Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: 7. Rating Auditor Report (Paul Leblanc)

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,023

    Default The fastest time control for regular rated.

    To abolish the Active rating system faster time controls for the regular rating system would have to be adopted. Currently the rules permit game in 60 min as the fastest time control without increments. Under increments 30 min + 30 sec a move is the fastest time control allowed.

    If allowing game in 45 min or 25-30 min with translation to increments gets rid of the Active system I think it is worthwhile.

    I think these new faster time controls might get used in one section Swisses in round 1 mis-matches to compress the 3-games a day schedule. They could also be used by folks to run one day regular rated tournaments.

    The Active system has long been ignored by the CFC and held in low regard by the membership. If we are keeping the Active rating system at least manage it. A first step might be to reset those ratings to highest regular ratings and then watch them deflate again.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    110

    Default CYCC qualifiers

    I hope that regular ratings will still be used for CYCC qualifiers.
    This is the way they have always been done, and the players and parents expect it. They are run with 30-minute per player time, so that 6 rounds may be played in one day. They have been very successful, and I believe that we want to keep them going and to encourage more. As has been mentioned, we certainly need to attract kids to tournament chess. This is one of the best ways we have.

    I strongly question whether rating these games in the regular system is really the source of under-rated juniors.
    When they start, the younger juniors mostly play very fast. It makes little difference what the time control actually is.
    As they gain in experience, they will slow down of course.

    Chris Field.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    I confess I feel bad about internally groaning when I see a junior next to my name on the pairing sheets.

    Where adults get into trouble with juniors is when the junior has not played a rated game in 3-4 months then plays again. This may mean they've been doing other things but it may also mean they've been taking lessons, playing 24x7 on ICC etc.

    I well remember my best tournament ever when I (then 1750 or so) beat 2 masters (both as black) and drew with an expert and reached 1900 - then in the very next tournament lost to two brothers who were then 1450 but were both 1900+ within 3 months...obviously they had been playing outside CFC events during that time and their ratings climbed at the maximum possible rate for most of that time.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Field View Post
    I hope that regular ratings will still be used for CYCC qualifiers.
    This is the way they have always been done, and the players and parents expect it.
    There is no provision in the current rules to provide an exception for CYCC qualifiers. Players and parents should learn to live with the disappointment of having to follow the rules like everyone else and stop trying to cheat.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    694

    Default

    I'm just leaving for Toronto and the Annex Chess Club Thanksgiving Open. As soon as I find internet access I'll post a summary of our discussions and let you know my plans between now and the next meeting.
    Thank you all for participating.
    Paul Leblanc
    Treasurer, Chess Foundation of Canada
    CFC Voting Member

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Breslau
    Posts
    169

    Thumbs up Active Ratings

    Chris, Vlad,
    First of all, I think "trying to cheat" is much too strong. There really is no malice or any attempt to get around rules behind the kids and their parents' interest in regular ratings.

    The reason that kids and parents hold the regular ratings higher than the active ratings is because that is what they are told.
    What they really want is to compete with each other and to be able to track their progress ... ratings (whether regular or active) will achieve this. If we, as organizers, position this properly, they will be just as interested in their active ratings as their regular ones.

    The games are different. Kids play Active games and should concentrate on their active ratings in their early developmental years.
    Once their interest starts turning to wanting to take more time with their games, they should start looking to working on their regular games and ratings.
    They would actually get more satisfaction with this approach. They can watch their active ratings rise through their development. When the "graduate" to regular time games (and actually start using that time) if their regular rating has not been falsly established through rating active development games as regular, they will actually start their regular rating much higher in general than otherwise.

    This also has the benefit of established players not worrying as much about playing these Under-Rated kids.

    Does this make more sense out of Paul's suggestion and direction?
    ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
    Patrick McDonald
    International Arbiter
    International Organizer

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,235
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    Part of the problem may be the term "Regular" ratings... Perhaps if we renamed them Speed and Long ratings or something similar, there would be less emotional attachment to your "regular" rating above all else.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick McDonald View Post
    Chris, Vlad,
    First of all, I think "trying to cheat" is much too strong. There really is no malice or any attempt to get around rules behind the kids and their parents' interest in regular ratings.
    I was a little over the top but only a little. If you submit a tournament as a regular time control event when in fact it was active that is cheating When I was trying to become the most active adult player in Canada, I all but gave up trying to be the most active player because of this magical ability of some of the kids to play an impossible number of games in a weekend. Of course I was still able to do it because I suddenly had some Windsor players who wanted to play chess and I didn't have to rely only on out of town events.

    In Windsor, I don't see this preoccupation with regular vs. active ratings among the children or their parents. Improve the children's chess strength and their ratings will follow.

    The reason that kids and parents hold the regular ratings higher than the active ratings is because that is what they are told.
    What they really want is to compete with each other and to be able to track their progress ... ratings (whether regular or active) will achieve this. If we, as organizers, position this properly, they will be just as interested in their active ratings as their regular ones.

    The games are different. Kids play Active games and should concentrate on their active ratings in their early developmental years.
    Once their interest starts turning to wanting to take more time with their games, they should start looking to working on their regular games and ratings.
    They would actually get more satisfaction with this approach. They can watch their active ratings rise through their development. When the "graduate" to regular time games (and actually start using that time) if their regular rating has not been falsly established through rating active development games as regular, they will actually start their regular rating much higher in general than otherwise.

    This also has the benefit of established players not worrying as much about playing these Under-Rated kids.

    Does this make more sense out of Paul's suggestion and direction?
    I totally agree with Paul's suggestions and direction. What I don't agree with is the idea that we are driving juniors away by making everyone play by the same rules. As you point out, active ratings can be just as important as regular ratings with the right marketing (and attitude). I was actually happy to see London go to active events for their monthly Saturday tournaments because at game in an hour I'm not sure that I want to put my regular rating on the line where I have to play people 400 to 600 points below me. Ratings are a zero sum game these days and in the case of playing someone four to six hundred points below you, they are a zero rating point gain game even when you win. In the case of an active event that is not as much of a concern.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    694

    Default Summary

    Bonus point formula. There was no disagreement with my plan therefore I will continue the search for the "holy grail" bonus point system, probably along the lines that I mentioned. Bob Gilanders reminded me that it is desireable to incorporate some sore of rating point rebate to players upset by under-rated new players.

    Handbook amendments. I received no comments therefore I will draft a motion for the next meeting.

    Rating software issues. Again, no comments therefore I will have the errors fixed.

    Incorrectly rated junior events. This generated most of the discussion with people pro and con about evenly divided. Since the existing rules in the Handbook do not allow 30 minute games to be rated as Regular, I will continue to enforce the rules until told otherwise. This may come to a head in the upcoming CYCC Regional Qualifiers.
    Paul Leblanc
    Treasurer, Chess Foundation of Canada
    CFC Voting Member

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default Summary

    Summary:
    Paul Leblanc gave his report on the Ratings Auditor position focussing on problems with the Bonus Point Formula, updating Handbook sections relating to ratings, known software issues, problems with rating of junior events relating to Active vs Standard time controls. There was some controversy on the last point some of which was quite heated. It was strongly suggested juniors were not interested in Active ratings. There did NOT seem to be a consensus on the use of Active or Regular ratings for Junior events.

    The question was raised about CFC ratings for foreign FIDE-rated players being out of date.

    There were several suggestions about dealing with the problem of under-rated juniors.

    It seems clear that the area of junior ratings will continue on to the January meeting with more concrete proposals likely.

    Lyle Craver
    Secretary, Chess Federation of Canada

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

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