Presidential Debate: Should we go to FIDE rated

[Fred McKim]

This debate is "restricted" to the presidential candidates for comments and possible interaction for the first 24 hours. It is now Monday, 7:45 EDT.

Should we continue with the CFC rating system or should we start the migration of events to the FIDE system ?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Fred:

From Pierre's post that he is moving, it seems we won't be hearing anything from him 'til after Thursday.

Bob

[Valer Eugen Demian]

The short answer is: Of course we should continue with the CFC rating!!! Actually I don’t see both systems as opposites. I see them as working well together as their purpose is to identify different things. Of course I’d like to see more FIDE rated tournaments and would like to explore ways of making it easier to tournament organizers. We’re all for virtue.

Based on the question, though, I’m not sure if it has more to do with the relevance of the CFC rating or the way the rating SYSTEM works at the CFC. But one thing is for sure, I think I’ve made it clear not so long ago, I’m absolutely against tempering with any kind of rating system. Even though in some cases the rating doesn’t show the appropriate immediate strength of a player. I know for a fact they are all based on a mathematical formula that is designed to balance itself out over a short period of time.

One very good question I’ve always found is: Why have a rating system ? What good does it do to the average chess players or even only for casual players ? Only bragging rights ? To be honest, I’m not sure I can give a complete answer to the question. But a few things can be identified to answer part of it.

First, clearly ratings have interested players for as long as I can remember. In some parts of the country, even chess clubs maintain a local rating for their players. The way I’ve always seem the rating (today being a bit different with FIDE lowering their minimum rating over the last decade) is some kind of motivation for players to not only compare themselves to others, but to follow their progression (in fact, I believe FIDE lowered its rating floor exactly for that reason, trying to get a hold of all tournament players on the planet). I believe that if more chess clubs were to maintain a regular rating, very often we would see some kind of progression in CFC rated events as well. And this would lead to a renewed interest for tournaments from all chess players of every class all across Canada.

I do remember when I was younger getting a club rating first, then, when I felt I was strong enough I started to play in FQE rated tournaments more regularly, that’s also how I got to eventually play in CFC rated events (the first one being in North Bay 98 I believe). Again, when I thought I just wasn’t a complete patzer in CFC rated events (ok, ok, to this day I consider myself only to be a wood pusher still), I allowed myself to participate in a FIDE rated event (2001). In fact, my first performance result with a FIDE rated tournament was over 200 points higher than my FQE or CFC rating.

From my point of view, a CFC rating is absolutely a must. Not only is it generating at least some revenue, but also it reunites people all over the country in some way. That the Maritime rating is lower than, say, the Ontario one (there can be so many reasons for it), that a junior’s rating has less reliability than an adult one (in most cases anyway) , shouldn’t lead to the conclusion that the CFC rating system doesn’t work. It just doesn’t mean the same thing. At the same time, I see the CFC rating as a way to guide our tournament players.

In general, I believe the CFC, by offering less and less service to its members, by trying to lower its prices on everything as much as possible, by trying to cut down on everything, is cheapening the value of chess in general. It should be the other way around. After all, the way I see it, offering more, supporting all players, beginners, Elite and all there is in between, providing resources to all players, arbiters and organizers should be the CFC primary goal and “raison d’être”.

Serge

Hi Serge,

The problem is the CFC rating system has not been very reliable, nor Canada wide imposed to stick with it so decisively. The only strong argument for keeping it is the fact of being one of the very few incentives left offered to any CFC member; when this argument will also be solved, I see little reason to keep a system in place when better ones are available probably at better costs.

What happened when we were juniors has very little relevance. Since those days there are hundreds of rating systems available around us, offered by individuals or organizations more or less important. You need to accept that and adapt. Not sure the current CFC rating system has always been adapted the right way...

That it the problem! How do you see it solved?

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I say: "I see little reason to keep the CFC in place if we decide to drop our national rating

Who would pay a fee to FIDE just to participate in Olympiad?

[Fred McKim]

I say: "I see little reason to keep the CFC in place if we decide to drop our national rating

Who would pay a fee to FIDE just to participate in Olympiad?

