15. 2012-O Rating of Junior Events (Vlad Rekhson)

[Christopher Field]

Vlad Drkulec writes:

I don't think the aim should be to get the qualifiers over in a decent period of time. I understand that some kids' parents are hung up on getting a regular rating but I do think that this does damage the integrity of our rating system. Game in 30 minutes is totally different from game in 60 minutes though they do share some common characteristics. I would be more comfortable with making game in 60 minutes active rather than making game in 30 regular rated for anyone.

Please note: this motion concerns junior-only events. In these events, most of the players are new and not members. But even more experienced juniors tend to be able to play as strong a game in 30 minutes as most of us older folks may play in 60 or more. Not all, but most.
The second point is that only a few of the non-members will go on to join and play in regular tournaments. BUT we need those that do. AND they are less likely to try out with the junior-only events if these events cease to be regular-rated.
Finally, rating junior-only events at G/30 in the regular rating system is NOT what results in having juniors playing at a level way above their rating. The low-rated junior problem, as has been pointed out, is a long-time problem, pre-dating this. Other changes to the system can be made to address this problem directly.

We need to re-instate the special treatment of junior-only events in order to continue to attract players to join the CFC.

Chris Field.

[Michael Barron]

Did this practice damage the rating system?

Yes, Egis, unfortunately, this practice had damaged the rating system.

One example - the necessity to add manually ~400 points to the CFC rating of World Champion Jason Cao last year.

Another example is here:
http://chess.ca/crosstable?tournamen...054&key=120102

Class A player with provisional rating 1946 enters this scholastic event, wins all 5 games, and... loses ~500 rating points!

The end result:
This Class A player enters next CFC event with the artificial rating 1464!

Hope, we all agree that this is a problem.

How could we solve this problem?

The simplest solution - just to follow the rules.

Of course, there could be other solutions as well, and I'm interested to hear them...

[Vladimir Drkulec]

We need to re-instate the special treatment of junior-only events in order to continue to attract players to join the CFC.

Chris Field.

I just don't see how having everyone play by the same rules is going to cause anyone to stop playing or attract fewer players to join the CFC.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Yes, Egis, unfortunately, this practice had damaged the rating system.

One example - the necessity to add manually ~400 points to the CFC rating of World Champion Jason Cao last year.

Over the cfc lifetime many rating rises were done even before rapid scholastic events. As for a Jason case not many were happy with this artificial increanment.

Another example is here:
http://chess.ca/crosstable?tournamen...054&key=120102

Class A player with provisional rating 1946 enters this scholastic event, wins all 5 games, and... loses ~500 rating points!

The end result:
This Class A player enters next CFC event with the artificial rating 1464!

Hope, we all agree that this is a problem.

And still her rating was provisional, thus we saw big swings. Did you notice that her first rating 1946 was given for one game?


(

The simplest solution - just to follow the rules.

Of course, there could be other solutions as well, and I'm interested to hear them...

Next time, or the next tread about fast-advancing juniors/youth.

[Halldor P. Palsson]

We used to rate G/30 all junior events in the regular rating system. When the rule was abolished the CFC continued to rate these events. Rating kids G/30 regular helps a certain number of chess schools and brought us a few new members per year.

By a way background, the chess schools tend to use short lesson and play a game format for their sessions. Sessions typically last an hour or two. The CFC regular rating is a selling point - allowes the schools to market that they are more serious than the learn to play environment these kids usually came from.

The rating of G/30 all junior events per se has no impact on the regular rating system as it pertains to adults - this is a closed pool of junior players only and a large majority of those juniors does not go any further in chess.

The impact occurs when some kids start regular tournaments with adults. The kids can arrive rated CFC 800-1100, which maybe far too low. A typical pattern for these players is that they play adults/juniors in regualr tournaments and gain 400-600 points and then they exit the system. There is little joy in the CFC membership of D-C-B players who are the principal source of said 400-600 points.

[Christopher Mallon]

The rating of G/30 all junior events per se has no impact on the regular rating system as it pertains to adults - this is a closed pool of junior players only and a large majority of those juniors does not go any further in chess.

The impact occurs when some kids start regular tournaments with adults. The kids can arrive rated CFC 800-1100, which maybe far too low. A typical pattern for these players is that they play adults/juniors in regualr tournaments and gain 400-600 points and then they exit the system. There is little joy in the CFC membership of D-C-B players who are the principal source of said 400-600 points.

