Printable View
DISCUSSION THREAD FOR THE MOTION REGARDING RATING ADJUSTMENTS
New Article:
441. CFC/FIDE/USCF/FQE Rating Adjustments.
A player who has attained a FIDE, USCF or FQE rating that is 200 or more points higher than his/her CFC rating may request that their CFC rating be adjusted to match their other rating provided that player has played at least 10 games in the other system in the 12 months prior to the request.
I do not support the motion as worded, as 10 games in my opinion is simply not enough.
I have a concern about this motion as well. In 2009 a motion was passed which deals with titles where FIDE ratings exceed CFC ratings. We had a strange case where an elderly NM went to Europe and earned his IM norms and jacked his FIDE rating to 2400. Suspicion abounded. The case was exceptional but we had no recourse at the time, so the title was awarded.
If you're talking about the case I think you are (the NM in question was from northern BC who played correspondence but otherwise had limited - as in once or twice a year - chances to play) I'd be surprised the individual in question would have had the chance to get 10 games in of any sort unless he took a long chess vacation which apparently he did in Hungary.
[These days the more likely scenario would be that such a player had played zillions of games online and reached high strength by his first OTB event - this was the theme of a story by Jonathan Berry which was published in EP or the Bulletin about 20-25 years ago before the Internet was so pervasive where the hero of the story had reached an online rating of 2600 before his first non-online event. I thought it was a pretty good piece of fiction and would love to see Jon's story published again]
I can't see that the case Hal refers to is going to re-occur. Meanwhile, we have several players who play a lot in the US and have USCF ratings more than 200 points higher than their CFC ratings. These are juniors who actually want their ratings to reflect their actual playing strength but who don't have many local CFC events.
I don't support this motion either since it's not unusual to over perform in a tournament or two and then relapse into the same level of play that the player has become accustomed to. I don't see how letting someone constantly adjust their rating to the highest will do anything more than boost his or her ego.
The issue is less their ego and more the egos of their opponents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi Cheng
Consider the case of 7 year old Max Zhu and 10 year old Henry Zhang at the Guelph Pro Am under 1600 in June.
http://www.chess.ca/crosstable?tourn...012&key=141020
In the case of Henry bonus points has equalized his CFC and USCF rating which had a gap of just over 200 points at the time of this tournament. Henry won the event. He really should have been playing in the under 2000 section.
Max had a 400 point gap between his USCF 1488 and CFC rating 1077. Only Henry who is familiar with Max from the Windsor events found an antidote for Max's play.
They are 7 and 10, they're supposed to be underrated. I thought that's what the CFC bonus rating system was meant to address? You don't see the USCF system rearranging the CFC rating around, why should we? Just let them make the climb, if they bruise a few egos along the way, so be it, it's not like it's the first time anyone lost to underrated kids before.
In the case of Henry he probably plays as many CFC games as USCF so both ratings are fairly close now so the bonus formula has kicked in and done its job. Max plays much more in the U.S. than Canada so his rating here is seriously lagging.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi Cheng
30 years ago when I lived in Winnipeg some B players routinely beat US Experts in Minneapolis. They insisted this was a problem with the USCF rating system - my view then as now was that when they went to Minneapolis (which is a similar distance from Toronto to Montreal) it was a weekend entirely devoted to chess that they would have been looking forward and preparing for at least a month in advance. As opposed to their local club tournament where they were at the board an hour after leaving work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec
Which do YOU think would tend to focus your mind on chess more - admittedly it's not the same with children but I think my point is obvious. Sure there was some ratings deflation in Winnipeg at the time (as a Canadian Open around that time demonstrated) but I do think attitude plays a big role in performance.