8. New Business

[Michael Barron]

That's a great idea - as long as it can be done. The top 8 or 10 players by rating play a round-robin to determine 4 remaining spots on the team (one goes to the current champion). In that case everybody deserving would get a fair chance, and there could be absolutely no complaints.
Yet, if such a tournament is too expensive to organize, the selection criteria should remain fair and transparent - and that's either a straightforward choice by rating or a possible rating-change formula mentioned by Vlad Rekhson. Everything should work as long as it's objective and known to every interested party in advance

Sorry, Edward, if I was not clear enough...

How selecting top 8 players by rating to play a round-robin is better than selecting top 5 players by rating to play at the Olympiad?

The latest example:
Canadian Junior Championship that was last week in Toronto.
Top 10 juniors by rating competed in this event.
It was a great Championship!
But...
The previous Champion that convincely won Canadian Junior less than a year ago wasn't even invited to defend his title!
Why?
Because his rating isn't high enough...

We have already a tournament where the best Canadian players compete:
Canadian Closed Championship.

We need to use the results of Canadian Closed to select the Canadian Team.
To eliminate accidental anomalies we could use results for last 2 or 3 years.

[Edward Porper]

Sorry, Edward, if I was not clear enough...

How selecting top 8 players by rating to play a round-robin is better than selecting top 5 players by rating to play at the Olympiad?

The latest example:
Canadian Junior Championship that was last week in Toronto.
Top 10 juniors by rating competed in this event.
It was a great Championship!
But...
The previous Champion that convincely won Canadian Junior less than a year ago wasn't even invited to defend his title!
Why?
Because his rating isn't high enough...

We have already a tournament where the best Canadian players compete:
Canadian Closed Championship.

We need to use the results of Canadian Closed to select the Canadian Team.
To eliminate accidental anomalies we could use results for last 2 or 3 years.

You would be right, Michael, if the Closed were indeed Closed. Limit it to 10 or 16 qualifiers from the provincials +past champions and possibly, a couple of highest rated players - and I am fully with you on that.
As such, it would indeed be the most important chess tournament for Canadians. As it is, it's just another Open where EVERYBODY has to pay an entry fee, and there are essentially no conditions. No wonder, not everybody can afford it. Besides, it would be too late for any _current_ Olympiad - would you automatically disqualify someone who didn't play a year ago? Or even two years?
I think that the selection should be current - apart from being fair and transparent, of course.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I sort of feel obliged to say that the Canadian team should be selected using the Canadian rating system. The emphasis should be on getting our strong players to support Canadian events, not get their 10 or 20 FIDE rated games in Europe and be eligible for the team without competing actively in Canada.

The regional stagnation of the CFC rating is the main reason it can not be used alone. The more valuable information gives FIDE rating, especially if players go to Europe. In the Olympiad, players will play not against Canada, but other countries. Thus, their results on the international level provided more information than their internal affairs. There are not many Canadian tournaments which provide international type opportunities.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

You would be right, Michael, if the Closed were indeed Closed. Limit it to 10 or 16 qualifiers from the provincials +past champions and possibly, a couple of highest rated players - and I am fully with you on that.

Even this kind of tournament would not truly represent actual power. An exaggerated example - Nakamura's results (disaster) at London grand prix

[Paul Leblanc]

I think most Canadians with FIDE ratings earned them in Canadian tournaments. So the regional differences probably exist for their FIDE ratings as well.
Nobody I know in BC travels to Europe except Michael Yip and he doesn't play in BC!

[Vlad Rekhson]

To me creating a special qualifying tournament is not something that we should be looking at currently, because the Olympiad members are not being paid, so now we would also ask them to spend money in order to go to a special tournament in order to qualify for a team? This would disqualify many good team members who would not be able to go to such an event.

As far as ratings are concerned, if all we had in Canada were CFC ratings, it would probably be fine to include them in the calculation, but in Quebec they are rarely used, so I think that it would be best to just go with FIDE.
FIDE ratings are often inaccurate for the lower rated players, but they are quite accurate for those rated 2400+.

[Félix Dumont]

I think most Canadians with FIDE ratings earned them in Canadian tournaments. So the regional differences probably exist for their FIDE ratings as well.
Nobody I know in BC travels to Europe except Michael Yip and he doesn't play in BC!

The problem is that CFC gives bonus points, while FIDE doesn't. The more CFC games someone plays, the higher his rating will be, while if he doesn't get better, his FIDE rating should stay about the same. Even if no chess player played outside of Canada, FIDE ratings would still be way more accurate.

[Bob Gillanders]

The problem is that CFC gives bonus points, while FIDE doesn't. The more CFC games someone plays, the higher his rating will be....

Felix, no. This has been debated at length, again and again and again, bonus points do not necessarily create inflation. As long as their effects do not overcompensate for the natural deflationary pressures inherit in the system, then there is no net inflation. Our rating auditor, Paul, monitors the system to ensure that no inflation is taking place.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Technically bonus points do cause inflation but this should offset the deflation from players leaving the system at higher ratings than they started at. Going with straight FIDE ratings probably makes the system for selection simpler but it will return the same result as the current blended system. With respect to the current players it seems to me I understood that the current blended CFC-FIDE system uses a peak rating so as not to discourage those on the bubble from playing.

[Bob Gillanders]

Technically bonus points do cause inflation but this should offset the deflation from players leaving the system at higher ratings than they started at.

Thanks Vlad. You explained it better than me. I came back to edit my post, and soften the tone. I just get so mad when people criticize the CFC rating system, which, IMHO, is superior to the FIDE system!

Yes, you heard me. Superior!