Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: 7B DISCUSSION THREAD motion b

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,393

    Default

    With the text made by Paul I'm voting NO since it is not completely clear to me whether 'in the same manner' means CFC, USCF or FIDE and if I'm not completely sure, a lot of people will also be unsure.

    As such while I'm not against what I think Paul is driving at the text as given seems to me to be 'looking for trouble' so I won't be supporting it though would support a clearer motion.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Almonte, ON
    Posts
    371

    Default

    As per my last posting, I believe that the CFC and FQE should looks at means to combine their separate rating systems into one system, and thereby eliminate the issue at it's source. We would eliminate needless duplication.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    624

    Default

    Garland I agree with you but in the meantime we have a real time problem. The existing policy vacuum on how to treat FQE members when they play in their first CFC event means that they should be treated as UNRATED and they are obviously not.
    Lyle, the expression "in the same manner" means that FQE members will be started at their FQE rating and their CFC rating will be updated in the same way as people with USCF or FIDE ratings. It is a way of including FQE members in this clause without calling them "non-residents"
    Paul Leblanc
    Treasurer, Chess Foundation of Canada
    CFC Rating Auditor
    CFC Governor

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    1,977
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garland Best View Post
    As per my last posting, I believe that the CFC and FQE should looks at means to combine their separate rating systems into one system, and thereby eliminate the issue at it's source. We would eliminate needless duplication.
    I suspect that combining the ratings would effectively mean the "transfer of about 1/2 of a staff position" from one organization to the other. I suspect the FQE are not interested in giving up their rating system .........

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    624

    Default

    I suspect the FQE would be interested in taking over the rating responsibilities for the whole country. There are staffing and financial implications for the CFC to consider before entering into such a discussion but I certaintly wouldn't stand in the way.
    Paul Leblanc
    Treasurer, Chess Foundation of Canada
    CFC Rating Auditor
    CFC Governor

  6. #16

    Default

    Regarding the motion, as surprising as it may seem, it is actually to accomodate players from outside of Quebec. They do not want to play against strong FQE members who do not have a CFC rating, so it seems logical to give them their FQE rating (at least) as an original rating. I honestly do not know a lot of FQE members who care about their CFC rating. While I like the intention of the motion, I agree that it should be reformulated.

    Both federations would surely benefit financially from merging the rating systems. But I see two main issues :
    1) Converting the rating. I haven't checked lately, but 2 years ago it seemed like CFC ratings were about 100-150 points higher than FQE ratings (for players who played in both systems, such as those living in Gatineau). FQE ratings are similar to FIDE ratings, except for younger players. But obviously there are exceptions, which makes the task much harder. On one hand, creating an inflation by giving over 100 rating point to every FQE member would probably not be a great solution... But most CFC members would not want to lose 100 points to reach FIDE/CFC parity.
    2) Rating fees. The CFC rating fees are extremely high compared to any other organization (FIDE,FQE,USCF), which can discourage organizers.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Almonte, ON
    Posts
    371

    Default

    Felix, with regards to the rating discrepancy, the problem you describe is present whenever an event occurs with both FQE and CFC members participating. If the pools are merged, then yes, points will transfer from the ROC to Quebec, but it will be gradual, and amount to 50-75 points. Not a huge number. More important is addressing the differences in how the ratings are calculated.

    With respect to rating fees, I assume the reason rating fees are lower for the FQE and C&M is that they have a more efficient system. If true, then contracting the rating system to the FQE would results in cost savings to the CFC which we could pass along to our members. Another reason to do so.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,393

    Default

    Would it be true to say that any ratings discrepancy is minimal when outside Ontario and New Brunswick? I can't visualize BC and Quebec (for instance) having a great deal of interplay between rating pools.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    1,977
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle Craver View Post
    Would it be true to say that any ratings discrepancy is minimal when outside Ontario and New Brunswick? I can't visualize BC and Quebec (for instance) having a great deal of interplay between rating pools.
    Your two sentences seem contradictory ........

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
  •