Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: CFC Rating System Issues

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,158
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default CFC Rating System Issues

    I have been asked by Tony Li to post the following, as he is waiting for his account to come through

    "Hi Paul,

    Here are the 2 big ticket items I have brought to your attention in the past on behalf of the Kitchener Waterloo Chess Club. If elected Ratings Auditor, I will prioritize discussing these issues with active organizers. I would like to hear anyone's thoughts on this forum or through email at kwchessclub@gmail.com.

    1. Increase the maximum number of regular rated games per day to 6 for U1200. This is a necessary condition for double round U1200 in the common 3 games Saturday / 2 games Sunday format.

    Most potential CFC members are U1200 today. U1200 players don't tend to use their time, justifiable so - it is debatable whether they could make better decisions in 2 hours than in 1. Furthermore, the playing hall empties with an hour. Double rounds of 1 hour sudden death will be a huge increase in the value proposition for this group.

    I believe a valid concern is fatigue. But professionalism at the board is everyone's own responsibility. Adults show up at weekday tournaments after long working days, and the CFC rates those tournaments as Regular.

    Recently, the 2nd COVID adjustment acknowledged that U1200 is a different group of customers. Hopefully, we can provide this group more playing time and more scoresheets to analyze by rating up to 6 regular rated games per day.

    2. Increase the junior U2200 k factor to 48 while maintaining the master k level at 16 for everyone.

    The CFC recognizes that players under 2200 could improve quicker than players over 2200, by having double the k factor (32 vs 16). However, this is a zero-sum game and will lead to rating deflation in an improving player pool. Given that OTB may be down for a year while many children have lower schoolwork and some "turning pro", it will be a huge issue in 2021.

    The performance bonus system you introduced will help a lot of players in an open tournament. But in sectioned tournaments, only a few players will get the bonus. A higher k-factor such as 48 for juniors may be an answer.

    FIDE has had a higher k factor for juniors for a number of years, and the only loud criticism came from a misunderstanding. A junior had two outstanding tournaments during a rating period, and the rating gain from both tournaments were calculated based on his initial rating. Had the second tournament been rated reflecting his participation in the first event, the final result would have been reasonable.

    Regardless of age, improvement beyond 2200 rarely happens away from OTB tournaments and a common k factor seems reasonable."

    Tony Li

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ottawa Ontario National Master Former Gov.
    Posts
    10,761
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Here's a CFC rating system issue that may be worth revisiting:

    Possibly have a USCF-style rating floor (e.g. if you're ever 15xx you can't go below 1300 ever) - fights sandbagging & may slow rating stagnation/decline of individual players (good for the CFC's business, in spite of any possible slight inflation to the rating system!?).
    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.

  3. #3

    Default

    The Glicko2 rating fight sandbagging by adding a standard deviation to the rating. Ratings with higher uncertainty also change faster. https://www.nufflytics.com/post/ccl-glicko-ratings/

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ottawa Ontario National Master Former Gov.
    Posts
    10,761
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Interesting. Fwiw, the wiki for that rating system mentions that the Australian Chess Federation (comparable to ours?) now uses a slightly modified form of Glicko2:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glicko_rating_system
    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    694

    Default

    I have been asked about rating floors before.
    First, are you sure there is a problem that needs to be solved? How prevalent is "sand-bagging" and is it worth distorting the rating system in an attempt to prevent it?
    Rating floors produce artificial ratings. I guess my rating floor would be around 1900 but I actually play chess at the 1750 level. I don't see any benefit to rating my games as if I was a 1900 player.
    Paul Leblanc
    Treasurer, Chess Foundation of Canada
    CFC Voting Member

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    694

    Default

    Tony, these are interesting ideas.
    I don't have any objection to 6 games per day for U1200 players. The only downside would be if there was at least one game in each round where both players used up their entire hour. That would lead to a 12 hour day, not counting breaks between rounds. But that's an organizational issue, not a rating issue.

