Random Ratings Everywhere

Venues, fixtures, teams and related matters.
NickFaulks
Posts: 5184
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Random Ratings Everywhere

Post by NickFaulks » Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:48 am

Roger de Coverly wrote: in the UK, a lot of chess is played at time limits where the whole game is scheduled to take place in a period longer than two hours and less than four hours
Roger,

As you are doubtless aware, there is active discussion on this topic. The first question is whether you would like G/61 to be rated in the same list as full six hour games ( some think they are very different ) or would introduce a new section.

All opinions, including yours, would be gratefully received.

John Redmond
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 6:23 pm

Re: Random Ratings Everywhere

Post by John Redmond » Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:07 am

I agree that 'e-ratings' are being over-used in the 4NCL and I know quite a few players feel the same way. As long as there is a separate system for juniors I don't see that they have any place in Division One at all. Rather too often, one feels that they are either being used as 'vanity ratings' or else as an opportunity to place weaker players further up the board order so that stronger players can play down.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18205
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Random Ratings Everywhere

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Mar 21, 2016 11:05 am

NickFaulks wrote: The first question is whether you would like G/61 to be rated in the same list as full six hour games ( some think they are very different ) or would introduce a new section.
If you check long established national systems, such as the USCF, ECF/BCF and KNSB, they never had a problem with the idea that you had one list which spanned all forms of chess that were not rapidplay or Blitz. So you include both the National championships and junior tournaments, subject to status, on the same list. Historically FIDE has wanted to keep its rating system elitist, and perhaps still does.

If they wanted to draw a line in the sand, the missing link could be entitled club and Congress rating, but the distinction in quality of play between 90 30 and move rates based on a three hour or three and half hour session is not, in my view, that great. But that's at a level below the standard for award of titles. Would FIDE be content to see CM and FM titles awarded solely on the basis of evening league play?

NickFaulks
Posts: 5184
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Random Ratings Everywhere

Post by NickFaulks » Mon Mar 21, 2016 12:16 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote: If they wanted to draw a line in the sand, the missing link could be entitled club and Congress rating, but the distinction in quality of play between 90 30 and move rates based on a three hour or three and half hour session is not, in my view, that great.
Comparing G/90'+30" increment with G/105, I'm not even sure which I would expect to be better. However, we're talking about time controls down to G/60 or even G/30'+30". Would you like to see those in the standard list? It's not a trick question and I don't know what answer to expect.
Would FIDE be content to see CM and FM titles awarded solely on the basis of evening league play?
I don't need you to speculate on what FIDE would like. I want to know what you would like.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18205
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Random Ratings Everywhere

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Mar 21, 2016 12:21 pm

NickFaulks wrote: However, we're talking about time controls down to G/60 or even G/30'+30". Would you like to see those in the standard list? It's not a trick question and I don't know what answer to expect.
If you want to have one rating list covering everything down to G/61 or equivalents, the compromise is that titles become available. Alternatively have two rating lists, "amateur" and "professional". The dividing line would be that the "amateur" list didn't qualify for titles above, say, the male CM level of 2200 and the 90 30 rate no longer qualified as a "professional" rate for Norms. That might be a step too far of course.

Mike Gunn
Posts: 693
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: Random Ratings Everywhere

Post by Mike Gunn » Mon Mar 21, 2016 12:32 pm

There is a difficulty with having two rating lists: what do you do when you have an event where amateurs play professionals (e.g. large opens, league competitions)? (How do you rate the game.)

The only solution I have seen is the "stars barred" one, which I don't think would be popular/ could be applied to all competitions.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18205
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Random Ratings Everywhere

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Mar 21, 2016 12:45 pm

Mike Gunn wrote:There is a difficulty with having two rating lists: what do you do when you have an event where amateurs play professionals (e.g. large opens, league competitions)? (How do you rate the game.)
If FIDE decided to have two rating lists for move rates slower than quick play, an event would qualify for one or the another. If players take part in events which have qualified for different sections, they will appear in both lists. The really top players won't appear in the "fast" list unless they play special events like Zurich.

An event like the 4NCL with sessions longer than four hours would qualify as "professional" whilst a weekend tournament with move rates faster than four hours or wherever you put the dividing line would be "amateur" no matter who played in them. Perhaps "amateur" and "professional" are the wrong labels, "fast", "slow", "National"/"International" perhaps. Use the latter and players below, say, 1800 could be booted out of the "International" list until they had played at a standard high enough to qualify. That might at least remove the current randomness in the 1800 - 2200 range demonstrated by the non-use of the FIDE list for 4NCL board orders adopted by a number of teams and partly resolve the problems to the rating list created by 1400 junior playing at 1800.

