Yes I remembered later that that was around the time they changed the rule to allow Junior events of any time control to be Standard rated.
Yes I remembered later that that was around the time they changed the rule to allow Junior events of any time control to be Standard rated.
There is currently 3 active events posted on the BCCF webpage. One for May, June and July. All of them Non-CFC events. This is a prime example of why adding barriers to CFC events is a bad idea. 3/6 events posted are not CFC rated.
Personally in the last 6 months I have played in 2 non cfc events and only one CFC event.
Now the tournament fee is $20 as of May 1, in case anyone doesn't know. Recent discussion on chesstalk indicates that an interesting alternative for organizers might be to have seperate section and/or entry standard for non-CFC players at regular [or Active] events, with cheap entry fees and no cash prizes, but with trophies offered for those who do well in the tournament/their section.Originally Posted by roger patterson
There were actually only a couple of Active events on the RA club calender last year - the others were one day weekend Active events, now organized by Aris, which have a different format than when you left town. I don't particularly like the format for these myself: only 3 rounds for a higher fee, and no cash prizes still (there are now trophies for these events - but I have little desire for any more of these personally, especially living in a small apartment, unless perhaps I am standing beside a VIP or, say, Miss Canada, being photographed or filmed for posterity when I receive a trophy, which hopefully would be a major one).
For the record, I didn't imply that it's untrue many people don't care about their Active rating. Instead I offered my admittedly vague recollection of a chesstalk poll which showed that many people do care. At least more than a few.
It would be nice to know if at this year's CFC Annual Meeting any governors/executives are going to raise the matter of the CFC Active rating system being deflated - as Chris Mallon's first post in this thread acknowleged.
The CFC's Rating Auditor has an especially shameful role in this typical piece of CFC neglect .
Now that the new CFC Executive has been elected at the CFC AGM in Edmonton, I would hope that the new Rating Auditor would expeditiously place the CFC Active rating system under scrutiny and subsequently correct its evident and serious deflation.
Hi Kevin:
I'd suggest you also e-mail Bill Doubleday a copy of this post - direct communication may also help.
Bob
Hi Bob
I sent Bill a request on the subject at hand, by email just now. It's sort of nice to see the new CFC Executive is listed under the 'Contacts' link on the CFC website already. I previously was unsuccessful sending an email to Bill on a different matter, possibly because I had technical difficulties (I can't quite remember). Anyway I'll see what comes of the email I sent him today.
No reply yet from Bill. Now that my memory has been jogged, this isn't the first time my e-mails have been ignored, i.e. not because of technical problems.Originally Posted by Kevin Pacey
Complaining to friends can be awkward, especially if you owe them favours . I'll give Bill (and Eric by extension) more time to straighten out the CFC's Active rating system. It seems too late for me not to avoid playing in my club's first Active event in September though.
Hi Kevin:
My practice is usually to give someone a week to respond. Then I forward the original message with a new note : " in case you may have missed this in your " inbox ", since I have had no reply after one week "...........
We all miss things from time to time, or put off replying 'til later, and then it falls off the radar - I don't think a jog after one week is harassment.
Bob
They are not deflated, they are statistically not significant. Go to the crosstable section and you will see that there are almost no rapid rated tournaments in Canada. If you play 100 regular games and 6 rapid games in a year, your rapid rating cannot follow your true playing strength. This does not mean that the rating is deflated : it only means that it is based on a too small number of games to be significant. Regular and rapid games are as different as a 5 000m and a marathon : proficiency in one does not necessary imply proficiency in the other. You can get an accurate rapid rating only by playing many rated rapid games.Originally Posted by Kevin Pacey