Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: 5B3 - NEW MOTIONS - Olympic Team Selection (Moved Victor Plotkin,Seconded Fred McKim)

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    826

    Default

    We could also consider migrating the CFC rating to the Glicko-2 rating system. The Australian Chess Federation has already done that. The system gives both a rating and a measure of the reliability of the rating. If the CFC rating of a given player is really unreliable, this will be shown.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glicko_rating_system
    http://auschess.org.au/acf/ratings/

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Almonte, ON
    Posts
    371

    Default

    Well, let's look at examples. (Apologies i do not have full access to the FIDE database as i am not registered, so in some places I'm making an educated guess. Someone can please correct my calculations).

    Going with Top 10 CFC rated players:

    Evgeny Bareev: played 26 FIDE rated games over past 36 months, so just FIDE works.
    Razvan Preotu: played more than 20 FIDE games this summer, so just FIDE works.
    Eric Hansen: played more than 20 FIDE games this year, so just FIDE works.
    Nikolay Noritsyn: played more than 20 Fide games over past 18 months, so just FIDE works.
    Bator Sambuev: Lots of FIDE games, so just FIDE works.

    And yes, no need to do any math for the top 20 Canadian players. They have all played sufficient FIDE games.

    Let's move to the women:

    Qiyu Zhou - easily has 20 FIDE games this year.
    Agnieszka Matras-Clement - also meets the 20 game FIDE number
    Alexandra Botez - played only 16(?) FIDE games the past 2 years, but has CFC rated events to make the difference. FIDE rating: 2051 CFC rating:2273 Rating = [16 * 2051 + 4 * 2273]/20 = 2095
    Valeria Gansvind - has four rating entries, so i think she meets the 20 game requirement.
    Natalia Khoudgarian - played only 15(?) games the past 2 years, all FIDE and CFC rated. Eligibility issue.
    Lali Agbabishvili - played 20 FIDE games this year, so FIDE rating.
    Jackie Peng: Not enough games to be eligible.
    Nava Starr: Last FIDE event in September 2015. I'll assume 5 games. Has more than 15 CFC games. FIDE rating: 2127 CFC rating:2142 Rating = [5 * 2127 + 15 * 2142]/20 = 2131

    I don't see how these calculations are more complicated, and for almost all players the FIDE rating is the one that ends up being used, 100%.

    I think this is a win-win. You get your FIDE ratings used for the top players, while the others get rated based on their total games played, not just FIDE games, and we don't discriminate based on gender, age, etc.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    144

    Default

    Garland,

    In your example we use FIDE rating only for the Woman Team also. Even for active player with FIDE around 2000-2100, CFC still is very reliable, especially for juniors (girls) with the FIDE K-factor of 40.

    Another problem in your example: your propose to rely more on CFC rating for the less active player. Usually, CFC is higher than FIDE by 100-150 points. So, less active player gets a big advantage. I do not think we want it.

    I don't see any problem if we use different formula for different teams. Their average rating is completely different (2600 and 2100). I see absolutely no gender discrimination here. We can use borderline of 2300. If Woman Team has the average FIDE above 2300, we switch to using FIDE rating only for them as well. Hopefully, the average rating for the National Team remains above 2300 for the foreseeable future.
    Last edited by Victor Plotkin; 11-22-2016 at 08:20 AM.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kanata, Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Plotkin View Post
    Garland,

    In your example we use FIDE rating only for the Woman Team also. Even for active player with FIDE around 2000-2100, CFC still is very reliable, especially for juniors (girls) with the FIDE K-factor of 40.

    Another problem in your example: your propose to rely more on CFC rating for the less active player. Usually, CFC is higher than FIDE by 100-150 points. So, less active player gets a big advantage. I do not think we want it.

    I don't see any problem if we use different formula for different teams. Their average rating is completely different (2600 and 2100). I see absolutely no gender discrimination here. We can use borderline of 2300. If Woman Team has the average FIDE above 2300, we switch to using FIDE rating only for them as well. Hopefully, the average rating for the National Team remains above 2300 for the foreseeable future.
    Victor, I prefer the way you phrased it in the last paragraph (average rating vs. gender, there'll always be someone crying "gender foul". I also want to take a moment to say thanks for even having thought of all these angles, and how to bring them together. I respectfully caution any of my peers for overly picking on any single criteria. I have deep confidence Victor is building something much more just than we have ever seen before, and he's broken it down so we can vote on parts of it. However, doesn't it defeat the purpose of the exercise if we overly shoot down or reinvent-the-wheel on any single aspect, especially if the result is out-of-sync with Victor's overall vision? This is just my personal opinion, and of course you don't have to agree. So far, I expect to be voting with confidence for Victor. If it's a close call in my mind, I'm going with Victor's judgment.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,303

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Plotkin View Post
    Michael,

    I was really surprised to read your post. Your example with Sambuev, LeSiege, Preotu and Noritsyn is excellent. Your explanation (young - experienced) is ... not exactly right.

