Printable View
Sasha - I totally fail to see what the above comments have to do with the topic under discussion.
Normally I would have deleted off-topic comments without comment but Vlad doesn't want that to happen during the election period.
Unlike yours, Nikolai's comments clearly do speak to the discussion proposal. This is a technical discussion about the merits or otherwise of making rating adjustments in specific cases.
OK - the warning was given and ignored.
Postings having nothing to do with ratings or rating systems (and I am prepared to be quite lenient on what does and does not have to do with ratings) will be deleted without further notice.
I would like to hear a little more from Nikolay on the idea of incorporating a provisional rating to resolve the issue: does that mean on request getting rid of a player's rating and starting with a new provisional rating? Would we still base this on the player having a significantly higher USCF/FIDE rating or would you let anyone apply?
I think whatever we do is going to involve a fee (rating points for money concern) because it would mean extra work by the CFC office and that is not free.
Lets say a player with a 1948 rating comes back to tournament chess after 5 years. If he chose to start with a provisional rating, his rating would stay at 1948, but the k-factor for his games would be higher. I guess, a formula could be worked out, where the higher the initial rating, the lower the k-factor would be, as fluctuation is lower on the higher ratings.
I do agree that it should involve a fee, unless it can be automated.
I think this idea is solid and would definitely be viable to help those who have not played chess get a rating that would suit their strength faster than the norm. I think setting a rating range of something like 0-1000 with a k-factor of 50 (assuming a normal k-factor is 15) 1000-1400 k-factor of 40, 1400-1800 k-factor of 30 and 1800-2200 k-factor of 20 seems reasonable to me. This definitely should involve a fee as this kind of service should not be for free and also to discourage players from deciding to go idle and coming back with a higher k-factor to boost/sandbag their rating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikolay Noritsyn
It occurred to me that there was a recent example of re-setting a player's CFC rating based on a higher foreign rating. When Jason Cao won the U-10 World Championship in 2010, he achieved a 1921 FIDE rating and an FM title. His CFC rating was 1562 which seemed ridiculous. So the CFC agreed to re-set his CFC rating to match his FIDE rating.
Nikolay's idea is a separate idea that could also be considered. I'll have a look at it.
There were also a few Windsor players that had their ratings reset. I can't think of one that later showed that they didn't need the reset. It is probably not a big deal for the ones that play outside of Windsor but we were getting the situation where kids didn't want to play with the other underrated players because it was easier to gain points by going out of town. The example from the Guelph ProAm under 1600 section Max gained 200 points losing only to another grossly underrated player who was three hundred points higher in the U.S. Max is still something like 300 points underrated versus his CFC rating. He will feast on other kids and adults at CFC tournaments and some 1500s will be very annoyed to lose to a 1300 player whose USCF rating is higher than their CFC.
I just came back from the World Open, and I didn't meet a single person freaking out over the FIDE election. I had civil conversations, which even included alcohol, and it didn't matter who our countries were voting for, we were able to have civil conversations without resorting to offensiveness. One of the utter beauties of democracy is campaigning for your side, then graciously accepting what the majority determines, and moving on together, building the greater whole. In my opinion, you owe at least Vlad and Hal apologies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasha Starr
I've never meant to offend anybody. I see a lot of problems not with the CFC's decision itself, but the way it was made. You've seen my concerns and reservation here. NOBODY has ever replied. Soon I'll publish it on the Chess Talk. Is that OK with you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aris Marghetis
I've previously spoken to your points and have done so again just now so clearly you can call me nobody.
Be that as it may, you may post where you will though there are a number of us who avoid ChessTalk both for what we feel is its National Enquirer approach as well as believing discussion of CFC governance belong on the CFC forum - and don't forget that there is lots of room there for non-Assembly members to voice their concerns.
I confess I don't spend as much time there as I might - my e-mail volume is usually quite high - but no question ChessTalk is not the best place to post if a response is needed.
Vlad only started posting there when the rhetoric went way over the top. I suppose I have not fully embraced my murderous and thuggish side to respond meaningfully to such charges.
If Executive members are being bribed or party to other dirty deeds I confess to feeling left out!
(I do hope that the membership recognize sarcasm when they hear it...)
In any case, I do think our rating rules should encourage inactive players to take part - some definitely view their ratings as their "stack of chips" and feel they're risking their stack when they play. Nothing we do should encourage that mindset in any way shape or form. When I look at the TD list for my area and see how many inactives we have it doesn't take much to want to promote more - this is a small part of the total package but it is a part.