FIDE ratings revaluation

[Roger de Coverly]

It appears the revaluation of FIDE ratings has been postponed until March 2024

see https://www.fide.com/news/2815 in which

CM3-2023/25 To approve the Qualification Commission’s proposal regarding the update of the FIDE Rating Regulations, that will come into effect from March 1st 2024.

https://doc.fide.com/docs/DOC/3FC2023/FC3_2023_25_1.pdf

[Ian Thompson]

see https://www.fide.com/news/2815

This decision caught my eye:

CM3-2023/30 To approve the resolution regarding the rating of Mr. Igors Rausis.

The resolution says "To cancel or rescind all previously rated ratings for all tournaments under the aegis of FIDE in which Mr. IGORS RAUSIS (FIDE ID 11600098) participated between May2013 and July 2019."

The way it's written suggests any tournament in which Rausis took part will be removed from the rating list retrospectively. I find that difficult to believe and expect what it really means is that Rausis's games won't be rated. It says nothing about what happens to his opponents. Is the result removed from their rating calculation? And if their rating changes are the knock-on effects of that on other players to be calculated meaning huge numbers of players are likely to be affected? What if this affects norms achieved by players, either by no longer qualifying for one, or by getting one they didn't get with Rausis's games included?

[NickFaulks]

I wouldn't imagine they gave any thought to such details. These decisions are entirely for show and done on a whim.

[Paul McKeown]

If I have read the updated FIDE Handbook, correctly, from March of this year, no player will be able to obtain an initial rating in excess of 2200:

8.2.3 Ru = Ra + dp
Ru is rounded to the nearest whole number.
The maximum initial rating is 2200.

This seems to me to be a rather strange restriction, when the supposed aim of the changes to the rating system were to counteract rating deflation. In the past exceptional players have entered the rating list with ratings above 2300, 2400, even 2500. Can you imagine the deflationary effect of playing some future Kasparov, Shirov or Ivanchuk if they enter the rating list at 2200, when their playing strength is already about 2600 and they are improving rapidly?

[LawrenceCooper]

If I have read the updated FIDE Handbook, correctly, from March of this year, no player will be able to obtain an initial rating in excess of 2200:

8.2.3 Ru = Ra + dp
Ru is rounded to the nearest whole number.
The maximum initial rating is 2200.

This seems to me to be a rather strange restriction, when the supposed aim of the changes to the rating system were to counteract rating deflation. In the past exceptional players have entered the rating list with ratings above 2300, 2400, even 2500. Can you imagine the deflationary effect of playing some future Kasparov, Shirov or Ivanchuk if they enter the rating list at 2200, when their playing strength is already about 2600 and they are improving rapidly?

Not just exceptional players, my first rating was 2430 and it's been downhill ever since

[Roger de Coverly]

In the past exceptional players have entered the rating list with ratings above 2300, 2400, even 2500. Can you imagine the deflationary effect of playing some future Kasparov, Shirov or Ivanchuk if they enter the rating list at 2200, when their playing strength is already about 2600 and they are improving rapidly?

That was back in the days when the minimum rating was 2200, later reduced to 2000.

Such is the coverage of FIDE rated events that I think it would be very unlikely that someone could reach a 2300 or 2400 standard without having played a rated event. Of the top 100 ENG players according to the ECF rating list, only two don't have FIDE registrations.

We can speculate as to why FIDE introduced such a rule. Was it concern over award of titles? Also at the extremities where 100% scores take place, the Elo method can generate extremely high ratings. Initial FIDE ratings will now include two dummy draws against "average" players, so that dampens down initial ratings for exceptional performances.

The practical problem faced by FIDE are a thousand points lower namely players with 1200 ratings playing to a 1600 standard.

[David Gilbert]

Are players and organisers of FIDE-rated events ready for this?

Almost all (not quite all) FIDE-rated events in England presently use the higher of FIDE or ECF ratings to determine eligibility for rated sections. That seems fair. The vast majority of players have an ECF rating and these are generally higher than FIDE. But from March, for those players with a FIDE rating, that is likely to become the higher of the two.

Will organisers continue to use the higher of FIDE or ECF for eligibility? Will they change the rating bands? More likely they'll carry on regardless and see how the land lies. Are you ready?

[Roger de Coverly]

Are players and organisers of FIDE-rated events ready for this?

The ECF Manager of Ratings, Brian Valentine writes in the current Chess Moves

On 1st March 2024 FIDE will be making changes to its rating methodology, increasing the rating floor from 1000 to 1400 and condensing all ratings between 1000 to 2000 into the new range. ECF ratings are not changing. Until this point the ECF ratings (and previously grades) followed a fairly clear linear relationship, although people have suggested slightly different fits. This is now not the case.
The revised conversion after the FIDE change will be FIDE = 0.6 x ECF + 700 up to 1750 ECF, with parity above that level.
The fit has been chosen to be minimally biased so it can be used in both directions, while being reasonably practical. It can be considered as one of many plausible interpretations.

This is what the conversion looks like as tables

Code: Select all

ECF 	new FIDE
1167	1400
1200	1420
1300	1480
1400	1540
1500	1600
1600	1660
1700	1720
1750	1750

Code: Select all

new FIDE	 ECF
1400	1167
1500	1333
1600	1500
1700	1667
1750	1750

Code: Select all

old FIDE New FIDE
1000	1400
1100	1460
1200	1520
1300	1580
1400	1640
1500	1700
1600	1760
1700	1820
1800	1880
1900	1940
2000	2000

It remains to be seen how well or badly the FIDE changes work in practice. It's been my impression that the ECF's implementation worked rather better than FIDE's at revaluing improving players. Starting at 1400 and including a couple of dummy draws may well have the effect of setting initial FIDE ratings too high. If so then this supplies points for the "better" of the new players to mop up.

[Kevin Thurlow]

Sorry if this is the wrong place, but https://wellschess.co.uk/entry-tables/ shows latest entries for the Wells Open. The differences between FIDE and ECF ratings are interesting if not surprising.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Looking at my three sets of (largely inactive) FIDE ratings:

https://ratings.fide.com/profile/470589/chart

I see that my ratings jumped as follows:

Standard: 1978 to 1987
Rapid: 1878 to 1927
Blitz: 1955 to 1973

Is that the expected behaviour?

At least they are all now in the range 1900-2000...

[Matthew Turner]

Chris, I think you are perhaps not the best example because your ratings are so close to 2000 but if take your 1878 rating then the uplift should be the difference between the rating and 2000 * 0.4

So that would be 122*0.4 = 49 so it looks like it has operated correctly in your case.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Thanks, Matt. The jumps make it look like I am active again!

[Tim Spanton]

Mine is perhaps a better, or at least a more dramatic, example.

My February rating of 1766 was due to rise 27.6, but with the revaluation I am now 1876.

[Roger de Coverly]

Mine is perhaps a better, or at least a more dramatic, example.

You are now 1910 ECF and 1876 FIDE, so the gap has closed.

I am now 1920 ECF and 1904 FIDE, so now close.

My ECF rating is slightly distorted by the reluctance/refusal of the Chiltern grader to submit results, but with both missing games drawn, not by very much.

[Tim Spanton]

Mine is perhaps a better, or at least a more dramatic, example.

You are now 1910 ECF and 1876 FIDE, so the gap has closed.

I am now 1920 ECF and 1904 FIDE, so now close.

My ECF rating is slightly distorted by the reluctance/refusal of the Chiltern grader to submit results, but with both missing games drawn, not by very much.

We are basking in mid-table mediocrity.