    Hopefully, many governors know about the gap between CFC and FIDE rating. This gap was created long time ago with "artificial inflation" in CFC rating (around 2007-2008). Right now, we don't have inflation in CFC rating, but the gap still exists. Another problem: the gap is very different in different provinces. In Ontario the gap is almost 150 points, in Quebec and BC the gap is around 70 points only. Why? Because during the period of "artificial inflation" Ontario players played more tournaments and got more bonus points. Sooner or later, the gap will be the same everywhere in Canada, but it will take many years. How many years? Around 20-30, in my opinion.

    Now, if you take CFC rating into account, you discriminate players outside of Ontario. Ontario players have higher CFC rating not because they are younger. Many times, my CFC rating was very close to rating of GM Roussel-Roozmon, while his FIDE rating was about 150-200 points higher. He is 20 years younger than me.

    Sambuev used to be a 2700 CFC player. Now he is around 2600. Why? Not because he lost 100 points of "strength". His FIDE is about the same level, around 2530-2550. Because he used to play mostly in Ontario, and now he plays mostly in Quebec.
    Victor,
    You describes a problem with CFC rating, and I agree with you.
    I describe a problem with FIDE rating - it puts too much weight on past results, and thus distorts the current situation.

    Yes, Sambuev used to be a 2700 CFC player. Now he is around 2600. Why?
    Because the situation changed - he doesn't dominate Canadian chess anymore.
    He used to be Canadian Champion - not anymore.
    He used to win majority of Canadian events with perfect score - not anymore.
    Now we have several young players who can successfully compete with him.
    The CFC rating reflects the new reality, while FIDE rating is lagging behind.

    No rating system is perfect - what's why we use a combination of both.
    The practical effect of this motion - is a punishment for players who regularly play in Canada, what's why I strongly oppose it.
    Last edited by Michael Barron; 11-22-2016 at 04:04 PM.
    Thanks,
    Michael Barron

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    144

    Default

    Thank you for accepting my point about problems with CFC rating. I truly appreciate it.

    Your discussion about Sambuev is misplaced. Chesstalk is a much better place to do it. You will get a lot of interesting replies. I promise you.

    I recall, we had a conversation by phone about my proposals. If I could not convince you that time, I have no chance to convince you now. So I will not try anymore. Your best choice is to vote against my proposals.

    I wish you a good performance at World Senior.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aris Marghetis View Post
    Victor, I prefer the way you phrased it in the last paragraph (average rating vs. gender, there'll always be someone crying "gender foul". I also want to take a moment to say thanks for even having thought of all these angles, and how to bring them together. I respectfully caution any of my peers for overly picking on any single criteria. I have deep confidence Victor is building something much more just than we have ever seen before, and he's broken it down so we can vote on parts of it. However, doesn't it defeat the purpose of the exercise if we overly shoot down or reinvent-the-wheel on any single aspect, especially if the result is out-of-sync with Victor's overall vision? This is just my personal opinion, and of course you don't have to agree. So far, I expect to be voting with confidence for Victor. If it's a close call in my mind, I'm going with Victor's judgment.
    Aris, I agree with your post 100%.

    Victor, take it easy and thank you for well thought motions. I'll vote Yes to all 6 motions.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Almonte, ON
    Posts
    371

    Default

    Folks, in case anyone has the wrong impression, I also recognize and appreciate the thought that Victor has placed in drafting his proposal. I just want us to consider other possible options, hopefully better ones, before committing to a final formula.

    I just want to make it clear that my posts are given as constructive criticism, with the goal of giving us the best formula possible. It was never intended to "shoot down" Victor. Far from it. But the voting should be based on whether we believe each portion of the proposed formula is objectively the best option, or if a better one exists. And if we think there is a better option we should voice that option and be prepared to defend it. Isn't that the point of these meetings?

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,204
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée View Post
    We could also consider migrating the CFC rating to the Glicko-2 rating system. The Australian Chess Federation has already done that. The system gives both a rating and a measure of the reliability of the rating. If the CFC rating of a given player is really unreliable, this will be shown.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glicko_rating_system
    http://auschess.org.au/acf/ratings/

    I don’t see the advantage of migrating to someone else’s rating system.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,204
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Victor Plotkin is the masters representative. We should listen to him when discussing items that largely affect only our top players like our Olympiad team members. My impression is that most of the top players are not enthusiastic about the current selection committee setup. I do understand Michael Barron's point about wanting to encourage top players to play in the CFC but at a certain point players do reach a point where if they want to progress they need to concentrate on higher level competition. The more players that we have in this category, the more successful we will be at future Olympiads.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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