Can FIDE really rate players down to 1001 ??

FIDE has had a plan since Istanbul 2000 to rate all players down to
1001. The traditional floor for FIDE rated players was 2205 for men
and 1905 for women, but that floor has since been dropped several
times.

I feel that it would be a wonderful thing for FIDE to rate players
down to 1001. For example, Europe and Asia have no class prizes for
chess tournaments. The reason is obvious: They cannot have prizes for
players rated under 1600, under 1800 or under 2000, because their
ratings do not go down that low. As a result, European tournaments are
much smaller than American tournaments. If FIDE starts rating players
as low as 1001, there will be a tremendous boom in chess tournaments
in Europe and Asia.

However, I believe that FIDE does not have the capability to manage
such a large expansion in the rating system. The reason is that the
FIDE rating system must be transparent. Anybody with pencil and paper
can calculate his new FIDE rating, after each game. This is important
because there are 159 countries in FIDE (with the number always
increasing). Naturally, these countries are jealous of each other and
with countries like China, Russia and Burma competing (not to mention
that crazy guy in Romania) we need to have a rating system that
anybody can understand.

The reason that it is possible to make such an easy to understand and
transparent rating system is that FIDE rates only international
tournaments among high level players. By the time a player is ready to
compete internationally, his rating is usually stable. When a player
enters the FIDE system, he has probably already nearly reached the
peak of his potential strength. It is rare and almost never happens
that a FIDE rated player goes up more than 200 rating points.

In the US, on the other hand, most players start with a rating around
800. If they keep playing and improving, they can expect to reach at
least 1600 or 1800 and some will reach 2200. So, the USCF system has
been constantly adjusted to deal with these large jumps in rating and
chess strength. We have high level mathematicians like Sloan and
Glickman working on these problems all the time.

In America there is a lot of unhappiness with the new USCF system. I
am not very happy myself. My own rating dropped 164 points in the
final years of the old system. Many other established players
experienced similar drops. One reason we welcomed the introduction of
the new system was that we were led to believe that it would
re-inflate our ratings back up to where they used to be. That has not
happened. Nobody that I know of has had their rating go back up. I
still believe that I am as strong as I used to be and that I can still
get it up, but I have yet to prove that. Under the new system, rating
changes take place slowly, so it seems unlikely that I will ever get
my rating back up to 2104 in my lifetime, even if I experience an
incredible winning streak.

Under the old USCF system, if I played an opponent rated 200 points
less than I, I knew that if I won I would gain 8 points, if I lost I
would lose 24 points and if the game was a draw I would lose 8 points.
I would base my choice of openings and my general strategy on these
calculations, kind of like I would calculate the size of the pot in
deciding whether to bet or call at poker.

If I got a bad position in the opening and knew that I could easily
lose the game, I would make a calculation based on this. Knowing that
my opponent was rated 200 points lower than I, I knew that I would
probably swindle him and win the game, simply because I was the better
player. However, were my chances of winning better than 3-1? Why not
just offer a draw, knowing that he would probably take it, since he
knew that I was the better player? In a bad or lost position, was it
not better to take a sure loss of 8 rating points, rather than gamble
24 points just to gain 8?

Nowadays, under the new system, these calculations are no longer
possible. Nobody really knows how much they stand to gain or lose from
a particular chess game.

My point is that FIDE does not have the technical experts that the
USCF has to make appropriate adjustments for a ten year old kid with a
1200 rating who could improve by 300 points next week and be a 1500
player by Friday. The USCF has people like Sloan dealing with these
problems. For this reason, I do not believe that FIDE has the
technical expertise at the present time to develop a meaningful rating
system for players rated down to 1001.

Sam Sloan

In Europe we have national ratings that go as low as 600 and class prizes
are awarded in tournaments.
Players start with a rating which takes into account their performance
against their 10 or 20 first opponents, so it is possible (as happened to a
friend of mine) to start with a (national) rating of +2200. The average is
around 1500 though.

--
http://users.pandora.be/yves.surmont/twic.htm
"Sam Sloan" schreef in bericht
...
Can FIDE really rate players down to 1001 ??

FIDE has had a plan since Istanbul 2000 to rate all players down to
1001. The traditional floor for FIDE rated players was 2205 for men
and 1905 for women, but that floor has since been dropped several
times.

I feel that it would be a wonderful thing for FIDE to rate players
down to 1001. For example, Europe and Asia have no class prizes for
chess tournaments. The reason is obvious: They cannot have prizes for
players rated under 1600, under 1800 or under 2000, because their
ratings do not go down that low. As a result, European tournaments are
much smaller than American tournaments. If FIDE starts rating players
as low as 1001, there will be a tremendous boom in chess tournaments
in Europe and Asia.

However, I believe that FIDE does not have the capability to manage
such a large expansion in the rating system. The reason is that the
FIDE rating system must be transparent. Anybody with pencil and paper
can calculate his new FIDE rating, after each game. This is important
because there are 159 countries in FIDE (with the number always
increasing). Naturally, these countries are jealous of each other and
with countries like China, Russia and Burma competing (not to mention
that crazy guy in Romania) we need to have a rating system that
anybody can understand.

