CFC " Active " Ratings to CFC " Speed " Ratings??

[Christopher Mallon]

Wow, slow down! I have not proposed a motion, nor have I even said we should make such a change. All I've said is here are some ideas to consider.

Besides, your idea to not allow single-day Game/60 events to be regular rated would probably alienate way more people than either of my ideas would.

[Tony Ficzere]

Wow, slow down! I have not proposed a motion, nor have I even said we should make such a change. All I've said is here are some ideas to consider.

Besides, your idea to not allow single-day Game/60 events to be regular rated would probably alienate way more people than either of my ideas would.

I see no advantage changing anything, just a waste of time really. If anything, just get rid of active ratings, they serve no purpose.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I see no advantage changing anything, just a waste of time really. If anything, just get rid of active ratings, they serve no purpose.

Some strange discrepancy: clubs have own ratings, but the CFC active ratings serve no purpose

[Fred McKim]

If you look at the website, and do a query by crosstable type = A, you will see that most months there are 3-4 Active tournaments rated by the CFC. Obviously there are some organizers and players that enjoy this rate of play.

[Tony Ficzere]

I have no problem with the CFC having active ratings, some people will use them. At our club, we decided not to rate active events any longer as the ratings were not very accurate. In other discussions, if the two systems were linked together, our players say they would not like to have the two systems linked as they did not want to have their regular rating on the line for game in 25. So, we simply run non-rated active events and save the money. People are happy using their regular ratings for ranking purposes only.

Anyway, active ratings in my opinion have no real purpose. I don't know anyone who really cares about their active rating. We will never have another event rated active at our club. Just not worth the money.

Cheers

[roger patterson]

. Totally different then the joke CFC Active rating that really, nobody cares about.

.

just imagine how much they would care about their CFC blitz rating...

[Christopher Mallon]

We will never have another event rated active at our club.

Then why do you care about any potential changes to active ratings?

[Kerry Liles]

Then why do you care about any potential changes to active ratings?

I suspect he isn't the only organizer who thinks Active ratings are worthless. Spending a lot of energy debating and refining a process that nobody cares about is truly a waste of time. Surely you want prominent organizers/club operators to weigh in on such an issue? - at least then you know the real picture.

[Christopher Mallon]

Sure we want input, of course! But if he has no intention of ever running another active event no matter what changes are made, then I'm not sure why he's opposing any potential changes.

Also, people apparently do care, as people are still running Active events.

[Tony Ficzere]

Then why do you care about any potential changes to active ratings?

What I am saying is that I wouldn't want a g/60 or less to affect regular ratings. I couldn't care less if you adjusted the active and regular rating with game/90 because active ratings serve no purpose.