English Chess Forum

Had we been playing for money, I might have suggested something like that. But it was just some off-hand games, probably in his suite. He must surely have suggested them.

Such a rule has a benefit of protecting against small-but-finite probability events that have no bearing on chess skill. Suppose a GM is playing a 1400 rated player. There is a small probability that the GM has a phone or watch that goes off or alternatively that the lower rated player is cheating and managing to get away with it. Whatever these probabilities are (and neither are zero) for fairness the expected score of the lower rated player should not be less than the likelihood of such events.

Joseph Conlon wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:29 pm

Such a rule has a benefit of protecting against small-but-finite probability events that have no bearing on chess skill. Suppose a GM is playing a 1400 rated player. There is a small probability that the GM has a phone or watch that goes off or alternatively that the lower rated player is cheating and managing to get away with it. Whatever these probabilities are (and neither are zero) for fairness the expected score of the lower rated player should not be less than the likelihood of such events.

Indeed, but it isn't, nearly. The protection limits the loss of the grandmaster and the gains of the low rated player to a less than astronomical level but remains a very large number of rating points. The issue being discussed is at the opposite end where the grandmaster has won and the rules guarantee a vey small, though not microscopic, gain and similarly imposes a small, but not microscopic, loss for the lowly player.

A certain GM of my acquaintance played in a series of open blitz tournaments I organised, with the avowed intention of pushing his blitz rating up high enough to qualify for a major FIDE event. He gained very little in each event, even having to score 6/6 to do that. I quite admired him, because he took plenty of risks to win games, and occasionally he would draw or lose and it put a dent in his plans and lose points - but he kept playing FIDE Rating snakes and ladders, and eventually it paid off!

If it is within the regulations, I am not sure I care. I know at least one non-English arbiter who manipulated his rating to ludicrous heights to prove a point. As a result of that, the regulations were changed.

Has the PM facility changed or disappeared?

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:29 am

Has the PM facility changed or disappeared?

Would you wish people to use it? Your email address is publicly available.

No, I'm trying to use it myself and failing.

I remember saying this a while ago - give me 10 years and a willing supply of novice players and I could get my ecf rating over 300.

It wouldnt be much of a help to me though, it is not as though I would suddenly receive a bunch of tournament invites and appearance fees since my play strength would still only be 200 (in fact, it would probably be lower then that given I would have had no serious opponents to practice against).

Still, at the end of the day it is bringing more rating points into the system, and if he ever goes out playing real tournaments there will be no end of willing opponents to take a risk free crack at buffing their own grade.

Nope, overall he is likely to cause deflation in ratings while stretching the top end. This might be desirable if FIDE and next year the ECF can get their minds around a junior ratings/grading fix.

Adam >A certain GM of my acquaintance played in a series of open blitz tournaments I organised, with the avowed intention of pushing his blitz rating up high enough to qualify for a major FIDE event. He gained very little in each event, even having to score 6/6 to do that. I quite admired him, because he took plenty of risks to win games, and occasionally he would draw or lose and it put a dent in his plans and lose points - but he kept playing FIDE Rating snakes and ladders, and eventually it paid off!<

You do realise it is highly likely he became more proficient at beating very low rated players and thus it made sense for his Blitz Rating to go up.

If you have an isolated group of players, then their ratings may become distorted. Thus
Myanmar. Kevin O'Connell docked 100 points from all of them.
Women. All received an extra 100 points, except Zsuzsa Polgar.
Gheorghiu used to buy points cheaply in Eastern Europe and sell them in Western Europe.
The year we had a big show in Trafalgar Square I met a Rumanian. He told me he was going deliberately to lose some games in order to lower his rating and play in the World Amateur Championship, U2000. I rather think he didn't know I was secretary of the QC and originator of the WAC.

Stewart Reuben wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:00 am

Women. All received an extra 100 points, except Zsuzsa Polgar.

That was political though as an anti Polgar measure. The female British players earned their ratings in events like the British Championship or the Lloyds Bank where they mostly faced male players, but were also given rating revaluations. When all the ratings were extended down to 2000, playing female players could give a boost to the initial rating for male players under 2200 because some of them weren't as strong in practice as their paper rating.

IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 04, 2019 11:32 pm

The ECF system is also vulnerable to this type of gaming. Look at the progress of my ECF rapidplay grade over the years.

Wow Jack haha. Is that the opposite of sandbagging? What is that 88 games now?
Over 10 years Jack you won in a row at Barnstaple haha.

This guy Rausis has obviously just copied Jacks magic Barnstaple trick

Joey Stewart wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 09, 2019 12:33 pm

if he ever goes out playing real tournaments there will be no end of willing opponents to take a risk free crack at buffing their own grade.

If I may be forgiven for introducing some facts into the discussion, in the 2018/19 winter season Rausis played 26 games against 2350+ opposition. His results were

v 2350-2450 _ +8 =5 -0 for a performance of 2650

v 2451-2670 _ +3 =10 -0 for a performance of 2640

I suggest that he may not be expected to litter the landscape with free rating points in the way some people believe.

I'm not convinced. If Rausis was a strong player, surely he would have beaten Mamedyarov with black in the Bundesliga instead of conceding that draw.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:45 am

If I may be forgiven for introducing some facts into the discussion, in the 2018/19 winter season Rausis played 26 games against 2350+ opposition. His results were

v 2350-2450 _ +8 =5 -0 for a performance of 2650

v 2451-2670 _ +3 =10 -0 for a performance of 2640

I suggest that he may not be expected to litter the landscape with free rating points in the way some people believe.

So Rausis is 2600 - 2650 strength. His rating is close to 2700.