The reason that it is possible to make such an easy to understand and
transparent rating system is that FIDE rates only international
tournaments among high level players. By the time a player is ready to
compete internationally, his rating is usually stable. When a player
enters the FIDE system, he has probably already nearly reached the
peak of his potential strength. It is rare and almost never happens
that a FIDE rated player goes up more than 200 rating points.

In the US, on the other hand, most players start with a rating around
800. If they keep playing and improving, they can expect to reach at
least 1600 or 1800 and some will reach 2200. So, the USCF system has
been constantly adjusted to deal with these large jumps in rating and
chess strength. We have high level mathematicians like Sloan and
Glickman working on these problems all the time.

In America there is a lot of unhappiness with the new USCF system. I
am not very happy myself. My own rating dropped 164 points in the
final years of the old system. Many other established players
experienced similar drops. One reason we welcomed the introduction of
the new system was that we were led to believe that it would
re-inflate our ratings back up to where they used to be. That has not
happened. Nobody that I know of has had their rating go back up. I
still believe that I am as strong as I used to be and that I can still
get it up, but I have yet to prove that. Under the new system, rating
changes take place slowly, so it seems unlikely that I will ever get
my rating back up to 2104 in my lifetime, even if I experience an
incredible winning streak.

Under the old USCF system, if I played an opponent rated 200 points
less than I, I knew that if I won I would gain 8 points, if I lost I
would lose 24 points and if the game was a draw I would lose 8 points.
I would base my choice of openings and my general strategy on these
calculations, kind of like I would calculate the size of the pot in
deciding whether to bet or call at poker.

If I got a bad position in the opening and knew that I could easily
lose the game, I would make a calculation based on this. Knowing that
my opponent was rated 200 points lower than I, I knew that I would
probably swindle him and win the game, simply because I was the better
player. However, were my chances of winning better than 3-1? Why not
just offer a draw, knowing that he would probably take it, since he
knew that I was the better player? In a bad or lost position, was it
not better to take a sure loss of 8 rating points, rather than gamble
24 points just to gain 8?

Nowadays, under the new system, these calculations are no longer
possible. Nobody really knows how much they stand to gain or lose from
a particular chess game.

My point is that FIDE does not have the technical experts that the
USCF has to make appropriate adjustments for a ten year old kid with a
1200 rating who could improve by 300 points next week and be a 1500
player by Friday. The USCF has people like Sloan dealing with these
problems. For this reason, I do not believe that FIDE has the
technical expertise at the present time to develop a meaningful rating
system for players rated down to 1001.

Sam Sloan

[snip]

"Sam Sloan" wrote
I still believe that I am as strong as I used to be and that I can still
get it up, but I have yet to prove that.

'Nuff said.

"sandirhodes" wrote in message
newsZcRb.7$L_4.1@okepread01...

"Sam Sloan" wrote
I still believe that I am as strong as I used to be and that I can still
get it up, but I have yet to prove that.

'Nuff said.



LOL

Regards

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
Can FIDE really rate players down to 1001 ??

FIDE has had a plan since Istanbul 2000 to rate all players down to
1001. The traditional floor for FIDE rated players was 2205 for men
and 1905 for women, but that floor has since been dropped several
times.

I feel that it would be a wonderful thing for FIDE to rate players
down to 1001. For example, Europe and Asia have no class prizes for
chess tournaments.

Sam. You are simply wrong. All European countries have national
ratings down to any level just like the USCF. Fide ratings are world
wide and historically only for the strongest players.

Regards

Euc1id wrote:
[snip]

Please do not do that. You're just adding to the noise.

(And I'm adding even more so I won't do this again.)


Dave.

--
David Richerby Carnivorous Pants (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ well-tailored pair of trousers but it
eats flesh!

"David Richerby" garbled in message
...

Please do not do that...

I understand, but they must get the message somehow. Maybe a private email
is better, if they have a valid email address.
--
Euc1id

"sandirhodes" wrote in message
newsZcRb.7$L_4.1@okepread01...

"Sam Sloan" wrote
I still believe that I am as strong as I used to be and that I can still
get it up, but I have yet to prove that.

'Nuff said.


About time someone called it for what it is. Blech. Why the h*ll is there a
chess politics group anyway? Is there a backgammon politics group?

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 07:25:24 -0000, "Terry"
wrote:


"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
Can FIDE really rate players down to 1001 ??

FIDE has had a plan since Istanbul 2000 to rate all players down to
1001. The traditional floor for FIDE rated players was 2205 for men
and 1905 for women, but that floor has since been dropped several
times.

I feel that it would be a wonderful thing for FIDE to rate players
down to 1001. For example, Europe and Asia have no class prizes for
chess tournaments.

Sam. You are simply wrong. All European countries have national
ratings down to any level just like the USCF. Fide ratings are world
wide and historically only for the strongest players.

You're wrong. Serbia and Montenegro (former Yugoslavia) don't have
rating system for lower rated player. Our most famous player is
Ljubojevic.
FIDE lowered initial rating to 1800. They intend to lower initial
rating to 1600 last year. But, because very small group of players
with rating between 1800 and 2000, they postponed that decission to
middle of 2004.

Best regards,
Miroslav Rakovic