The CFC is a member of FIDE as is just about every country in the world. At the moment, I would suppose the most tangible profits from this are the ability to participate in official FIDE functions.

1) Olympiad & Women's Olympiad
2) World Championship & Women's Championship
3) World Junior & Women's Junior Championship
4) World Youth Championship

I can't see the CFC Governor's ever voting to drop out of FIDE. I could see developments at some time for us to go their way regarding ratings, but we'd have to have an income replacement, since we know that the cost to produce the ratings is probably only 1/2 - 2/3 what we bring in.

[Fred McKim]

I agree with you Fred, being part of FIDE provides nice "profits". That's why I feel it's important to work on the CFC relationship with them.

Talking about FIDE, recently some Govenors had a discussion (a motion ?)about the CFC membership fee. The subject of junior fees was brought up and it was said that juniors shouldn't pay as much as adults as they didn't have the same rights.

Even though I'm not sure what rights were being compared here, one thing the CFC has to be very aware of, is the fact the Juniors cost a lot more than the adult do when comes the time to send our best players abroad. Our juniors just cost more than our adult members. In fact, even though I'm not aware of any specific "adult program", I know of at least one or two programs juniors can benefit from, with the CFC. I'm not sure, however, how much money (profit ?) the CFC is getting from those juniors.

Long time ago, the CFC was very careful about its Junior program. "Junior" money coming in was considered separatly and was never to be mixed with anything else. Is it still the case ?

Serge

We have a Youth fund. It is held separate from the regular funds and receives it's revenue from the CYCC and dispenses money mainly to our players at the WYCC, but sometimes also to the reps at the Pan-Am YCC or NAYCC.

The representatives to other World events are funded from their respective qualifying tournaments, although we did make a contribution of approximately $3000 to the Canadian Closed this year. We are hoping to make this an ongoing donation to the World Cup qualifying event.

The Canadian Junior, Canadian Women's Championship, and Canadian Girls Junior are all self funded. This often will not pay the entire airfare but is the best we have been able to do.

The representatives to the Olympiad are funded through donations to the Olympic Fund. Off the top of my head we donated from our general funds just over $1000 this past year, although I think we had budgeted for as much as $4000 depending on the campaign efforts.

I was strongly opposed to the idea of charging one fee for juniors and adults, alike. I won't get into that argument, here.

[Bob Gillanders]

The representatives to the Olympiad are funded through donations to the Olympic Fund. Off the top of my head we donated from our general funds just over $1000 this past year, although I think we had budgeted for as much as $4000 depending on the campaign efforts.


Thanks Fred. Our budget (approved by the governors) did allow for a donation of $ 4,000 to the Olympic teams. Fundraising efforts were better than expected, and the final donation was just $ 1,085.

A special thanks to the women's team who paid their own way without any promises of reimbursement from the CFC. I am happy to say, at the end of the day, we were able to cover their airfares.

It has been recently reported elsewhere, that we paid an extra $5k due to the airline scheduling problems caused by the organizers. I am happy to again report that this is not the case. FIDE/organizers took responsibility for the problem and we recovered all these extra costs thanks to the efforts of Hal. Don't believe everything you read on a blog. :)

These savings did then allow us rescue the Closed with a contribution of $ 2,863. :)

[Fred McKim]

It has been recently reported elsewhere, that we paid an extra $5k due to the airline scheduling problems caused by the organizers. I am happy to again report that this is not the case. FIDE/organizers took responsibility for the problem and we recovered all these extra costs thanks to the efforts of Hal. Don't believe everything you read on a blog. :)



"a blog" = "The Blog"

I read it of course, but I know the facts from the fiction. I'll just say "buyer beware" ;)

[Fred McKim]

Thanks Fred. Our budget (approved by the governors) did allow for a donation of $ 4,000 to the Olympic teams. Fundraising efforts were better than expected, and the final donation was just $ 1,085.

A special thanks to the women's team who paid their own way without any promises of reimbursement from the CFC. I am happy to say, at the end of the day, we were able to cover their airfares.

