16. 2012-P CFC Quick Chess Rating System (Bob Armstrong)

[Michael von Keitz]

Motion 2012-P – CFC Quick Chess Rating System

Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Fred McKim

That CFC combine the current “ Active “ and “ Blitz “ Rating Systems, and expand them
into one system called a “ Quick Chess “ Rating System, on the following terms:

1. it will accept " quick chess " tournaments with time control from Game/5 ( with
increments Game/3 with 2 sec. increment ) to Game/59. Games 15-59 min. will
be the regular K factor ( 2200+ - 16; U 2200 - 32 ), while those 5-14 min. will be
one-half K factor ( 2200+ - 8; U 2200 – 16 ).

2. Prior to establishing the new “ Quick “ rating, all “ Active “ ratings that are more
than 100 points below the “ regular “ rating will be revised to CFC regular - 100.
The CFC “ quick “ rating will be the maximum of the CFC Rating (if any games
played since 2006/01/01) and the CFC “ active “ (if any games played since 2006/
01/01).

3. Players must be CFC members. Alternatively, a modified tournament playing
fee will suffice: the CFC portion of the quick chess tournament playing fee is the
normal CFC portion of the tournament playing fee reduced from $16 to $8 (adult)
and from $8 to $4 (junior); added to this will be the applicable provincial dues.
The price for the “ quick chess “ tournament playing fee will be reviewed by the
executive after 6 months.

4. The " quick chess tournament " rating fee will be 50% of the normal rating fee.

5. The current practice of all-junior tournaments of less than 1 hour not requiring
any CFC membership or tournament playing fee, and being rated for $ . 50 per
player, will continue as an exception in the system.

Commentary:

The current “ active “ rating system and the “ blitz “ rating system are little used
( though a few particularly like the “ active “ and find it a convenient time control ), and
the active ratings are considered by many to be stale and inaccurate because of the little
use. There have only been 2 “ blitz “ tournaments rated in about 7-8 years. We
considered using the term “ speed “ rating system, but the objection is that in Canada, “
speed “ is currently clearly identified as Game/5. “ Quick Chess “ is a term borrowed
from the USCF.

There is some demand for a fast rating system, to try to compete OTB with the
faster internet time controls.

The Active Rating System seems easily adaptable to a new “ Quick Chess “
Rating System, which would integrate the “ blitz “ system and accept time controls from

Game/5 ( with increments, Game/3 with 2 sec. increments – Wikipedia notes under “
Fast chess – Blitz “ – “ More recently due to the influx of digital clocks, 3 minutes with a
2 second add is also preferred. “ ) to Game/59 ( a number seem opposed to going to “
bullet “ chess – Game/1 ). Also, given the number of possible games in a faster time
control tournament, we have adjusted the K factor for games from 5 – 14 min. ( ½
regular K factor ). We feel this system will broaden the appeal of official CFC-rated
tournaments, and expand the base of players, and hopefully generate new full CFC
members, who will graduate to the “ regular “ time control rated tournaments over time.

We have tried to establish “ initial “ quick ratings, by taking into account the
possible inaccuracy of active ratings, because many players have rated games so seldom,
and stale ratings. The regular rating is more up-to-date, even though it may be generally
true that it is somewhat higher for most, than their actual speed strength. To deal with
stale ratings in either system, players who have been inactive in either system since
2005 will start as unrated. Players who have managed to obtain an active rating higher
than their CFC rating will be able to retain it. Players in a severely underrated pool will
be restored to their CFC rating, or at worse 100 points below it. *If the rating used is
provisional, the “ quick “ rating will be provisional based on the same number of games.

Since these “ quick chess “ tournaments are now being officially sanctioned, it is
felt that CFC membership must be required, or a special new “ quick chess tournament
playing fee “, which will be relatively modest ( CFC portion at least will be ½ regular
federal portion of the tournament playing fee; provincial components will be set by the
provinces ). This will keep this new type of tournament financially reasonable. The fee
will be reviewed after 6 months.

The rating of these tournaments is no different than the rating of “ regular “
tournaments, but it is felt that a lower rating fee ( subsidized by the regular rating
system ) is required, again to keep the playing cost of the tournament modest, and make
it attractive – we have set it at only 50% of the normal rating fee ( it has generally been
estimated that the actual cost of rating an individual is likely around $ 2 ). It is hoped that
both clubs and organizers will be attracted to the idea of a national “ quick chess “ rating,
and that they will commence holding such “ quick chess “ tournaments. Again, this is
seen somewhat as a “ loss leader “ to get non-CFC members involved in official OTB
chess, and that they will eventually become full, active members.

We do not want the current all-junior tournament system affected by this change,
and so have made it an exception to the normal rules for “ quick chess “ tournaments.

[Pierre Dénommée]

This is a good motion.

The Latest FIDE Laws of Chess make is clear that Game/1 hour is a normal slow game. Some foreign countries were organizing G/61 but those are now gone. In both Quebec and Canada, G/60 has been rated regular for a long time.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Pierre:

Thx for the confirmation re the FIDE level.

We look forward to your " yes " vote on this Motion 2012-P.

Bob A ( Mover )

[Pierre Dénommée]

I will vote yes as soon as the voting booth opens.

