Jason Cao – CFC rating 1921

[Paul Leblanc]

Well Stuart, to start with I believe we put a stop to rating inflation by eliminating the participation points this year.
Jason's case is exceptional whichever way you look at it. Undefeated in Canadian youth events (where unfortunately few rating points are gained), rating going up 100 points per adult tournament and a World Championship and FM title culminating in a 1921 FIDE rating.
I believe we have made a move that protects the integrity of the rating system by putting Jason and his next few over the board opponents on an equal footing.

[Stuart Brammall]

I agree that this instance will not cause significant inflation, however I do feel that the decision is indicative of the same train of thought which led to the rating boon and participation points, a train of thought which leads to both a misunderstanding and misuse of the rating system.

Ratings are supposed to be supported by a players past results, and that is simply not the case here. As a 1900 player I am sure that you, as I, have had many performances over 2000 and probably even one or two over 2200... and yet your rating is 1900. Although one can provide anecdotal evidence for your, and my, strength being over 2000, anecdotes are not data. Jason highest CFC performance ever was 1870... he is surely to be the only rated player ever with a rating higher then he has ever performed.

On another matter, while the youth events in BC may be jokes as far as rating is concerned, you can be assured that the events here in Ontario, such as last year’s CYCC, are not. The kids who tied for first with Cao (Zotkin, and Zhang) are definitely not under-rated, they play far too much chess for their ratings to not be accurate. I play them both regularly and yes, they are improving, and they get tougher for me to beat every time... but then their rating is a little higher every time we play... that’s the way the system works.

Cao’s perf at the CYCC was 1502, I see no reason why this is not a legitimate performance.

[Paul Leblanc]

To prove my conviction that you are wrong, I propose a small wager. As far as I know Jason's next "adult" event will be the Grand Pacific Open next April. I will take 1921 as my prediction of his performance rating and you can have the 1502 that you have mentioned. If your figure is closer than mine I will pay your entry fee to the Canadian Open in Toronto next summer. If my figure is closer you will pay mine.
Maybe Jason will play in the Canadian Open too and will have a chance to beat both of us!

[Stuart Brammall]

Paul,
I believe you that the young man was some what under-rated, however I feel 1921 is excessive. Also, it is not so much the young man having the new rating as the fact that it was not earned that I am arguing against. I think 300 points should have been lost if they are to be given out. If the young man really is so under-rated it would only have taken three or four events to correct.

I do not like to bet on things which I cannot control (that why I play chess instead of poker ), so any wagers will need to be of the gentlemen's sort. I would not however take your bet anyway... I have been trying to argue that using one performance rating only to predict results (and set rating) is rediculous... and yet that is what you offered me. The truth is I can admit to not having enough data to be able to predict the young man's true strength, given that he has only played in five real (not B.C. junior) events. I do feel however that to arbitrarily change a rating in such a fashion you should be confident enough to wager the following: That the young man will perform at no less then 1921 in his next real event. (Gentlemen's wager, of course)

[Paul Leblanc]

So you do admit that taking my bet would be a losing proposition for you. Shall we say then within one standard deviation of 1921 (or higher) with the loser eating crow on this issue?
cheers,

Paul

[Stuart Brammall]

That I readily accept. I sincerely hope that both Jason and yourself make trip out to Ontario, or that I make a trip out to B.C., it would be a great pleasure to play with a world champ, as it would also with a veteran such as yourself.
Regards

[Ed Seedhouse]

Paul,
I believe you that the young man was some what under-rated, however I feel 1921 is excessive.

On the other hand you haven't played him. I have and as my club rating at the time was about the same as his I can tell you that I was worse throughout the game and only won on time by about two seconds.

I also watched Jason beat a local player with a FIDE rating over 2200 in a 15 minute game.

So those are some facts. You have feelings. Jason lost a few points in the Jack Taylor memorial and his current club rating, if I recall right, is around 1901 versus my own current 1916.

There is also another rising talent in Victoria whom you will also, I predict, hear about it due course. She's a few years older than Jason, but she beat him in a tournament game fairly recently and at the club the other week she took me four to two. She is fifteen and studying hard, and it's having results.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ed:

Trying to keep her name secret, to keep her out of the spotlight a bit longer??

Is she going to be playing in any BC YCC Qualifier? Do you know if she's interested, and able, to come to Richmond Hill this July for the CYCC, should she qualify? Do you know if she intends to play in the Open section for her age group, or the girls' section ( ie. how good is she for her age from a gender neutral perspective )?

Just curious - we should be aware of our Canadian rising talents.

Bob

[Stuart Brammall]

On the other hand you haven't played him. I have and as my club rating at the time was about the same as his I can tell you that I was worse throughout the game and only won on time by about two seconds.

I also watched Jason beat a local player with a FIDE rating over 2200 in a 15 minute game.

So those are some facts. You have feelings. Jason lost a few points in the Jack Taylor memorial and his current club rating, if I recall right, is around 1901 versus my own current 1916.

There is also another rising talent in Victoria whom you will also, I predict, hear about it due course. She's a few years older than Jason, but she beat him in a tournament game fairly recently and at the club the other week she took me four to two. She is fifteen and studying hard, and it's having results.

Out of curiosity, why does the Victoria club not rate its games with the CFC? Surely it is clear that this problem would not have developed, or at least would be much less likely to develope if these games were rated?

[Fred McKim]

Out of curiosity, why does the Victoria club not rate its games with the CFC? Surely it is clear that this problem would not have developed, or at least would be much less likely to develope if these games were rated?

An interesting question. Any "club" tournament I've organized in the past 30 years that was rateable by the CFC (either standard time control or active time control) was open to CFC members and sent for CFC rating.

I think clubs should follow this policy. In fact Provincial Associations are not allowed to maintain rating systems (although I'm not sure if we would be prepared to take action on this, if someone tried).

No problems with clubs having ratings for 15 minute or 5 minute games.

Of course, that's just my opinion.