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