[Bob Armstrong]

Many feel Vlad Dobrich's tournament in Toronto is already too expensive for the average player - not for the elite players attending who get good games + nice Prize fund. I doubt his players would pay the extra amount to get the rapid ( and sometimes blitz ) tournaments FIDE & CFC rated. Similarly, the Montreal Blitz's seem quite strong, and Quebec Gov. Hugh Brodie has given his opinion that he doesn't see the organizers trying to get their tournaments both CFC Quick and FIDE rated ( FIDE will soon start keeping Blitz and Rapid Rating lists, in addition to their regular one ).

But I think quick chess tournaments with a very modest entry fee, with almost no prizes, for the purpose of merely attracting the casual player to a challenge, will likely start to be FIDE & CFC Quick rated, because these new players will want a quick CFC rating and the corresponding FIDE rating - International!! ( I think it is not so important to died-in-the-wool regular CFC tournament players ). And the organizer could simply charge enough for the two rating fees, and a very modest prize + low overhead + low TD fee ( under the new Quick Chess Rating system, if the motion passes, note we have cut rating fees for this new system ). It would be cheap enough to attract the casual player, if CFC can figure out where to go to advertise to get to them. The quick chess proposal is really part of a marketing strategy, which hopefully will eventually lead to new CFC members.

And of course, as usual in Canada, the organizers are the key to success on this!

Bob A ( Motion Mover )

[Halldor P. Palsson]

Active chess has always gone begging for attention. The CFC has not managed Active ratings at all.

Active ratings are very deflated. Very few events are run and they are not popular because many players think Active ratings are a bad joke.

Blitz - I have never heard of any demand for CFC blitz ratings. I have never played in a blitz tournament that was to be CFC rated. No player has ever told me that he wanted a CFC blitz rating.

Is this another solution in search of a problem?

[Christopher Mallon]

Active ratings are very deflated. Very few events are run and they are not popular because many players think Active ratings are a bad joke.

The intent of the motion is to change that, so you really can't use it as an effective argument against the motion.

Blitz - I have never heard of any demand for CFC blitz ratings. I have never played in a blitz tournament that was to be CFC rated.

I have personally run two CFC rated Blitz tournaments.

No player has ever told me that he wanted a CFC blitz rating.

I want a CFC blitz rating. Happier now?

[Bob Armstrong]

From the CMA ChessTalk ( minimally edited ):

Why Quick Chess Will Work
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi Cheng

I don't think blitz chess ratings are needed. There's already ICC, Playchess and numerous other sites that you can play blitz on and pretty much gauge your rating based on the strength of your opponents and the site itself. There's no need for the CFC to set any kind of standard. Just take a look at rapid tournaments. Barely any games are even rated. My rapid rating is 2020... I've only played one rapid tournament - my first one. If CFC wants to reach out to new members, they should make blitz ratings free on the condition that the players are all CFC members. Otherwise, why pay a declining organization to "rate" blitz ratings when there's all these free alternative methods to tell if someone is good in blitz or not?
__________________________________________________ ________________

Hi Bindi:

I agree that CFC fumbled the ball on active and blitz ratings as they were.

But the new " quick chess rating system " will be marketed to the public, and hopefully picked up by some organizers. Regular play in this system will maintain its accuracy and currency, so volume use is going to be necessary.

You are also right that there are free internet alternatives. I don't know how you feel about internet vs OTB, but I much prefer OTB, where I can see the whites of their eyes ( and I did play on the internet for a while - it's OK and was fun and is more social than some give it credit for, with messaging back and forth with those interested, and those you get to know over time ).

But internet in my mind, can't compare with the tournament rush of OTB play. So the quick chess system is trying to offer an OTB alternative for chess at faster speeds - something like is offered on the internet, that casual players in particular are somewhat familiar with. I think that players will slowly be attracted to getting a quick chess rating ( if it is relatively accurate and current ), and likely in time will also want an international FIDE blitz and rapid rating ( I think FIDE is right on this initiative of theirs, and we should learn from it - one of the few times FIDE seems to be getting it right! ).

Finally, I must strongly disagree that CFC is a " declining " organization. The last two years at least have been stable on membership, there is a very slight climb in members as of Jan. 1, 2012, and the organization is running overall quite well ( especially when compared with the five consecutive years of over $ 30,000 annual deficits! ).

Don't be fooled by the past - there is always hope for the future - and CFC is showing some positive signs of future success.

Bob A

[Fred McKim]

Active chess has always gone begging for attention. The CFC has not managed Active ratings at all.

Active ratings are very deflated. Very few events are run and they are not popular because many players think Active ratings are a bad joke.

Blitz - I have never heard of any demand for CFC blitz ratings. I have never played in a blitz tournament that was to be CFC rated. No player has ever told me that he wanted a CFC blitz rating.

Is this another solution in search of a problem?

The problem with the existing rating deflation will be taken care of when the Quick system is implemented. In any case this deflation (should it continue) should be handled every couple of years by the Rating Auditor.

[Bob Gillanders]

Thanks Bob and Fred for developing the Quick chess rating system. I think we all agree, that initially anyway, that it will be the weaker sister to the regular rating system. But in time, who knows.

I like the upside potential. I say, let's give it a try.