View Poll Results: Amendment 2012-S-1

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • Vote YES

    6 26.09%
  • Vote NO

    13 56.52%
  • ABSTAIN

    4 17.39%
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: CALL FOR VOTE: Amendment to Motion 2012-S

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default CALL FOR VOTE: Amendment to Motion 2012-S

    NOTE: So we are all clear, the intent of the amendment is to prevent players with a rating above 2199 from receiving bonus points.

    The amendment to 2012-S (Moved Egidijus Zeromskis, seconded Lyle Craver) is to remove all references to players rated over 2199.

    Voting starts immediately with polling to end Thursday at the start of the voting period at 9 pm ET.

    Here is the original motion (with the text to be removed in red):

    Moved by Paul Leblanc
    Seconded by Fred McKim

    To replace the existing Bonus Point Formula (CFC Handbook Art. 714.d) with the following:

    BONUS 1 = Rmax BONUS *a*Ke
    BONUS 2 = b*RATING CHANGE BONUS*(Rnew – Rold – THRESHOLD)*Ke
    TOTAL BONUS = BONUS 1 + BONUS 2

    where:
    a = 1 if the new rating is at an all time high, 0 otherwise;
    b = 1 if Rnew > Rold + Threshold, 0 otherwise;

    Threshold = RtgChangeThreshold*Ke*sqrt(n) where n is the number of games played; no bonus points are awarded if less than 4 games are played;

    Ke is the ratio of the player's K factor to the K factor used for players rated under 2200; For the CFC rating system, K=32 for players under 2200 and K=16 for players at or over 2200;

    Rnew is the post-event rating and Rold is the pre-event rating;
    and RatingMaxBonus, RtgChangeBonus, and RtgChangeThreshold are constants with the following values:
    RatingMaxBonus = 20; RtgChangeBonus = 1.75; RtgChangeThreshold = 13.

    The numerical values in the bonus point equation may be adjusted from time to time by the Rating Auditor as deemed necessary and in consultation with the CFC Executive
    Last edited by Michael von Keitz; 04-05-2012 at 10:57 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    This is a tricky one since based on the wording one could get confused.

    A "yes" vote means no bonus points for masters.
    A "no" vote means there are to be bonus points for masters.

    Depending on the result of the amendment vote we will be voting on either the amended or original motion.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle Craver View Post
    This is a tricky one since based on the wording one could get confused.

    A "yes" vote means no bonus points for masters.
    A "no" vote means there are to be bonus points for masters.

    Depending on the result of the amendment vote we will be voting on either the amended or original motion.
    Lyle,

    In the case where some governors may have misunderstood the amendment, can you confirm that you will accept a change of vote if you receive an email indicating as such?

    I ask not for myself, since I waited until we all got the clarification.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,235
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    A clarification please: If the amendment passes, does this mean that players above 2199 do not receive bonus points, or that bonus points are not applied above 2199?

    The second way would be far more fair, IMHO, rather than giving an advantage to being rated 2199 vs 2200.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ottawa Ontario National Master Former Gov.
    Posts
    10,871
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    A clarification please: If the amendment passes, does this mean that players above 2199 do not receive bonus points, or that bonus points are not applied above 2199?

    The second way would be far more fair, IMHO, rather than giving an advantage to being rated 2199 vs 2200.
    Chris, maybe it's just me, but I don't see the difference between the first way you gave and your second way, by the way you've phrased them.

    I suspect you want to know if a player rated 2199 still receives bonus points (until, or even after, his rating crosses 2200 at some point in the computations).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    players above 2199 do not receive bonus points,
    I meant this case. It is more simple to implement. And matter of fact: >=2200 is Rold (before the event)
    .*-1

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    I could accept a change in vote if sent by e-mail timestamped before the voting deadline. (I am very specific on this point because I have previously received e-mails with timestamps after the voting deadline seeking to vote or change a vote and to those I've had to say "very sorry but...")

    Please note that the forum software does not allow a change of vote so if someone were to change his/her mind e-mail would be the only way.

    In general though my reading of 2010-18 (the motion creating the online meeting format) says we do voting only via the forum. Since the software does not allow something that the CFC has always allowed (ie changing one's mind), some flexibility is required.

    Though my long-term hope is that the software adapt to how we do business rather than workarounds when it doesn't!

    A caveat - any Governor wishing to do this should do so as far ahead of the deadline as possible as when the closing time comes round we work very hard to give fast reporting of results - and there is definitely a time-delay in e-mail. It's usually less than 5 minutes but can be over an hour.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    694

    Default

    Removing the definition of K factor for 2200+ players isn't the correct way to amend this motion. However, I think we all understand the intent and if the amendment passes, I will adjust the formulae to achieve the aim.
    However, I caution against implementing an amendment such as this that has no scientific basis. Why 2200?
    Paul Leblanc
    Treasurer, Chess Foundation of Canada
    CFC Voting Member

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Pacey View Post
    Chris, maybe it's just me, but I don't see the difference between the first way you gave and your second way, by the way you've phrased them.

    I suspect you want to know if a player rated 2199 still receives bonus points (until, or even after, his rating crosses 2200 at some point in the computations).
    What I meant is that once you hit 2200 (ie 2199 + 1 or whatever) no more bonus points are applied. I don't see why this would be any easier or more difficult to apply than the other way... maybe it takes 30 seconds longer to program.

    Example - two players in an event, They both play the same players with the same results. Player A started at 2199, player B started at 2200. Player A would end up with a higher rating than Player B, just because he happened to start out below the artificial threshold.

    Since it was defeated it's a moot point, I just wanted you to see where I was coming from.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ottawa Ontario National Master Former Gov.
    Posts
    10,871
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    What I meant is that once you hit 2200 (ie 2199 + 1 or whatever) no more bonus points are applied. I don't see why this would be any easier or more difficult to apply than the other way... maybe it takes 30 seconds longer to program.

    Example - two players in an event, They both play the same players with the same results. Player A started at 2199, player B started at 2200. Player A would end up with a higher rating than Player B, just because he happened to start out below the artificial threshold.

    Since it was defeated it's a moot point, I just wanted you to see where I was coming from.
    Yes, I believe that's what I suspected you meant, even if I didn't express it in a manner you agreed with.

Posting Permissions

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