Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Improving the CFC Rating System

  1. #1

    Default Improving the CFC Rating System

    CFC Secretary, Lyle Craver, has posted a cursory summary of the Agenda Item 7 thread under " Rating Auditor Report " in the confidential 2011 Fall Governors' On-line Meeting. The Minutes/Summaries will be posted in due course.

    But since members' have a particular interest in the rating system, one of the prime benefits of CFC membership, I am posting a " beefier " summary I did personally, in case members may have any comments now:

    CFC 2011 Fall Meeting – Agenda Item 7 – Rating Auditor ( Paul Leblanc ) Report – Unofficial Thread Summary


    1.The Average CFC’er. The average rating of all CFC members active in the past 12 months is 1190.

    2.Bonus Point Formula. The existing bonus point formula needs to be replaced with a model that targets truly exceptional performance. Paul hopes to bring a motion at the 2012 Winter Meeting.

    3.Rating Software Issues. There are a few errors in the rating software that will be corrected.

    4.Rated All-Junior Events -Time Control. Even all-junior events must be at least Game/60 to be “ Regular “ rated. “ Active “ junior tournaments are still being sent in and not caught and rated “ regular “. However some thought “ regular “ rating junior “ active “ tournaments encouraged participation, in a short time, had little effect on over-all ratings, produced future adult members, and that all-junior events will now cease being CFC-rated at all. Some said Juniors were uninterested in “ active ratings “, whereas others maintained they were valuable, and CFC is poorly marketing them. Does CFC prefer juniors show up at their first adult event with no regular rating, so their provisional rating can be set against the skill of their adult opponents? And in any event, making the junior time control 60 minutes will affect nothing in regard to ratings since the junior games will still be done in 20 minutes no matter what the time control and their interactive rating changes will still be identical. A solution to the problem might be that the active rating (or rename it junior rating) be for junior-only tournaments and the regular rating be for adult tournaments where juniors played – though then this removes active ratings from the adult purview, and some see “ active or rapid “ tournaments as a good marketing tool to encourage later regular tournament play. This system may negatively affect the YCC qualifiers, since they are usually 30 minute games.

    5. Under-rated Juniors. Juniors start off low usually, and increase strength fast, but the rating system doesn’t keep up. So juniors win games against higher-rated players ( usually adults ), against whom they should not be winning as many rating points as the system awards them. This is a serious concern – felt other changes will eliminate or at least minimize this problem. The “ regular “ rating of all-junior “ active “ tournaments, greatly exacerbates this problem in Paul’s opinion. One suggestion was for all U 12 players ( or age based on statistical analysis ), they have a continuous “ provisional “ rating, based on their most recent 24 games, to allow faster rise in their ratings. Also, putting a floor of 800 or 1000 on the CFC system might help ( European model ). Another proposal dealt with using under-rated junior ( however they may be identified ) “ performance “ ratings: rating changes are calculated based on junior’s 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.


    6. General Rating System Issues. Foreign players ratings become stale and inaccurate, but there is no easy answer to this.

    Any discussion on any of these issues would be welcome.

    Bob A

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    This is only a quibble but in your scenario of the 1300 player versus the 1800 player the loss is closer to 32 points than 30.

  3. #3

    Default

    Hi Vlad:

    I thought the system capped lost points in a game at " 30 pts. "?

    Bob A

    P.S. The example was from one of Bob Gillanders' posts.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,158
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
    Hi Vlad:

    I thought the system capped lost points in a game at " 30 pts. "?

    Bob A

    P.S. The example was from one of Bob Gillanders' posts.
    That was under the "old" formula that had one rating point for every 25 point rating difference (this can still of course be used as an estimate).

    With the new 'FIDE' table we use, yes you could lose 32 points. Check out the rating system from the Ratings section on the web site or in the handbook (they are identical).

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
    Hi Vlad:

    I thought the system capped lost points in a game at " 30 pts. "?

    Bob A

    P.S. The example was from one of Bob Gillanders' posts.
    Hi Bob,

    It used to be capped at 30 points until they modified it (many years ago) to use the stupid expectation chart. I just looked it up, and the exact amount would be 30.72 points, so Vlad is correct.

    I like to use the older system, just nostalgic I guess. It does give a very good approximation without having to look up the table.

    I see Fred types faster than I.
    Last edited by Bob Gillanders; 10-13-2011 at 01:34 PM.

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

    Default

    The chart is actually based on a formula. I looked it up in 2005 when investigating a revamp of the rating software - a formula being much easier to use than a chart for a computer program.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,158
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    The chart is actually based on a formula. I looked it up in 2005 when investigating a revamp of the rating software - a formula being much easier to use than a chart for a computer program.
    Roger Patterson came to that same conclusion. The Rating program currently uses the chart, but could use the formula when it's rewritten some day.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    The chart is actually based on a formula. I looked it up in 2005 when investigating a revamp of the rating software - a formula being much easier to use than a chart for a computer program.
    Actually it's not. The formula often used is 1/(1 + 10^(delta R/400)). This agrees with the table pretty closely but differs by as much as 0.015 for certain rating intervals. The table is the result of definition that cannot be written in closed form (as explained to me by Jeff Sonas)l

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,235
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by roger patterson View Post
    Actually it's not. The formula often used is 1/(1 + 10^(delta R/400)). This agrees with the table pretty closely but differs by as much as 0.015 for certain rating intervals. The table is the result of definition that cannot be written in closed form (as explained to me by Jeff Sonas)l
    I was of the understanding in 2005 that it was more due to rounding errors. I'd have to look through old emails to figure out more.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    I was of the understanding in 2005 that it was more due to rounding errors. I'd have to look through old emails to figure out more.
    that was my first impression too but a difference of 0.015 is outside rounding error which led to my further inquiries.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •