6. Reports (H. Rating Auditor)

[Michael von Keitz]

Rating Auditor's Report here.

[Paul Leblanc]

When I stood for rating auditor last July, I promised to update the rating section of the CFC Handbook, address the issue of under-rated juniors, enforce the rules on rating of Regular vs Active events and introduce a new bonus point formula.

An additional issue arose part way through the year when it was pointed out to me that CFC members had been submitting games played over the internet at typical live tournament time controls and that the CFC Handbook was silent on internet chess.

The amendments to the handbook were adopted at the first two online meetings this year but have yet to be put in the Handbook. The amendments were mostly to remove outdated information and modernize the appeals process.

On the issue of under-rated juniors, I believe the measures that we took to rejuvinate Quick/Active ratings and shift junior events that did not meet the criteria for Regular ratings to the Quick/Active category went a long way towards helping with the under-rated problem. A typical junior will now play Quick/Active tournaments for a couple of years and gain experience then will start playing in mixed adult/junior events with a provisional rating that actually reflects their playing strength instead of with a 3 digit rating gained by playing 30 minute games with other low rated juniors.

The new bonus point formula was introduced in April. An article will appear in the next CFC bulletin describing how it works. We have only 3 months of data to analyze so I cannot evaluate it conclusively. So far there has been no inflation in the average ratings of players rated 1200 or higher - that average is 1735 and has been remarkably cosistent for the past 3 years.
On the other hand, as expected the lower end of the rating list has moved, up considerably as the production of very low rated juniors has slowed and the new bonus point formula has benefitted many under-rated players. The average rating of all CFC members has, as a result, moved from 1210 to 1290.

A few words to outline how the new bonus point system works: If a player gains more than a specified number of rating points in an event (known as the "threshold" for that event), each point gained over the threshold generates an additional bonus of 1.75 rating points. The threshold for a 6 round event, for example, is 32. A separate bonus of 20 rating points is awarded to any player who achieves a new personal high rating in an event. Bonus points are reduced by 50% for players over 2200.

There was discussion at the last online meeting concerning the adviseability of not awarding bonus points at all to high rated players. Admittedly, there does seem have been gradual inflation in the top 100 ratings in the past 5 years (from 2300 to 2350 in round figures). Again too soon to speak with any confidence but the top 100 average actually did a small downtick when the new bonus point formula was initiated and the old one ceased.

Fairly stringent rules for rating internet events were adopted at the April Governors Meeting. There haven't been any internet events rated since then and I expect few. Basically, artiters need to be present at every player's location and game scores need to be submitted with any requests for rating. There was some concern that this policy would take market share away from postal chess, however I doubt if there is any overlap with postal chess which is played at very slow time contols and less oversight than CFC events.

In closing I would like to acknowledge the assistance of Roger Patterson, Fred McKim and Vincent Chow. Their work, technical skill and advice has been invaluable.

[Gordon Ritchie]

Thanks to Paul Leblanc for taking on a thankless task and making some real progress. The rating system is one of the CFC's few remaining commercial assets. It is vital that it be kept relevant to members. Good work, Paul.

[Lyle Craver]

My main reservation about the Internet rating motion in the April meeting was that the Correspondence Association is doing something similar and I had not heard anything saying we were working in concert with them.

Consultation was mentioned but I've not heard anything further on this point.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

My main reservation about the Internet rating motion in the April meeting was that the Correspondence Association is doing something similar and I had not heard anything saying we were working in concert with them.

Consultation was mentioned but I've not heard anything further on this point.

This issue has been presented to CCCA all the way to the top (our President) and all I know is both presidents were supposed to discuss it together.

If there is one thing to consider a plus after all the discussions and voting with or without knowledge (or care...) is that right now NO GOVERNOR can say anymore they have not heard of the CCCA governor. Please use me! I am here to help and have the experience to do so.

Thank you!

[Michael von Keitz]

all I know is both presidents were supposed to discuss it together.

Unfortunately, the CCCA President never got back to either Paul Leblanc or myself, so we've considered the matter closed. Going forward, I hope to see Valer consulted on such matters.

[Paul Leblanc]

Yes Valer. I live and learn. I am happy to share any further internet questions with you. So far there have been no events submitted since the motion passed.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

Unfortunately, the CCCA President never got back to either Paul Leblanc or myself, so we've considered the matter closed. Going forward, I hope to see Valer consulted on such matters.

Thank you Michael and Paul!