It has been recently reported elsewhere, that we paid an extra $5k due to the airline scheduling problems caused by the organizers. I am happy to again report that this is not the case. FIDE/organizers took responsibility for the problem and we recovered all these extra costs thanks to the efforts of Hal. Don't believe everything you read on a blog. :)

These savings did then allow us rescue the Closed with a contribution of $ 2,863. :)

Just in case it wasn't clear from the comments Bob has made, the CFC covered the total extra air costs incurred by the 10 players and 2 captains in changing their flight arrangemnets. We later received full reimbursement from FIDE.

[Kerry Liles]

Just in case it wasn't clear from the comments Bob has made, the CFC covered the total extra air costs incurred by the 10 players and 2 captains in changing their flight arrangemnets. We later received full reimbursement from FIDE.

Isn't that the sort of line item that should be featured prominently in an Annual Report? If not as a discrete item, at the very least a footnote? [admission here: I did not go back to check to see if it was highlighted in the GL somewhere... my apologies if it was]

[Bob Gillanders]

Isn't that the sort of line item that should be featured prominently in an Annual Report? If not as a discrete item, at the very least a footnote? [admission here: I did not go back to check to see if it was highlighted in the GL somewhere... my apologies if it was]

Kerry - this is actually old news. The potential extra costs due to the scheduling problems, then we eventually recovered those costs from FIDE/organizers. It has all been explained previously, but I'm not going to go searching for it.

Other comments have also been critical of the financial statements. We are working to make them more readable and informative. Last week I met with Gerry to finalize the annual report. We are adding three new lines to the income statement to highlight our support for Canadian Open, The Closed, and the Olympic team. Formerly, these items would have been grouped with other stuff.

[Kerry Liles]

Kerry - this is actually old news. The potential extra costs due to the scheduling problems, then we eventually recovered those costs from FIDE/organizers. It has all been explained previously, but I'm not going to go searching for it.

Other comments have also been critical of the financial statements. We are working to make them more readable and informative. Last week I met with Gerry to finalize the annual report. We are adding three new lines to the income statement to highlight our support for Canadian Open, The Closed, and the Olympic team. Formerly, these items would have been grouped with other stuff.

That sounds good. I know reading fiscal statements can be an 'art' ... (as can composing them!) Anything that adds clarity is a good thing in my opinion. As I recall, many large corporate annual reports contain more pages of 'notes' (where the real information lies) than pages of ledger.

All of this reminds me what I will call the 'newspaper problem' - a huge story hits the front page with all sorts of speculation... weeks later, a clarification is posted (next to the car stereo advertisements on the back page of the 7th section) - no where near the same importance or urgency of the original story...

[Pierre Dénommée]

The Elo rating system is a measure of the relative merits of the players of a group. The Canadian group is distinct from the international group and the ratings should be different. FIDE has already forgotten that it had to adjust the rating of nearly all Myanmar players because they essentially play among themselves and this has enabled them to achieve ratings in excess of 2600 without possessing the required playing strength. Closer tu us, Bator Sambuev's 2750 CFC rating would probably be under investigation by FIDE if it was FIDE rating rather then a CFC rating. His rating of 2750 show how dominant he his in Canada but FIDE still considers him in 4th position among Canada's active players. Our rating is a much better depiction of GM Sambuev domination of the Canadian scene.

Apart from this mathematical evidence, the main reason to stick with the CFC rating is a political reason: we control it. There is also a financial reason: it brings it rating fees instead of paying FIDE for a service that we are able to provide ourselves. The FIDE member countries that voted in favour of the FIDE rate everything approach are countries that do not have any system of national rating. The countries with a sound national rating system did vote against but at the end, we lost that vote.

The control issue is very important to me. When I was the Rating Auditor, I could fix a CFC rating error with a single email to the executive Director, but it could take more then one month to fix an error with the FIDE rating. If the error is related to a tournament that has been played by a Canadian player in another country, then only this county's national Federation can make the formal request to FIDE. All we can do is complain, and I did complain when I was the Rating Auditor, but for a foreign Federation, the case of a Canadian player is rarely a priority.

The only inconvenient is when FIDE wants us to pair players using their ratings. The problem is that a player who play few FIDE rated games compared to the number of his CFC rated games could have a substantial difference between his CFC and his FIDE rating. A player with a CFC rating of 2 400 but a FIDE rating of 2 200 cannot be paired like a 2 400 without destroying the norm chances of other players. A norm seeker would be better off against a 2350 FIDE then against this 2400 CFC.

I can see only two drawbacks to our rating: it is not recognised by FIDE and this can give rise to Swiss pairings detrimental to both the player himself or his opponents.

FIDE offers to rate our games, but I see no compelling reason to take the offer. I can only see compelling reasons to keep our nice rating system.

[Michael von Keitz]

On the topic of ratings, with the FIDE system now sitting at a floor of 1000, coupled with the fact that the rating list is continually increasing its frequency, with imminent plans for monthly publications, it seems the CFC might wish to consider the eventual abandonment of its domestic rating scale, or, less drastically, promoting the FIDE rating system ahead of its own. Among other benefits, this would allow for a natural transition from domestic certificates to FIDE certificates for higher titles. More importantly, it encompasses a facet of the appeal attributable to online chess - a standard, international measure of chess skill. As long as that measure is perceived to hold weight, the question of whether it actually holds any real value is moot.

For those that feel that FIDE might be motivated to simply cut the legs out from under us and offer their services directly to tournament organizers, keep in mind that we serve as a domestic agent for their organization. Without revenue, we die, leaving FIDE with no official body operating on its behalf in Canada.

Now, in the case of a total conversion, what would be required to achieve the wholesale adoption of the FIDE system?

1. A willingness on FIDE's part to facilitate the conversion.

The prospect of increased revenues seems to make this palatable.

2. Relatedly, a reliable metric for conversion, or a readily-understood means of doing so on a case-by-case basis.

Again, with monetary motivations, it seems a means can be found.

3. Inclusion of all CFC members.

Talk of bringing the FIDE rating floor as low as 650 (approximately equivalent to a BCF rating of 0) is seriously being discussed. However, even if the floor remains at 1000, all members are afforded the opportunity to compete in rated events until such time as they achieve rateable results. With a skill-level of 1000 being roughly equivalent to a competent beginner, it seems
any member of the organization should be capable of achieving it in fairly short order.

4. A clear benefit to the CFC.

No longer would the CFC need to worry about tinkering with a system that some decry as being irreparably broken, instead, wholly leaning on a system recognized the world-over as the international standard for measuring chess ability. More importantly, unlike the CFC, which relies on voluntary efforts (with mixed results), FIDE invests in the study and modification of its rating system, with results to show for it. For those that fear a loss of revenue, rating fees could still be garnered nationally, with the CFC simply serving as a "FIDE rating broker," so to speak. Moreover, the membership database could be used as a means of categorizing information, as opposed to hosting it.

[Fred McKim]

On the topic of ratings, with the FIDE system now sitting at a floor of 1000, coupled with the fact that the rating list is continually increasing its frequency, with imminent plans for monthly publications, it seems the CFC might wish to consider the eventual abandonment of its domestic rating scale, or, less drastically, promoting the FIDE rating system ahead of its own. Among other benefits, this would allow for a natural transition from domestic certificates to FIDE certificates for higher titles. More importantly, it encompasses a facet of the appeal attributable to online chess - a standard, international measure of chess skill. As long as that measure is perceived to hold weight, the question of whether it actually holds any real value is moot.

For those that feel that FIDE might be motivated to simply cut the legs out from under us and offer their services directly to tournament organizers, keep in mind that we serve as a domestic agent for their organization. Without revenue, we die, leaving FIDE with no official body operating on its behalf in Canada.

Now, in the case of a total conversion, what would be required to achieve the wholesale adoption of the FIDE system?

1. A willingness on FIDE's part to facilitate the conversion.

The prospect of increased revenues seems to make this palatable.

2. Relatedly, a reliable metric for conversion, or a readily-understood means of doing so on a case-by-case basis.

Again, with monetary motivations, it seems a means can be found.

3. Inclusion of all CFC members.

Talk of bringing the FIDE rating floor as low as 650 (approximately equivalent to a BCF rating of 0) is seriously being discussed. However, even if the floor remains at 1000, all members are afforded the opportunity to compete in rated events until such time as they achieve rateable results. With a skill-level of 1000 being roughly equivalent to a competent beginner, it seems
any member of the organization should be capable of achieving it in fairly short order.

4. A clear benefit to the CFC.

No longer would the CFC need to worry about tinkering with a system that some decry as being irreparably broken, instead, wholly leaning on a system recognized the world-over as the international standard for measuring chess ability. More importantly, unlike the CFC, which relies on voluntary efforts (with mixed results), FIDE invests in the study and modification of its rating system, with results to show for it. For those that fear a loss of revenue, rating fees could still be garnered nationally, with the CFC simply serving as a "FIDE rating broker," so to speak. Moreover, the membership database could be used as a means of categorizing information, as opposed to hosting it.

Michael should you become President, I'm hoping you'll be willing to chat to those of us who hold an opposing view to yours. I don't agree with a lot of the statements you give here, but will let it ride for now.

[Christopher Mallon]

I think you are dead-wrong on Point 3. 1000 might be a competent ADULT beginner, but you would be throwing casual youth chess away.

[Pierre Dénommée]

1. A willingness on FIDE's part to facilitate the conversion.


I would not count on that. In order to get a FIDE rating, you must play against FIDE rated players. There is nothing in the FIDE rules that would permit Canadian players to enter the FIDE rating list with their current CFC rating.

[Michael von Keitz]

Michael should you become President, I'm hoping you'll be willing to chat to those of us who hold an opposing view to yours. I don't agree with a lot of the statements you give here, but will let it ride for now.

I certainly don't plan to make any fundamental changes without the support of the assembly and, as always, I am open to criticism - its a means of improving one's own ideas.

[Michael von Keitz]

I think you are dead-wrong on Point 3. 1000 might be a competent ADULT beginner, but you would be throwing casual youth chess away.

Of all the potential barriers to a conversion, this strikes me as being one of the more minor issues, in that the floor can almost certainly be expected to fall over the course of the next few years. Before debating the minutiae, however, I would rather wait on the assembly, to see whether they support the concept in principle. If so, then we should certainly discuss the finer details.

[Michael von Keitz]

I would not count on that. In order to get a FIDE rating, you must play against FIDE rated players. There is nothing in the FIDE rules that would permit Canadian players to enter the FIDE rating list with their current CFC rating.

I also do not see FIDE accepting CFC ratings on par. Instead, I would anticipate the need for some sort of conversion. For instance, the CFC has a reasonably sizeable pool of FIDE-rated players. Using their results against CFC-rated opponents, a method of conversion might be found.

[Michael von Keitz]

What kind of "increased revenues" are you expecting ? In your plan, do you foresee any loss in revenues for the CFC ? If so, how do you suggest we get back the loss ?


My meaning was that FIDE might reasonably be able to expect increased revenues from the CFC. If it were to be made, I certainly don't anticipate the deal being free. If we were to make the conversion, of course, potential changes to our fee structure would need to be investigated. Be aware that I am not suggesting we make the change tomorrow, or even wholesale, as we might wish, for instance, to initially phase in a portion of the membership and analyze those results first.



Same question again, what kind of money do you think we're talking about here ? You'd really like to work on a case-by-case basis for every Canadian chess player with a CFC rating ? Going back until... ? Who would do that ? FIDE ?


Yes, FIDE. Again, I don't think that comes with a pricetag of $0, but, if the assembly of governors were to give me approval, I would follow up with FIDE regarding their expectations (cost, conversion method, etc.) and we could have a more informed discussion from there.



Can you give us links to those "serious discussions", please ? What happens to the juniors (or even adults for that matter) rated below 1000 ? What is supposed to be the benefit of any CFC player to have an INTERNATIONAL rating if they play in local events only ? Both Pierre and I have brought up the Myanmar case. Still, you seem to think the important point to make is the FIDE rating is "perceived to hold weight". What are the grounds for you to believe that ?


