Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Improving the CFC Rating System

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,148
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    Well the argument remains that it is in fact the table which is inaccurate, not the formula.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    Well the argument remains that it is in fact the table which is inaccurate, not the formula.
    no... the formula I gave is a closed form expression which is an approximation of the [non closed form] result (and a pretty good approximation but still an approximation). The table is the one that is [more] accurate.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ottawa Ontario National Master Former Gov.
    Posts
    2,433
    Blog Entries
    58

    Default

    Here's a belated anecdote about CFC rating reform around this time, fwiw. Around 2007-2010 I studied hard, especially in late 2007 (after not renewing my CFC membership [I did so less than a year later]), with mixed results for a couple of years to show for it, but, at the age of almost 50, in 2010 I obtained a regular CFC rating of just over 2400. CFC ratings were (IMO) still generally deflating (in Ottawa everyone closest to me who was still playing were sub-2200, including the many who were 2300+ not many years before). I soon noted in passing on chesstalk a couple times, with some pride, that I had managed this achievement at my advanced age (forgetting I had been 2400+ regular USCF in my youth, after 9 games). Some may have taken it as sheer unadulterated (even irksome) boasting.

    So, just perhaps not by chance, Roger soon did a study of about 10 players (including my name in it) and posted a graph to show that compared to where he was (B.C.), ratings were deflated compared to where I was (Ottawa, and some other places were thrown in too), as even he was rated 'less than some of his former rating peers' (masters) in Ottawa (I did point out on chesstalk that all in Ottawa were now under 2200, too, except for me, after hard study, but got no acknowledgement on that point).

    Well, it did not take long for the CFC rating system to be changed once Roger got things moving - one step the CFC took was to axe participation points, but in return, modified the way bonus points are awarded (sometimes now generously). Whatever the reason (I suspect discontinued study habits, and some new and/or young opponents), my rating nose-dived quickly in the later stages of 2010, well before the new rating system clearly had made any real effect on most people's ratings by itself, IMO.

    But, my irksome boasting (it had seemed) was apparently not in vain, as Roger did a very good (and IMO badly overdo) job of correcting the CFC rating system, suffering due to overall deflation as I think it still was. One regret I have is that participation points, if continued in some way, might have been good for the CFC's business, by allowing them to slightly inflate many players' ratings (and egos) and also by arguably encouraging people to play in tournament games more often (so as to get more participation points and potentially higher ratings). I also think a USCF-style rating floor would be good for business, and help fight any potential sandbagging in tournaments.
    Last edited by Kevin Pacey; 03-04-2020 at 10:03 PM. Reason: Spelling
    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kanata, Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Pacey View Post
    ... I also think a USCF-style rating floor would be good for business, and help fight any potential sandbagging in tournaments.
    So at first thought, I liked the idea of rating floors. I thought that more people would too. I figured it was a good way for older players to keep playing in rating categories that had a higher proportion of adults than lower rating categories. For example, one is more likely to play more adults in U1900 than in an U1600.

    However, when I floated a similar idea once (I recollect it was highest rating in the previous two years), I received quite a bit of pushback. The reasoning, which I completely understand, is that if a player is declining, but we keep him/her above a rating floor, then they'll often lose every single game, which is no fun at all.

    I'm interested in what others think. Would you put more value in the "prestige comfort" of playing in the section you used to play in for years, or would you more appreciate having mostly truly competitive games? If there's other angles I haven't thought of, feel free to post them too. This would be a big change in our system.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ottawa Ontario National Master Former Gov.
    Posts
    2,433
    Blog Entries
    58

    Default

    Players do decline in terms of their invisible so-called rating ceiling (not a term used in any rating system, afaik), dependent on such things as talent, age and study, as they get older. In Secrets of Practical Chess, GM Nunn claims most players [never] get anywhere near their rating ceiling [whatever their age at the time] - his point is that they don't study enough or, more according to his point of view, don't do so in the right ways. Perhaps many who object to the idea of a rating floor due to the reasoning you gave are unaware of Nunn's point of view - in which case maybe a rating floor is bad for business, if most people feel that way. If they were to ask me, I'd say regardless of age, unless their health is poor, improved study should help them win games even if there is a rating floor introduced. I'm also not sure how they can lose every game if they don't study, assuming they play in open tournaments at least now and then. [edit: what might be less fun to some such objecting players is if all of the cash-prize weekend tournaments in their area are organized into rating sections, such as in Ottawa, where we are - the players I'd think would tend to care most about winning the odd cash prize, and would care less about open tournaments if these have no such prizes, as is generally the case with open tournaments (or round-robins) at the RA club in Ottawa; again my suggestion to them would be to study better (though local Ottawa organizers, for example, also could provide more cash prize open tournaments in case a rating floor is adopted by the CFC)]

    The pushback I got (well before this post) against a rating floor (I guess it would be similar for participation points) is that at least some chess players (and with them, CFC officers) are such sticklers for perfection and truth that they cannot bear the thought of a rating system even temporarily slightly inflated (subject to correction at some later date, if getting out of hand), however good a little inflation of their rating may make them feel when someone unaware of the inflation asks or looks up what their rating is.
    Last edited by Kevin Pacey; 02-17-2020 at 10:37 PM. Reason: Spelling
    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ottawa Ontario National Master Former Gov.
    Posts
    2,433
    Blog Entries
    58

    Default

    I've edited my previous post, for any who may have missed that.
    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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