CFC " Active " Ratings to CFC " Speed " Ratings??

[Bob Armstrong]

I was interested in the post in the CFC 2011 Fall Meeting ( it may have been governor Chris Mallon? ) that suggested changing our CFC " Active " ratings ( which I believe cover both Game/15 and Game/30? ) to a " Speed " rating, which would cover all games from Game/1 to Game/59.

I would suggest for discussion that the CFC transform the current " Active " ratings list to a " Speed " Rating list, on the following terms:

1. it will accept " speed " tournaments with time control from Game/1 to Game/59.

2. Players' current " active " rating will become their " speed " rating.

3. Players must be CFC members or pay the " speed tournament playing fee ( Adult - $ 2; Junior - $ 1 )".

4. The " speed tournament " rating fee will be: Adult - $ 2; Junior - $ 1.

There are a number of questions this raises:

A. Would this be acceptable to those who like the current active tournaments?

B. Would clubs already holding " speed tournaments " pay the fees to get their members a national " speed " rating, and abandon their own club system?

C. Would organizers be encouraged by the low fees to start holding such " speed " tournaments, outside of clubs?

D. Would playing in " rated " speed tournaments attract more non-CFC members to " regular-rated " tournaments?

E. Would this attract more full CFC members?

F. This is also being discussed on the confidential CFC Governors' Discussion Board. I would note the Quebec experience with trying to offer a " blitz " rating system to FQE members - post by Quebec Governor Hugh Brodie:

" the FQE offers to rate blitz tournaments free of charge - it's not even necessary to be an FQE member. Only 15 such tournaments have been rated since 2009 - most of them with 8 players or less. "

Would changing the concept to a " speed " rating allow for a more positive experience than that currently being observed in Quebec, both in Quebec, and the rest of the country?

Please offer any comments, supportive or critical.

If there is support for this idea, I'd be willing to try to amalgamate comments here with my proposal, to get an actual motion to discuss further.

Bob A

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I could see resetting active ratings. I don't think that eliminating them for adults is a great idea as you would probably reduce activity.

[Fred McKim]

I was interested in the post in the CFC 2011 Fall Meeting ( it may have been governor Chris Mallon? ) that suggested changing our CFC " Active " ratings ( which I believe cover both Game/15 and Game/30? ) to a " Speed " rating, which would cover all games from Game/1 to Game/59.

I would suggest for discussion that the CFC transform the current " Active " ratings list to a " Speed " Rating list, on the following terms:

1. it will accept " speed " tournaments with time control from Game/1 to Game/59.

2. Players' current " active " rating will become their " speed " rating.

3. Players must be CFC members or pay the " speed tournament playing fee ( Adult - $ 2; Junior - $ 1 )".

4. The " speed tournament " rating fee will be: Adult - $ 2; Junior - $ 1.

There are a number of questions this raises:

A. Would this be acceptable to those who like the current active tournaments?

B. Would clubs already holding " speed tournaments " pay the fees to get their members a national " speed " rating, and abandon their own club system?

C. Would organizers be encouraged by the low fees to start holding such " speed " tournaments, outside of clubs?

D. Would playing in " rated " speed tournaments attract more non-CFC members to " regular-rated " tournaments?

E. Would this attract more full CFC members?

F. This is also being discussed on the confidential CFC Governors' Discussion Board. I would note the Quebec experience with trying to offer a " blitz " rating system to FQE members - post by Quebec Governor Hugh Brodie:

" the FQE offers to rate blitz tournaments free of charge - it's not even necessary to be an FQE member. Only 15 such tournaments have been rated since 2009 - most of them with 8 players or less. "

Would changing the concept to a " speed " rating allow for a more positive experience than that currently being observed in Quebec, both in Quebec, and the rest of the country?

Please offer any comments, supportive or critical.

If there is support for this idea, I'd be willing to try to amalgamate comments here with my proposal, to get an actual motion to discuss further.

Bob A

I think Active Ratings presently have a minimum time limit of 30 minutes.

[roger patterson]

B. Would clubs already holding " speed tournaments " pay the fees to get their members a national " speed " rating, and abandon their own club system?

Not the Victoria Chess Club


C. Would organizers be encouraged by the low fees to start holding such " speed " tournaments, outside of clubs

Not this organizer.


D. Would playing in " rated " speed tournaments attract more non-CFC members to " regular-rated " tournaments?

Not in my opinion.


Furthermore, it apparently costs the CFC ~$2 per player to rate tournaments (I know, seems hopelessly inefficient but whatever). If that is true, your proposal loses money.

[Tony Ficzere]

I know we wouldn't pay to have speed tournaments rated at the Calgary Chess Club. Recently, we stopped rating Active events as well. The active ratings are so far out of wack that we just have an event using the players regular CFC rating.

[Fred McKim]

I know we wouldn't pay to have speed tournaments rated at the Calgary Chess Club. Recently, we stopped rating Active events as well. The active ratings are so far out of wack that we just have an event using the players regular CFC rating.

I had made a proposal concerning bringing the Active ratings back up to regular standards to ex-Rating Auditor Doubleday. I'll bring this up with Paul LeBlanc. I know a lot of areas have suffered severe deflation, and organizers aren't having Active tournaments anymore.

[Christopher Mallon]

Another option would be to have an overlap. Perhaps games between G/45 and G/75 are rated under BOTH systems automatically.

[Tony Ficzere]

Another option would be to have an overlap. Perhaps games between G/45 and G/75 are rated under BOTH systems automatically.

Why would you do that? I for one wouldn't play in any event that was rated under both systems. Also, you just created extra work for the CFC office. What is the benefit of doing something like that?

[Christopher Mallon]

Why would you do that? I for one wouldn't play in any event that was rated under both systems. Also, you just created extra work for the CFC office. What is the benefit of doing something like that?

I'm just throwing ideas out there. It has the advantage of helping to keep both systems active, and I'm not sure why anyone would be opposed to having two ratings moving in the same event, how is that different from playing in a CFC/FIDE rated event?

Virtually all of the major changes we are talking about will require a redo of the ratings software anyways, so I don't see that this dual-rating would even need to be any extra work for the office.

[Tony Ficzere]

I'm just throwing ideas out there. It has the advantage of helping to keep both systems active, and I'm not sure why anyone would be opposed to having two ratings moving in the same event, how is that different from playing in a CFC/FIDE rated event?


Virtually all of the major changes we are talking about will require a redo of the ratings software anyways, so I don't see that this dual-rating would even need to be any extra work for the office.

People who have both CFC and FIDE ratings take their FIDE rating more seriously. The only care about their CFC rating mostly for qualification purporses. Totally different then the joke CFC Active rating that really, nobody cares about.

So yes, initially more work basically for nothing. Before making any more changes to the rating system, find out what the people want. Poll the members to see what they feel. Having the governor's vote on something without the members input seems futile IMO.

As far as I am concerned, anything slower then say game in 90 should not be rated under the regular rating system.

[Christopher Mallon]

Wow, slow down! I have not proposed a motion, nor have I even said we should make such a change. All I've said is here are some ideas to consider.

Besides, your idea to not allow single-day Game/60 events to be regular rated would probably alienate way more people than either of my ideas would.

[Tony Ficzere]

Wow, slow down! I have not proposed a motion, nor have I even said we should make such a change. All I've said is here are some ideas to consider.

Besides, your idea to not allow single-day Game/60 events to be regular rated would probably alienate way more people than either of my ideas would.

I see no advantage changing anything, just a waste of time really. If anything, just get rid of active ratings, they serve no purpose.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I see no advantage changing anything, just a waste of time really. If anything, just get rid of active ratings, they serve no purpose.

Some strange discrepancy: clubs have own ratings, but the CFC active ratings serve no purpose :D

[Fred McKim]

If you look at the website, and do a query by crosstable type = A, you will see that most months there are 3-4 Active tournaments rated by the CFC. Obviously there are some organizers and players that enjoy this rate of play.

[Tony Ficzere]

I have no problem with the CFC having active ratings, some people will use them. At our club, we decided not to rate active events any longer as the ratings were not very accurate. In other discussions, if the two systems were linked together, our players say they would not like to have the two systems linked as they did not want to have their regular rating on the line for game in 25. So, we simply run non-rated active events and save the money. People are happy using their regular ratings for ranking purposes only.

Anyway, active ratings in my opinion have no real purpose. I don't know anyone who really cares about their active rating. We will never have another event rated active at our club. Just not worth the money.

Cheers

[roger patterson]

. Totally different then the joke CFC Active rating that really, nobody cares about.

.

just imagine how much they would care about their CFC blitz rating...

[Christopher Mallon]

We will never have another event rated active at our club.

Then why do you care about any potential changes to active ratings?

[Kerry Liles]

Then why do you care about any potential changes to active ratings?

I suspect he isn't the only organizer who thinks Active ratings are worthless. Spending a lot of energy debating and refining a process that nobody cares about is truly a waste of time. Surely you want prominent organizers/club operators to weigh in on such an issue? - at least then you know the real picture.

[Christopher Mallon]

Sure we want input, of course! But if he has no intention of ever running another active event no matter what changes are made, then I'm not sure why he's opposing any potential changes.

Also, people apparently do care, as people are still running Active events.

[Tony Ficzere]

Then why do you care about any potential changes to active ratings?

What I am saying is that I wouldn't want a g/60 or less to affect regular ratings. I couldn't care less if you adjusted the active and regular rating with game/90 because active ratings serve no purpose.

[Tony Ficzere]

Sure we want input, of course! But if he has no intention of ever running another active event no matter what changes are made, then I'm not sure why he's opposing any potential changes.

Also, people apparently do care, as people are still running Active events.

Change active ratings any way you want, just don't change my regular rating if I play in game/60 or less.

I will organize tons of active events, I just won't rate them. There is no value in it. Using regular ratings for ranking purposes works just fine for us and I suspect other organizers feel the same way.

If the CFC starts rating blitz, that is fine as well. Again, I wouldn't pay to rate these types of events either. That money could be used in so many other ways.

However, if the CFC ran active or blitz Canadian Championships where the winners would qualify to something outside of Canada, I might have a different view. Otherwise what is the point.

Personally, I think the CFC should concentrate on almost everything else aside from ratings. Screwing around with the rating system will not increase revenues or increase memberships. Spend more time fundraising or on something more productive.