Printable View
Motion 5B3. Motion #3. Rating for the Olympiad.
The formula uses FIDE rating only as a base for the National Team. The formula uses the average CFC-FIDE rating as a base for the Women Team. Any number is rounded to the nearest 1. 0.5 is rounded to 1. If 2 or more players have the same total number then the younger age will be used as the tie-breaker.
The purpose of this motion is to eliminate CFC Ratings for National Team selection.
The argument was made that CFC Ratings are irrelevant for our best players.
Is it really so?
Let's look at the top lists that could be produced on the CFC website:
CFC Ratings:
1 Bareev, Evgeny Toronto, ON 2708
2 Kovalyov, Anton Chateauguay, QC 2653
3 Preotu, Razvan Burlington, ON 2634
4 Hansen, Eric Calgary, AB 2626
5 Noritsyn, Nikolay Richmond Hill, ON 2614
6 Sambuev, Bator Montreal, QC 2605
7 Le Siege, Alexandre Montreal, QC 2567
8 Gerzhoy, Leonid Toronto, ON 2560
9 Samsonkin, Artiom Toronto, ON 2559
10 Hambleton, Aman Ottawa, ON 2547
FIDE Ratings:
1 Bareev, Evgeny Toronto, ON 2663
2 Kovalyov, Anton Chateauguay, QC 2636
3 Hansen, Eric Calgary, AB 2584
4 Sambuev, Bator Montreal, QC 2562
5 Le Siege, Alexandre Montreal, QC 2528
6 Castellanos, Renier Montreal, QC 2504
7 Gerzhoy, Leonid Toronto, ON 2472
8 Roussel-Roozmon, Thomas Montreal, QC 2466
9 Hambleton, Aman Ottawa, ON 2453
10 Noritsyn, Nikolay Richmond Hill, ON 2449
We see that for players, who rarely play in Canada, CFC Ratings are indeed irrelevant.
But for players, who often play in Canada, it's quite opposite - CFC Ratings are very relevant.
2 most notable examples are Razvan Preotu and Nikolay Noritsyn.
So, for me this motion looks like an attempt to discourage them to play in Canada, because it's practically impossible for them to gain FIDE Rating points in a typical Canadian tournament.
Is it really what we want? :confused:
If you want to make a point, please provide us with the real FIDE rating. The CFC site gives the wrong FIDE rating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Barron
Actually, I think Michael's point is valid. The formula should not penalize Canadian players that play almost exclusively FIDE tournaments, nor should it penalize those that play in non-FIDE events that are either CFC or FQE rated.
Personally, I prefer using FIDE rating exclusively should the player play enough FIDE rated games to meet the activity requirement. Should they meet the activity requirement only by including CFC or FQE events that are not FIDE rated, then it should be a weighted average, based on n FIDE rated games versus the remaining non-FIDE games.
I also do not see why the rules should be different for women vs men.
At least one or two parents of strong young female players have asked me a question on this very point. Why should the rules for female players be different?Quote:
Originally Posted by Garland Best
This is a very reasonable question. I hope, I am ready to answer it. Interesting, how many posts will I make in the next 7 days?Quote:
Originally Posted by Garland Best
3 months ago, I posted my initial ideas on chesstalk. I compared, how relevant are CFC and FIDE ratings for different groups of players.
FIDE below 1800. FIDE is irrelevant.
FIDE between 1800 and 2000. CFC rating is more important.
FIDE between 2000 and 2200. Both CFC and FIDE ratings are important equally.
FIDE between 2200 and 2400. FIDE rating is more important.
FIDE above 2400. CFC rating is irrelevant.
Our women team has average rating around 2100 FIDE. So, I am completely OK with the current rules (50% CFC, 50% FIDE). At the same time, every member of the national team is (and hopefully will be) above 2400. That's why it is different.
I have another reason not to propose any change here for the women team. Many contenders are young and have K-factor of 40. Their FIDE rating is too volatile and thus less reliable. For the men team, every contender has a K-factor of 10, even the youngest players. K-factor changes to 10 after 2400, no matter how young the player is.
Garland, I believe your point was valid a few years ago, when many Canadian tournaments were not FIDE rated. It is different now. My last Canadian not-FIDE rated event was long time ago. Open section is FIDE-rated almost everywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garland Best
Now any game played in Canada is counted twice: for CFC and for FIDE rating. Game played abroad is counted only once. I can give an example to better explain my point.
Example 1. 2 players A and B have exactly the same CFC rating of 2600 and FIDE rating of 2500. They play 4 games with one another. 2 games in Canada and 2 games in USA. Player A scored 0.5/2 in Canada and 2/2 in USA. His rating will be 2505 FIDE and 2492 CFC. He won the match 2.5-1.5, but lost total of 3 rating points or 1.5 points on average. Is it fair? Why game between the same opponents counted twice? Actually, the game is counted 2.6 times, because CFC has a K-factor of 16. Player B got 13 rating points total for a single win. Player A got 5 rating points for a win. 13/5=2.6.
It seems to me that Victor's explanation of why we would continue to use blended CFC and FIDE ratings for the women's team is a good one though it might cause at least a need to provide explanations when people point out the inconsistency of not using the same method for for the men and women.
I do get the impression that most of the top rated men prefer we use FIDE ratings.
I can add that women team players play often in class section (like U2200, or even U2000). In many tournaments, these sections are not FIDE rated.
If you want to have general rule about using FIDE only or blended CFC and FIDE, we can make a borderline at 2300 level. If the average rating of top-5 eligible players is below 2300, use blended FIDE-CFC rating. If 2300 or above, then use FIDE rating only. Right now, the averages are about 2600 and about 2100.