For an executive summary, see this link (http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?p=4317). For the full minutes of the meeting, I invite you to seek them out.



I believe it's healthy for a Federation to question the validity of its rating system. Goals from Executive to Executive may change over time and explain some of the changes made. Canada's rating is not better or worse than any other country maintaining a National Rating. You seem to think only FIDE invests in the study and modification of its rating system. I'm sure all the Rating Auditors the CFC had over the years, that I know for a fact have put MANY more hours to it than what you're probably ready to realize, will be very happy about that statement. In fact many Federations invest a lot in it. Too bad you decided not to join the discussion when, not so long ago, we talked about it right here. I invite you to take a look at what Dr Mark Glickman has done with his Glicko system (and Glicko2) at the USCF, for starters. In any case, I'm still waiting to see valid proof that our CFC rating system is so bad. Just to claim it is seem unsufficient to me. Regardless, even if it was, dropping it to a system that has not proven any better (which in fact is using the same Elo system in the first place) instead of adjusting it to better serve the needs of the CFC makes no sense to me.


Canada is not a Myanmar. Our players compete internationally and where I see FIDE ratings holding value is in providing a metric by which players might compare themselves with peers from around the world and, perhaps, provide themselves with extra incentive to improve. I refer to it as being "perceived to hold weight" because I fully realize that the system does not perfectly lend itself to 1-to-1 comparison, but I am not convinced that the average member necessarily cares about that. Whether the CFC rating scale is statistically superior or not, I think it's more important to ask whether the mere psychological value of an "international" measure of your skill is important to the average player. Though my evidence is anecdotal, I think this might be the case. If required, as the voice of the membership, I expect the governors will set me straight.

[Michael von Keitz]

First, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.


You are welcome!



One thing though, your link doesn't refer to a "serious discussion" as you mentionned it to be. Only to a matter possibly being discussed in a later meeting.


Considering this is an executive summary of a meeting of the FIDE Ratings Commission, if they are discussing placing it on their agenda, it seems to me serious discussion must have preceded the notion.



As I said in another thread, maybe you should have consulted with the Rating Auditor before including this in your platform. At least, even if you were not to agree with him, you'd have some basics of what's in stake here.


As I said, I stand to be corrected. This is one of those issues I can tolerate seeing fall through, but I don't see the harm in generating some discussion surrounding the topic.



Have you consulted with any FIDE official on your plan ? Are they open to such a task ? Do you have any...ANY example of other countries going that way and having FIDE do that kind of work for them ? I'll ask again, what kind of money are we talking about here ? Are you aware of any...ANY example of FIDE paying any kind of fee for that kind of conversion ?


I certainly don't have any data on other countries doing so, as I am sure you can verify. That said, if we were to be the first, I think that would suit the definition of "trailblazing." I also do not wish to approach FIDE at this time, as I do not have a mandate from the incoming Assembly of Governors and I'm not certain what the final form of the suggestion might be (if any form of it at all were of interest to the assembly). For instance, perhaps we work with FIDE to have all 1900+ CFC-rated players FIDE rated in order to provide feeders in the U2000 section of events, which could lead to a trickle down effect.



You say: "Canada is not a Myanmar. Our players compete internationally" How many Canadian players, annually, compete "internationally" ? Are you aware that only 272 Canadian players have a FIDE rating (not counting inactive players) ? What is your justification for making that kind of a change and eliminate our National rating for those 272 players ? Did you know that FIDE has about 150 000 FIDE rated players ? What would lead you to believe FIDE would be willing to do anything for the long lasting opposing CFC for what constitutes only a small unsignificant drop to them ?


To be honest, my Internet is a little finicky at the moment, or I would doublecheck the exact number, but 272 players strikes me as being approximately 15% of our membership. That is hardly something to sniff at. As for increased revenues, no matter how small, I don't think FIDE would balk at the idea. After all, without Kirsan's personal reserves, how financially viable would the organization truly be?