English Chess Forum

Just noticed this, a press release from the Grand Chess Tour:

Grand Chess Tour Introduces Innovative Universal Rating System

GCT wrote:"The new system will introduce the concept of a universal chess rating, a single rating value that represents a player’s universal strength across all time controls. The release of the initial rating list on 1 January 2017 will represent the culmination of 2 years of research and analysis by a team of notable experts in the fields of mathematics and statistics."

The pilot project will last one year. Thoughts?

So have these "notable experts" been beavering away in secret, on Dr No's island or something?

JustinHorton wrote:So have these "notable experts" been beavering away in secret, on Dr No's island or something?

Probably.

Are there only going to be six players in the Grand Chess Tour next year?

Those who qualified are: So, Nakamura, Caruana, Carlsen, Kramnik and Vachier-Lagrave.

Good prospects for exciting chess?

Maybe each event will still have wildcards as well?

http://grandchesstour.org/join-tour

GCT wrote:"We are already working on adding additional tournaments to the 2017 tour roster and we would be happy to hold discussions with potential event organisers or sponsors who are interested in bringing a Grand Chess Tour tournament to their own country in 2017. In particular, we are now actively looking for partners in Africa, South America and Asia in order to ensure that the tour is truly global in the future."

http://grandchesstour.org/press-release ... ifth-event

(This one dates from 11 December, as stated in the pdf document, though the web page carelessly leaves out the press release date.)

GCT wrote:"A total of nine players will be selected as full 2017 Grand Chess Tour participants. Three spots will be awarded to the top finishers in the 2016 GCT, another three to the top players by average 2016 rating and the final three shall be determined by the GCT as tour wildcards. Players are required to participate in both classic events and two of the three rapid and blitz events. [...] The GCT further expands its scope by including 14 event wildcard positions in 2017. These coveted invitations allow up to 14 additional players to vie for a share of the $1.2 million in prizes."

It is a bit confusing, but you have three "tour wildcards" and 14 "event wildcards". The table sort of explains it. I am sure things will come out in the wash after the tour organisers have got the players to sign on the dotted lines (or not, as the case may be).

The logical next step would be a Grand Chess Tour rapid event in London...

GCT wrote:"The new system will introduce the concept of a universal chess rating, a single rating value that represents a player’s universal strength across all time controls.

That rather presumes the existence of "a player's universal strength across all time controls".

Caruana, for example, is something like 70 points better at standard play than rapid.

I'm not really sure the "Grand Chess Tour" should be going into the ratings business. Perhaps Kasparov has it in mind as a FIDE replacement with the winner becoming some form of world champion.

If I recall, Kasparov intended to implement a Universal Rating System - combining results from different time controls - had he been elected FIDE President.

We don't yet know:
- What events will be rated (is the URS intended as a rival to the FIDE rating system?); and
- The method of calculation.

The Press Release says the new system will be used to determine the [3] wildcards for the 2017 Grand Chess Tour (with each wildcard being a full member of the tour). The other full participants will be determined (before the wildcards are determined) by: a) finishing place in the 2016 Grand Chess Tour (3 players); and b) highest *FIDE* rating for 2016 (a further 3 players).

Angus French wrote: The Press Release says the new system will be used to determine the [3] wildcards for the 2017 Grand Chess Tour (with each wildcard being a full member of the tour).

I just have this feeling that Karjakin will be excluded somehow.

Given the context Seirawan gave it as a long standing goal of Kasparov, and with Danilov taunting Makro, it seems at least partially an attempt to exclude FIDE from any role in the Sinquefield events.

The vagueness of the system does suggest it could be used to include or exclude particular players. But since it is a private event I can't say I'm really concerned.

Discussion of the GCT 2017 is here:

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=8758

(Is it best to keep discussion of the proposed rating system separate from discussion of the tour plans themselves, or are the the same thing?)

Angus French wrote:If I recall, Kasparov intended to implement a Universal Rating System - combining results from different time controls - had he been elected FIDE President.

I didn't notice that, but some years ago he brought together a group of experts to work on a similar project in Moscow. As I recall they were promised that their expenses would be reimbursed, but that didn't happen.

NickFaulks wrote:

Angus French wrote:If I recall, Kasparov intended to implement a Universal Rating System - combining results from different time controls - had he been elected FIDE President.

I didn't notice that, but some years ago he brought together a group of experts to work on a similar project in Moscow. As I recall they were promised that their expenses would be reimbursed, but that didn't happen.

"Winning Move" number 4:

Kasparov election campaign 2014 wrote:A universal rating system will include every game of chess played on the planet, from world championship matches to online blitz. It will serve as a portal that unites tens of millions of players and will become an attractive advertising and sponsorship asset.

Paul Cooksey wrote:The vagueness of the system does suggest it could be used to include or exclude particular players. But since it is a private event I can't say I'm really concerned.

There are many ways in which the system could be devised, rather like a decathlon.

Before you start, you have to answer the question of why you are doing it. The FIDE system estimates playing strength by trying to use past results to predict future results, and even then is hampered by the various different time controls, which affect players differently. The proposed system is presumably intended only to answer the question "how successfully have you played over the past year or so?", which is much easier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIxvccHI0K8

Might be a false trial, but perhaps a clue

Brian Valentine wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIxvccHI0K8

Might be a false trial, but perhaps a clue

I sincerely hope not!

NickFaulks wrote: I sincerely hope not!

This is a version that can be read.

http://www.academia.edu/24378997/A_Prop ... ing_System

It's a novel idea that the gain or loss of rating points should relate to the length of the game, not however one that makes much sense in terms of building a reliable ranking.

There is some merit in deriving a hybrid ranking list where you could relate players who exclusively played four hour and longer games to those who only played bullet, blitz, rapid or club. If you know that two players are of about equal strength at four hour or longer games but if one of them is about 200 Elo points better at Blitz, I don't know why you would want to suppress that information.

Roger de Coverly wrote: If you know that two players are of about equal strength at four hour or longer games but if one of them is about 200 Elo points better at Blitz, I don't know why you would want to suppress that information.

I'm sure nobody would wish to suppress any information, and it isn't suppressed now. The question is whether a combined rating relating to all disciplines should replace the individual rating lists published now. While you're at it, why not add in bridge and backgammon?