5I. Rating Auditor's Report

[Fred McKim]

Taken from 5. Executive & Special Officer's Reports

From Paul LeBlanc

Rating Auditor

The average rating of all players stands at 1408 as of mid-June 2013. It has been just over a year since the new bonus point formula was introduced and this average has increased about 200 points as expected. This is due to three factors: Many junior events have shifted to Active rating and reduced the production of low rated juniors by half (from 1500 to 750). Secondly, more juniors are beginning their chess experience with Active events then starting fresh with Provisional ratings that accurately reflect their playing strength when they start playing in serious events. Thirdly, most of the bonus points gained over the past year have gone to juniors, driving up some of their ratings 100 or 200 points per event.

The average now appears to have levelled off in the low 1400's

The average of all players above 1200 stands at 1750. This figure has remained remarkably constant since late 2009. It is my main indicator for inflation/deflation.

Finally, the median rating of the top 100 players is 2345. This has remained in a tight channel between 2345 and 2355 since late 2009.

Here is a link to the rating software calculator: http://www.victoriachess.com/cfcstat...g_type=regular

There was one event this year that included a few online games. The Canadian Military Championship included 3 players playing remotely from London, Ontario under the supervision of TD Steve Demmery. The event followed the new rules for rating CFC online events.

I am continuing discussion about the adviseability of adjusting the ratings of our strongest players to reduce the gap between CFC and FIDE ratings. Much more discussion is needed.

Paul Leblanc
Treasurer, Chess Foundation of Canada
CFC Rating Auditor
CFC Governor

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Here is a link to the rating software calculator: http://www.victoriachess.com/cfcstat...g_type=regular

The link does not work.

[Paul Leblanc]

http://www.victoriachess.com/cfcstat...g_type=regular

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I am continuing discussion about the adviseability of adjusting the ratings of our strongest players to reduce the gap between CFC and FIDE ratings. Much more discussion is needed.

imo, a simple adjustment (like CFC=FIDE) will not work if the formula is not tweaked too.
I would like too see what gains are in 5 rounds and 9 rounds tournaments for top players. (I know that there are not many 9 rounds tournaments :/

[Paul Leblanc]

Egidijus, can you give me a little more detail about which formula and why? I'd like to take your concerns into consideration in my examination of this issue.
I'll see if I can answer your second question. I can say that bonus point gains for top players over 2200 are reduced by half and in general there are not a lot of bonus points gained by that group. The gap between FIDE and CFC for players over 2200 has existed for a long time and I'm not sure I could identify the cause - I suspect that the old participation points bonus contributed to it.

[Félix Dumont]

Paul, I am a little bit worried to see that many youngsters now have a more representative (higher) rating much quicker. While we all agree that many are under-rated, this is the way ratings are controlled. Under-rated kids take away points from over-rated seniors. If we don't have under-rated juniors, what will keep the rating from inflating again in the long run? Completely eliminating bonus points would have been, IMO, the best way to assure representative ratings in a few years.

Also, did you look at the results of the Outaouais Open? The first section is a good example of the ratings difference between CFC,FQE and FIDE. All CFC NMs finished behind FQE NMs (the performances are quite surprising). It's only one tournament, but I think it does show the difference (although to be fair, Kevin Pacey did have a 2230 performance a few months before in Quebec).

[Pierre Dénommée]

A rating is a measure of the relative merit of the players. Because Canadian players play more CFC rated games,the CFC rating should be a better measure then the FIDE rating. Because ratings are relative, 2200 FQE, 2200 CFC and 2200 FIDE may denote different playing strength.

[Paul Leblanc]

Pierre is correct and that is something I have to be careful about if I adjust a few CFC ratings to match the players' FIDE ratings.
Felix, we modelled the bonus formula extensively before implementation and it showed that without a bonus point formula of some sort, there is inherent deflation. The trick is to inject exactly enough bonus points to counter the deflation.
I'd be curious to know how the FQE deals with this issue in their rating system.

[Félix Dumont]

I think it's obvious that a national rating should be more representative than FIDE rating. However, when we see GM Sambuev with a rating over 2700 and several FMs with a rating of about 2500, there's no doubt CFC rating is highly inflated.

The FQE rating system gives bonus points in only one situation : if you win more than 30 rating points (actually depend on the number of rounds), every rating point over 30 is doubled. This doesn't happen very often at high level, as this means a performance at least 150 points higher than one's rating. Also, there are lots of new players every year (probably a couple hundred from Quebec every year and a few dozen that come from Ontario to play), so it helps keeping the ratings down.

A good indicator that something is wrong with CFC ratings is that there is a clear trend between the number of CFC rated games one plays every year and the actual inflation (vs FIDE ratings). Basically, the more you play, the more your rating is likely to be inflated.

[Paul Leblanc]

There is a page on the CFC website that hasn't been updated for several years. It shows that the gap between FIDE and CFC ratings has been there for a long time and is only significant for players above 2200.
http://www.chess.ca/cfc-vs-fide-rating-comparison