond the 25th game. Would there be any unintentional side-effects to that? The CFC data base doesn't always show the age of players so I have been using the term "new" player (going by the number of rated games on a person's record). You and I are "really old" players.

By the way, I did some work using Performance Ratings that turned out to be very discouraging since some wild Performance Ratings come out of junior events with many unrated players. My current modelling is looking at a version of the old bonus point system where Super-kid is rewarded with extra points if he gains a large number of points in one event.

I would like to also include some kind of rating point refund for Super-kid's hapless opponents too. I just have to be careful to model ideas to ensure I don't cause undesireable inflation.

[Paul Leblanc]

Regarding Junior event ratings, a couple of the organizers that I spoke to have started dividing their tournaments into sections where the more experienced kids play 60 minute time controls and the games are rated Regular. The less experienced kids play Active chess.

[Ken Jensen]

I pulled 12 out of a hat. The number should be set based on some actual statistical analysis.

I would be interested in seeing the statistical analysis behind this story. How was it shown conclusively that the problem is "Under Rated Juniors". I am sceptical. I work with about 600 kids a year and in my experience there are as many over-rated kids as under-rated. This is typical of any rating system. Cases of non provisional ratings being substantially out either way are rare.

Have we determined that it is not a problem with the ratings calculation formula? I am not familiar with the ratings math. Try as I might I have never been able to duplicate the CFC results consistently. I continue to be baffled when performance ratings well below pre-event ratings can result in an increase in rating, and vice versa.

Is it a case that the ratings calculator is a zero net sum operation? In other words does every junior rating point have to come at the expense of an existing adult player?

An analysis of the statistics should identify these problem "over-rated" players. Comparing the data over time will show their rating trend and what their comparable rating should be at any given time. Of course it may reveal that their competion underperformed.

The root of the problem seems to be different reference points. Are you saying that a junior who earns a rating of 1500 playing against juniors is stronger than an adult rated at 1500 from playing adults? If it is a statistical fact it should be easy to calculate the difference and adjust the formula for junior events accordingly. That way when juniors and adults meet they are comparable.

Ken Jensen