NickFaulks
Posts: 5184
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Random Ratings Everywhere

Post by NickFaulks » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:30 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote: If you want to have one rating list covering everything down to G/61 or equivalents
But do you want that? Forget titles, would you like to see two hour games and seven hour games thrown into the same pot for rating?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18205
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Random Ratings Everywhere

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:51 pm

NickFaulks wrote:Forget titles, would you like to see two hour games and seven hour games thrown into the same pot for rating?
It isn't my decision. The ECF throws it all into the same pot and no-one has objected. There aren't any meaningful titles at stake with the ECF domestic system, so that's an angle that applies to FIDE and not to the ECF.

User avatar
Joey Stewart
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: All Of Them
Contact:

Re: Random Ratings Everywhere

Post by Joey Stewart » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:52 pm

It would be nice if there could be more fide rated opportunities at tournaments but I would definitely want it limited to weekenders and not be forced into evening chess - there is too much "punch drunk" stuff that goes on there which would ruin a rating which is currently based on playing in good conditions with plenty of time to think and (hopefully) a rested frame of mind.
At least people can choose to play weekenders - a lot of league games are almost mandatory when you are a captain or part of a small squad with few reserves.
Lose one queen and it is a disaster, Lose 1000 queens and it is just a statistic.

Brian Towers
Posts: 1233
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: Random Ratings Everywhere

Post by Brian Towers » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:00 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote: If you want to have one rating list covering everything down to G/61 or equivalents
But do you want that? Forget titles, would you like to see two hour games and seven hour games thrown into the same pot for rating?
First, Roger, it would be down to G60. G60 is just too slow for rapidplay.

Nick, here's a radical suggestion for you. Extend the rapidplay definition to games where each player has more than 10 minutes but less than 90. Perhaps while you're at it reconsider the rapidplay / blitz boundary as well.

Extending rapidplay to 10 < G < 90 would drastically reduce the non-rated gap for 2200+ players and eliminate it for everybody else.
Does it really matter if your main rating is rapidplay or standard? Particularly for so-called amateurs?
This would also address Joey's "punch drunk evening league chess" point as well. Since that would be rated as rapid in the new regime.
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

User avatar
Joey Stewart
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: All Of Them
Contact:

Re: Random Ratings Everywhere

Post by Joey Stewart » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:31 pm

I wouldnt mind too much if I had to throw my league games in with my rapid ones - the standard I play at in a 3 hour evening match is probably not much higher then the 30 minute rapid one dayers at the weekend
Lose one queen and it is a disaster, Lose 1000 queens and it is just a statistic.

NickFaulks
Posts: 5184
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Random Ratings Everywhere

Post by NickFaulks » Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:11 pm

Brian Towers wrote: Nick, here's a radical suggestion for you. Extend the rapidplay definition to games where each player has more than 10 minutes but less than 90.
It's not that radical, in fact I've suggested it. The problem, once you manage to get people to admit it, is that nobody is actually very interested in their rapid rating. They're only interested in what they regard as the prestige rating - even if it can be obtained in three hour hacking contests.

Brian Towers
Posts: 1233
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: Random Ratings Everywhere

Post by Brian Towers » Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:25 pm

NickFaulks wrote:It's not that radical, in fact I've suggested it.
Well, then. You, me and Joey are agreed. Passed "nem con"!
NickFaulks wrote:The problem, once you manage to get people to admit it, is that nobody is actually very interested in their rapid rating. They're only interested in what they regard as the prestige rating - even if it can be obtained in three hour hacking contests.
I have to admit I don't understand this. My FIDE rating is exclusively made up of games where I had, at least nominally, 2 hours to make all my moves. I'm quite happy for my games played at quicker rates to have a lower prestige value, whatever that means. In fact, in my mind they already do.

Is the resistance you've faced international or just parochial / English? If the latter can you push for this change in FIDE? Or are you pushing for this type of change in the ECF?
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

NickFaulks
Posts: 5184
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Random Ratings Everywhere

Post by NickFaulks » Tue Mar 22, 2016 12:33 am

I'm not sure whether my point got through. If you were to establish a separate rating list for 2-4 hour games, I don't think people would be interested in it. Speaking as a player myself, I wouldn't. I want a measure of my performance in real chess, not a "lesser" variety, and it seems that I am not alone.

Post Reply