These two statements are contradictory. First you state that there is no impact, then you proceed to demonstrate a rather serious impact.

Mostly-closed rating pools are bad enough in any circumstances, we don't need to be encouraging them.

[Paul Leblanc]

Halldor and Egidijus: The Jason Cao case happened before I became rating auditor but the injustice of his situation got me interested in the problem of under-rated juniors.
Jason showed up at his first non-junior event with a provisional rating of 874 and over the next 5 serious tournaments his performance rating averaged 700 points higher than that. Not only was Jason's rating held back artificially by his junior games but his opponents over the next 5 events suffered unnecessarily.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Halldor and Egidijus: The Jason Cao case happened before I became rating auditor but the injustice of his situation got me interested in the problem of under-rated juniors.
Jason showed up at his first non-junior event with a provisional rating of 874 and over the next 5 serious tournaments his performance rating averaged 700 points higher than that. Not only was Jason's rating held back artificially by his junior games but his opponents over the next 5 events suffered unnecessarily.

IMHO, it is a problem of the rating formula than tournaments (Nothing stops beginners to start play >1 hour games. For rating purposes it would give similar effect. Maybe everything would be slower as not many games would be rated.)
+
The CFC must encourage a mixture of tournaments: between various chess schools, club, towns, cities, regions, provinces, etc.
Even adults' rating can stagnate if they would play in one "closed" club.

[Fred McKim]

IMHO, it is a problem of the rating formula than tournaments (Nothing stops beginners to start play >1 hour games. For rating purposes it would give similar effect. Maybe everything would be slower as not many games would be rated.)
+
The CFC must encourage a mixture of tournaments: between various chess schools, club, towns, cities, regions, provinces, etc.
Even adults' rating can stagnate if they would play in one "closed" club.

Our motion for a quick rating system is to actually promote chess played at these quicker levels, and for children at the lower rating levels they can treat these as valued ratings.

[Mark S. Dutton, I.A.]

I recommend governors reject this motion. Some of the reasons are:

1. It treats one group of chess players differently from the rest;

2. It distorts the rating system because many younger players who play twenty five 30 minute games against weak opposition get permanent ratings that are far below their actual playing strength. Then, instead of starting over with Provisional ratings when they start playing in serious tournaments, they bring artificially acquired low ratings with them. This impacts eligibility for class prizes and fosters ill will between juniors and experienced players;

3. The 30 minute events are likely violating other CFC rules. Are the moves recorded? Are games adjudicated at the end of a one hour round and if so what criteria is used to award a win? Are clocks used at all? I attended a junior event a couple of years ago where the TD's only instruction was that anyone making 3 illegal moves would forfeit the game.

4. There is a very viable alternative. Some organizers have adapted to my audits by giving the strongest players 60 minute each time controls and using Active rating for the less experienced kids. There is a separate initiative led by Bob Armstrong to rejuvinate the CFC Active rating system to make it more appealing to a wider audience.

I agree with our Rating Auditor!

Our "Essential Rules" require a minimum of 1 hour per side to be a regular rated game. Some of the games at these events are completed in "minutes" - faster than some blitz games.

They should not be treated as REGULAR rating.

To accommodate the new Juniors, rating these events REGULAR causes a deflation of the regular ratings of Adults. We will have to be more creative to bring the juniors "into line" with the CFC regular rating system - but not following our Handbook is not a wise choice at all.

Did you know ... that from our Handbook http://chess.ca/section-7

"710. ESSENTIAL REGULATIONS

711. Rateable Tournaments. To be rated under the CFC "standard" rating system the time control must be at least 60 minutes per player for the game (or for 60 moves with increment). To be rated under the CFC Active rating system the time control must be at least 15 minutes but less than 60 minutes per player for the game (or for 60 moves with increment)."

There may be many complicated time controls. The intention is to stick to the maximum game time. Non sudden death time controls shall not have a rate of play exceeding one move per minute. For both rating systems, all secondary time controls must be a minimum of 5 minutes long.

All games in a tournament should fit the same category. All time controls of a tournament must be advertised and/or posted prior to the tournament. Any Active rated tournament must be advertised as such prior to the tournament.

During a rated event, no player is allowed to be in competition with more than 1 opponent, including opponents in other events. [CFC Executive motion carried, 2001-02]

The Executive Director has discretion to accept or refuse any tournament for rating where the intent of this rule has not been followed. [see Motion 90-11, as amended, GL, September 1990, p. 1-13 - 1-14]"