10. 2012-S Improved Bonus Point Formula

[Kevin Pacey]

Moving (looking for a seconder) to amend:

"Bonus points are not calculated for players rated above 2199"

Now that Lyle has seconded your amendment above, Egidijus, would you be able to provide a rationale for it at this time?

I'd repeat myself, more or less, in saying I haven't got a reason to vote in favour of this amendment, as I haven't seen a reason not to trust the modeling behind the original motion. However Paul Leblanc suggested 2399 as an optional dividing line (for no longer awarding bonus points), so I wonder if there was a variant model done for that option as well.

The old CFC rating formula that was around in the 1980's (if not before) chose 2299 as the dividing line. That old formula held up well for many years, I'm told, until it was changed (but by then the number of CFC members may have become significantly smaller).

[Paul Leblanc]

Kevin, I'll relay this question to Roger Patterson to see what he thinks. I don't think he modelled any upper limits to the bonus point system but we discussed it briefly when Fred McKim suggested 2400.

[Paul Leblanc]

I've discussed this with Roger and I recommend against this amendment for the following reasons:
1. there is insufficient time to re-test our models and analyse the results within the timeframe for this meeting;
2. the levels being discussed (2200, 2300 and 2400) seem arbitrary and the logic leading to the motion has been pretty thin.

What I suggest instead is that the governors task me with examining whether a cap on the bonus system would be beneficial in achieving whatever aim you feel you are trying to achieve by capping the bonus system (less volatility at the top? perceived inflation among top players? reduce fluctuation of standings to make Olympiad selection easier? other reasons?)

If I am given a task along these lines, I can come up with some options for the next meeting. In the meantime, we can implement the new Bonus Point System and perhaps get some real time data on the impact it will have on strong players.

[Kevin Pacey]

Hi Paul

At the moment I like the idea of passing your original motion (i.e. without the amendment) and seeing what happens.

As far as the Governors assigning you any task of the sort you suggested, I would have thought that generally (or in any aspect) monitoring the rating system throughout a given term is covered in the Rating Auditor's volunteer job description in the Handbook:

From Section 2:

RATING AUDITOR

10. The Rating Auditor shall supervise the operation of the rating system and shall deal with rating appeals.

In short, I think this means you get to decide, with the help of any advice you receive (from Governors or otherwise), whether the rating system needs to be changed by the Governors at any point in time.

[Kevin Pacey]

Personally (especially if my interpretation of the Handbook above is correct), I think the Rating Auditor position should have been left as an Executive position. However, I wasn't around [edit: as a Governor] for the vote on that issue, I'm pretty sure.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Egidijus, would you be able to provide a rationale for it at this time?

A.
'cause I compared rating plots at FIDE for the sampled players from http://www.victoriachess.com/cfc/cfc_rating_doc.htm
They better matched when the CFC system uses no bonus points. As the both ratings still are in use for as a selection criteria , imho, they should be equivalent without big differences.

B.
above 2199 (or >=2200) - a master level rating (even FIDE long time ago used as a floor for its rating). And the difference between classes/categories 2300/2400/2500 are significant. However, the bonus system may add ~100 points per tournament on regular bases (the Gillanders' case). In the Leblanc's case, the bonus was ~200 points, though after that the rating slowly goes down.

C.
IMHO

[Gordon Ritchie]

I support Paul's suggestion.

[Lyle Craver]

*** NOTICE TO GOVERNORS ***

Mr. Zeromskis has made an amendment to this motion that would delete all clauses relating to players rated over 2200 (seconded by myself for discussion).

This amendment is in a 'sticky' labelled CALL FOR VOTES and I urge each of you to respond.

The voting deadline is Thursday at 9pm ET.

Thanks,
Lyle Craver
Secretary, Chess Federation of Canada

[Paul Leblanc]

The proposed amendment seems not to reflect Egidijus' proposal to remove 2200 players from the equations.

[Michael von Keitz]

The proposed amendment seems not to reflect Egidijus' proposal to remove 2200 players from the equations.

It seems to have been correctly stated in the preamble to the poll. If the amendment passes, it will be understood as players rated above 2199, not above 2200.