On Mar 30, 6:13 am, "help bot" wrote:
On Mar 29, 1:21 pm, "Inconnux" wrote:





Just recieved the latest copy of Chess Canada in the mail.

P.4

Canadian Ratings Rise

In the past ten years a large increase in
the participation levels of junior
players in key Canadian markets has led to
pronounced rating deflation. The talented
juniors have been rapidly taking points out
of the system as their own strengths and
ratings have improved.

A National Rating Committee was
established to review the rating system and
decided to take two measures. The first
was a retroactive rating increase for all
members who had been active in the past
few years. The second is the impending
introduction of an ongoing review process
for ensuring rating stability.

Essentially, the retroactive boon applied to
all games played between July 1, 2004 and
September 1, 2006. Players below 2200 were
awarded 1 point per game; players
below 2400 1/2 point; and players above
2400 1/4 point.

Skippy, why do you say that "key markets"
were affected, but the ratings adjustment is
applied to everyone, not only the ones in
these "key markets"?

Also, why do you write that the participation
levels of these improving youngsters happened
over the course of "ten years", but then say
that only rated play from July 1, 2004 -- Sept.
1, 2006 is to be adjusted?

Ordinarily, one might assume that these
apparent contradictions were the result of
your low IQ, but here, I detect a distinct
similarity with the history of the USCF and
its ratings discombobulations.

I recall one club where I used to play which
had basically a closed pool, for the primary
activity of most members was against one
another. In this case, adding points for each
game played would equate to a ridiculous
inflation of the (semi-closed) rating pool.

OTOH, the fact that they decided to allow
myself and a few others to join in so as to
get some variety and beef up the membership
shows that the pool was not entirely closed
after all. I was at the time quite active, and
this included playing all sorts of talented
youngsters, whose own ratings might be
way off due to a lack of frequent, rated play.

In any event, I strongly suspect that your
post was made in reaction to criticism that
the inimitable Skippy Repa had attained
his Expert status only on account of this
adjustment. To this I can only say: who
cares?

The attainment of Expert status, even if only
by some chance adjustment or a fluke result
in one event, is nevertheless quite an
achievement, for it shows that you are among
the top 5% of all rated chess players. And lest
we forget, the average or rather, typical chess
player is not a member of his national
organization, and would likely fare poorly
against even a mere Class C player in
tournament play.

To sum up: do not be ashamed of "how" you
got your Expert rating. In all likelihood, you are
pound for pound, the strongest low-IQ chess
player in all of Canada. And it would be a safe
bet to say that when it comes to bullet-chess,
you have the highest "rating vs. IQ" ratio of all
time!

-- coach bot- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bot,
This is not Skippy. You are attacking the wrong person. Please
redirect your ire.
Rob