    The K factor issue is a little more complicated. I'm not sure if the CFC database has a reliable record of all player's ages. Doubling the K factor for juniors whether their rating is 200 or 2199 somehow seems a bit bold. Maybe a cut-off at 1000 or 1200 would make more sense if we adopted this idea. I'm also not sure it would be a good idea to have both a doubling of the K factor and our existing bonus point system. We're already getting some young players gaining 200+ rating points in a single tournament. Do we want to see 400+ points?
    Paul Leblanc
    Treasurer, Chess Foundation of Canada
    CFC Voting Member

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I would not have a problem with 400 point gains if they resulted in more accurate ratings but again I am not sure that there is a big problem at the moment with face to face otb play on hold.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kanata, Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    1,227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Leblanc View Post
    I have been asked about rating floors before.
    First, are you sure there is a problem that needs to be solved? How prevalent is "sand-bagging" and is it worth distorting the rating system in an attempt to prevent it?
    Rating floors produce artificial ratings. I guess my rating floor would be around 1900 but I actually play chess at the 1750 level. I don't see any benefit to rating my games as if I was a 1900 player.
    Hello Paul, I relatively agree with you. If I may suggest, another reason for a rating floor, is that it very well might keep some declining players more active.

    I understand that, by definition, that'll inject a math corruption, but from a respectfulness viewpoint, I wouldn't be against re-consideration of rating floors.

    Of course, I want to know your expert opinion.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ottawa Ontario National Master Former Gov.
    Posts
    10,761
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    I don't know how frequent sandbagging is these days - although that's possibly the main reason why the USCF adopted a rating floor in the case of the US (either their knowing the frequency there, or for trying to keep their members happier, if many said members could have suspected heavy sandbagging).

    Personally I'm more for Aris' offered reason - it could be good for the CFC's business to keep declining (or stagnant) players happier, as I also alluded to earlier. A good rating can mean a lot to players, even it's just for [self-]respect/bragging rights reasons, never mind e.g. for qualifying for seniors events. I know of one Ottawa player who retired from chess decades ago after reaching his lifelong goal of a 2200+ rating, presumably for fear of losing that minimum 2200 rating after (only a couple of years ago I gave some half-serious thought to doing the same thing myself, i.e. for that reason, but instead came back to chess and promptly lost some games, to an underrated coached junior, and an underrated young adult - later my city fouled up the transit system to get me to my club and back in the late evenings, but that's another story).

    For those who are sticklers for near-mathematical precision/perfection for the CFC's rating system, the alternative measure mentioned above by Pierre (that the CFC switch to Glicko2 rating system) might also satisfy Aris' and my stated desires to some extent as well - albeit with heavy changes to the current CFC rating formulae being necessary.
    Last edited by Kevin Pacey; 07-29-2020 at 11:28 PM. Reason: Adding content
    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    15

    Default Potential Tweaks to CFC Rating System

    1. 6 regular games per day for U1200

    Can we move this to a motion?

    2. Varying k-factor k=48 for 800 graded to k=32 for 1600

    Having a varying k-factor by rating makes sense. However, it would ideally not be a cut-off but graded over a wide rating range e.g. k=32 at 1600 linearly graded to k=48 at 800. Having a section cut off at the same point as the k-factor cutoff would lead to opponents having the same k-factor, which defeats the purpose.

    3. Players gaining 200+ rating points in a single tournament

    My personal observation is that some players earn too many bonus points in 7+ round tournaments, due to the fact that the threshold vs number of rounds is too flat. 29-point threshold for 5 rounds seems reasonable, but 39-point threshold for 9 rounds has to be too little. I would be interested in looking at the data to figure out if we can decrease the "13" but make the order on number of rounds higher than square root.

    4. 2-Year 200-point floor?

    A lifetime floor is unscientific and appears to be a last resort solution USCF adapted to combat sandbagging. Given that Canadian tournament don't tend to have large prizes, it doesn't seem necessary. However, as Aris mentioned, floors could encourage participation by seniors. A 2-year 200-point floor, for example, would still be scientific in the vast majority of cases.

    Furthermore, a floor/insurance could be very valuable when OTB returns in 2021. An example would be no one can lose more than 100 points over the first 6 months of OTB.

    5. Glicko

    There are 2 drivers of higher k-factor ("rd") in Glicko - streaks and inactivity. The current bonus system already addresses streaks. The inactivity component is the tricky part because currently everyone in the rating pool is inactive. This is where identifying juniors as the inactive ones is beneficial because they are the ones likely to be improving away from OTB.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    I would not have a problem with 400 point gains if they resulted in more accurate ratings but again I am not sure that there is a big problem at the moment with face to face otb play on hold.
    6. 2021 OTB Shock

    Hi Vlad,

    The return of OTB in 2021 will be the largest-ever one-time increase in the strength of the playing pool.

    The quick incentive was a great idea but so far it is mostly juniors playing each other. Hoping to see more adults participate at those events - maybe the solution is to have a floor there? There also seem to be a dearth of 2000+ players there. Maybe the CFC can waive the rating fee on players over 2000, allowing organizers to offer them free entry?

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •