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

Thread: 4.8 Nominations for CFC Ratings Auditor

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kanata, Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    1,227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Plotkin View Post
    1. 1 year looks very short period to me. 3 or 5 years is OK. But most important: not CFC=FIDE, but CFC=FIDE+120

    2. Honestly, I have no idea about FQE rating and ratio CFC-FQE. Need to think about it.
    Intuitively, I would put FQE around USCF, maybe more, so CFC=FQE+60 or CFC=FQE+90 [but I stress this is intuitive, no number crunching done]

  2. #12

    Default

    Before crunching to many numbers, we should check players who are triple rated FIDE-CFC-FQE. The difference between the FIDE and the CFC rating and between the FIDE and FQE rating should be analyze.

    There is no proof that FIDE ratings are consistent within Canada because the FQE and CFC players do not mix often enough, but this is a starting point. It may find that like in Myanmar, the fact that FQE and CFC players don't play enough games together has caused a shift in the FIDE rating.

    P.S. Myanmar affair : FIDE noticed many 2600 players in the country that were unable to achieve a single GM norm. An investigation was launched in fear of intentional rating manipulation. Result of the investigation : nobody is guilty. The ratings are too high because the people of Myanmar are very poor and cannot travel. They almost never play against a foreign players and the rating is a measure of the relative merit of the players, not an absolute measure of the playing strength. 100 points were subtracted from all Myanmar ratings except for players who would loose their FIDE rating because of the subtraction.

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
  •