Too much dishonesty in chess

[Paul Dupré]

Therefore, why give priority to non-event ratings (eg. ECF).

There's quite a number of players where the FIDE ratings can be 200 points wrong or more. Events paired purely on FIDE ratings have something of the effect of lottery pairings. Theo Khoury for example is now ECF 2191 but FIDE 2020.so he's one of the ones with a closer difference.

I've had a look and would say that his performances in France have cost him 140 points off his FIDE rating. They are not included in his ECF rating.

Therefore, in my opinion as a Rating officer the FIDE rating is more accurate for FIDE rated events - please disagree with me if you wish.

[Paul Dupré]

If the organisers had used FIDE ratings throughout would it have been fair to let a player play in the U2000 because their FIDE rating was 1790 when they have an ECF rating of 2068?

Did I say that, I don't think that was even inferred !!!

If

Personally, I think FIDE event should mean FIDE ratings...

doesn't imply use of FIDE ratings for section eligibility as well as your clear desire that they be used for pairings what would you use for section eligibility?

I think it's quite valid to say "Under 2000 FIDE and ECF", don't you ?

...for an U2000 event, as the games are being both FIDE and ECF rated.

[Roger de Coverly]

Therefore, in my opinion as a Rating officer the FIDE rating is more accurate for FIDE rated events - please disagree with me if you wish.

For pairings it's only the relative ratings that matter, not their absolute values.

If for example top half v bottom half is about a 200 point difference, why should a player 2000 ECF, 2000 FIDE face a player 2000 ECF, 1800 FIDE? I'm assuming their relative ECF ratings are the correct ones, not necessarily in absolute terms but because they've got about the same performance against a similar standard of opposition.

[Paul Dupré]

Therefore, in my opinion as a Rating officer the FIDE rating is more accurate for FIDE rated events - please disagree with me if you wish.

For pairings it's only the relative ratings that matter, not their absolute values.

If for example top half v bottom half is about a 200 point difference, why should a player 2000 ECF, 2000 FIDE face a player 2000 ECF, 1800 FIDE? I'm assuming their relative ECF ratings are the correct ones, not necessarily in absolute terms but because they've got about the same performance against a similar standard of opposition.

I think I have just proved why there may be discrepancies. So NO. Theo Khoury had two bad performances in France, should they be ignored ?

You can't prove what abilities somebody will perform at during a tournament. All you can do is use available ratings. And, in my opinion FIDE ratings are more accurate for a FIDE rated event with FIDE rules.

[NickFaulks]

Since I stopped playing evening league chess at the end of the 2015/16 season, I've played 101 ECF rated games.

I think that's the point - 15 games per annum really isn't enough to reflect an underlying change in playing strength with any reliability. In England, most players do need those shorter games to obtain a realistic rating, irrespective of the rating system used.

[Ian Thompson]

doesn't imply use of FIDE ratings for section eligibility as well as your clear desire that they be used for pairings what would you use for section eligibility?

I think it's quite valid to say "Under 2000 FIDE and ECF", don't you ?

...for an U2000 event, as the games are being both FIDE and ECF rated.

There's nothing wrong with that at all. It's equivalent to what the Guildford organisers have done by saying they'll use the higher of the two.

[Paul Dupré]

Theo Khoury has a FIDE rating of 2020 based on 250+ games in 4 years.

Should be pretty accurate I would suggest !!!

[Paul Dupré]

doesn't imply use of FIDE ratings for section eligibility as well as your clear desire that they be used for pairings what would you use for section eligibility?

I think it's quite valid to say "Under 2000 FIDE and ECF", don't you ?

...for an U2000 event, as the games are being both FIDE and ECF rated.

There's nothing wrong with that at all. It's equivalent to what the Guildford organisers have done by saying they'll use the higher of the two.

Why not the lower ?

There's no proof that higher ratings are more accurate.

[Paul Dupré]

Theo Khoury has a FIDE rating of 2020 based on 250+ games in 4 years.

Should be pretty accurate I would suggest !!!

His ECF rating of 2191 is based on 135 games.

[Roger de Coverly]

And, in my opinion FIDE ratings are more accurate for a FIDE rated event with FIDE rules.

Many arbiters have the opinion of preferring to set seeding orders for pairings using the higher of the two ratings. Organisers use the higher of the two for eligibility to rating restricted sections. The ECF are using the higher rating as eligibility to play in the English Championship. So nothing the Guildford organisers did would be regarded as dishonest, just normal practice.

[Richard Bates]

Theo Khoury has a FIDE rating of 2020 based on 250+ games in 4 years.

Should be pretty accurate I would suggest !!!

2 months ago he had a FIDE rating of 1893 "based on" 250+ games in 4 years (of course it isn't really based on 250+ games as the system is self correcting).

[Paul Dupré]

Theo Khoury has a FIDE rating of 2020 based on 250+ games in 4 years.

Should be pretty accurate I would suggest !!!

2 months ago he had a FIDE rating of 1893 "based on" 250+ games in 4 years (of course it isn't really based on 250+ games as the system is self correcting).

So, both ratings have gone up 100+ points in 2 months. That's good progress indeed.

[Paul Dupré]

And, in my opinion FIDE ratings are more accurate for a FIDE rated event with FIDE rules.

Many arbiters have the opinion of preferring to set seeding orders for pairings using the higher of the two ratings. Organisers use the higher of the two for eligibility to rating restricted sections. The ECF are using the higher rating as eligibility to play in the English Championship. So nothing the Guildford organisers did would be regarded as dishonest, just normal practice.

Which means the same thing, below 2000 FIDE and below 2000 ECF.

[Paul Dupré]

And, in my opinion FIDE ratings are more accurate for a FIDE rated event with FIDE rules.

Many arbiters have the opinion of preferring to set seeding orders for pairings using the higher of the two ratings. Organisers use the higher of the two for eligibility to rating restricted sections. The ECF are using the higher rating as eligibility to play in the English Championship. So nothing the Guildford organisers did would be regarded as dishonest, just normal practice.

Which means the same thing, below 2000 FIDE and below 2000 ECF.

Why has normal practice changed since I was involved in FIDE events, that's my question ?

[Richard Bates]

Many arbiters have the opinion of preferring to set seeding orders for pairings using the higher of the two ratings. Organisers use the higher of the two for eligibility to rating restricted sections. The ECF are using the higher rating as eligibility to play in the English Championship. So nothing the Guildford organisers did would be regarded as dishonest, just normal practice.

Which means the same thing, below 2000 FIDE and below 2000 ECF.

Why has normal practice changed since I was involved in FIDE events, that's my question ?

Because ratings, particularly junior ratings, are widely perceived as a lottery, and organisers/arbiters are very conscious to try to avert complaints about significantly under-rated players hoovering up all the prizes.