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.

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

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

On Mar 30, 12:29 pm, "Rob" wrote:



Are you telling me that of the 962 different aliases
(and still counting) used by our old pal Skip, this
"Inconnux" is not one of them? Are you suggesting
that there are multiple posters from Canada here?

Look, I thought that Canada was *barely* able to
contain Skippy all by himself, and that everyone
else there had been forced to flee for their sanity?
Is this guy hiding out in the Yukon, perhaps? Or
maybe he went underground? Or maybe he's not
really from Canada, but only reads their magazine?

I hear the Chinese are buying up much of Canada's
natural resources, so maybe he is one of them? Oh,
please don't complain -- they will get around to "us"
next; it's just a matter of time now... .

-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Mar 30, 12:29 pm, "Rob" wrote:



Are you telling me that of the 962 different aliases
(and still counting) used by our old pal Skip, this
"Inconnux" is not one of them? Are you suggesting
that there are multiple posters from Canada here?

sorry helpbot but I am not JMR. My name has been
posted many times. Trust me, Mr Repa would never
attempt to be me... the huge rating drop would be
devestating


Heres my CFC ratings page
http://www.chess.ca/nsearch.asp?LastName=Lohner

Here is Jason Repa
http://www.chess.ca/memberinfo.asp?CFCN=109227

I copied this out to give the CFC official reason for
increasing ratings because many things have been
said about it. (including many posts by me).

J.Lohner

-- help bot

On Mar 31, 1:34 pm, "Inconnux" wrote:

Are you telling me that of the 962 different aliases
(and still counting) used by our old pal Skip, this
"Inconnux" is not one of them? Are you suggesting
that there are multiple posters from Canada here?

sorry helpbot but I am not JMR. My name has been
posted many times. Trust me, Mr Repa would never
attempt to be me... the huge rating drop would be
devestating

Heres my CFC ratings pagehttp://www.chess.ca/nsearch.asp?LastName=Lohner

Here is Jason Repahttp://www.chess.ca/memberinfo.asp?CFCN=109227

I copied this out to give the CFC official reason for
increasing ratings because many things have been
said about it. (including many posts by me).

J.Lohner

So, why the comments about "ten years" vs. just
over two years actually being adjusted for, and so
forth? It seems only logical that if they determined
ratings had been deflating over the course of ten
years, to go back and adjust for... ten years (unless
I made a calculation error). This reminds me of how
the USCF suddenly decided to make an adjustment
when it appeared that a certain Russian immigrant
might potentially break the all time high set by our
beloved Bobby Fischer. In effect, the adjustment
was made in such a way as to have little or no
effect on what GM Fischer would call the weakies,
while heavily targeting the offending Russian. In
sum, a political "adjustment" founded in favoritism.

-- help bot

On Mar 31, 1:34 pm, "Inconnux" wrote:

sorry helpbot but I am not JMR. My name has been
posted many times. Trust me, Mr Repa would never
attempt to be me... the huge rating drop would be
devestating

Heres my CFC ratings pagehttp://www.chess.ca/nsearch.asp?LastName=Lohner

I see from this link that you are currently rated 1311, but
your highest rating is claimed to be "14". Once again, my
math skills are being sorely tested.

I also noticed that the Canadian chess ID number has
two fewer digits than the USCF, indicating very roughly
a 100:1 ratio in number of members.

More fun with math: did you know that your all-time
high of "14" puts you in the bottom 1 percentile? It's
true. You are among the very few who know how top
GMs like Fischer and Kasparov must have felt (only
they were in the top 1 percentile)!

Okay, here is another theory: they just chopped off
the last two digits, so your all-time high rating was in
the 1400 range. (By chopping two digits from all
members' records I estimate the Canadians saved
approximately $3.15 over the course of tens years.
And since they are a not-for-profit organization, they
get to keep the entire amount.)

-- help bot

" I see from this link that you are currently rated 1311, but
your highest rating is claimed to be "14". Once again, my
math skills are being sorely tested.

LOLOL 1311 is my provisional rating as 14 is the total number
of rated games Ive played but if you want to say my bottom
rating was 14 then go ahead

I could then say that ive held
an expert rating once because my provisional rating peaked at
2050 at Chessworld.net haha would you call me 'briefly and
expert'
http://www.chessworld.net/chessclubs...serid=39 8420


My first tournament was played
last September. (those famous games that Mr. Repa
keeps posting!) My last tournament was only my fourth
tournament ever. Hopefully with the next rating period it will
go up.


I also noticed that the Canadian chess ID number has
two fewer digits than the USCF, indicating very roughly
a 100:1 ratio in number of members.

I believe there is about 5300 rated players in the CFC.

J.Lohner

If in a country "A" all are very talented players and in other country
"B" all are dull players then Players in Acountry will get low ratings
in comparision with players in B country.

At GetClub Chess getting even 1500 Rating is a tough job as 2003 rated
players have 1300 Rating. So if you are beaten by 2300 players GetClub
Chess treats you are beaten by a 1300 player.

Look players Ratings at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Since only good players visit GetClub Chess you do not get high
ratings quickly. While at other places you get 1500 Rating just by
winning 2-3 games. At GetClub Chess the Top rating is below 1500. So a
rating of 1500 at GetClub is equivalent to getting a Rating of 1800
elsewhere. because you have to beat 2300 elo players to get higher
ratings.

Say, There are two brothers top in while Country in Chess. But the
brother who is second will not be considered even top in his city as
his big brother is better than him and beats him in city games. While
in other city a weak player is on the top.

Ratings are only good for one domain but different rating system will
give you different rating depending on tough players playing at that
site.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

On Apr 2, 4:00 am, "Sanny" wrote:
If in a country "A" all are very talented players and in other country
"B" all are dull players then Players in Acountry will get low ratings
in comparision with players in B country.

At GetClub Chess getting even 1500 Rating is a tough job as 2003 rated
players have 1300 Rating. So if you are beaten by 2300 players GetClub
Chess treats you are beaten by a 1300 player.

Look players Ratings at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Since only good players visit GetClub Chess you do not get high
ratings quickly. While at other places you get 1500 Rating just by
winning 2-3 games. At GetClub Chess the Top rating is below 1500. So a
rating of 1500 at GetClub is equivalent to getting a Rating of 1800
elsewhere. because you have to beat 2300 elo players to get higher
ratings.

Say, There are two brothers top in while Country in Chess. But the
brother who is second will not be considered even top in his city as
his big brother is better than him and beats him in city games. While
in other city a weak player is on the top.

Ratings are only good for one domain but different rating system will
give you different rating depending on tough players playing at that
site.

If a larger number of people were to play regularly at
GetClub, it would become fairly easy to correlate the
ratings there more accurately with, say, USCF ratings.
Right now we have some issues, as I will call them,
with players such as Taylor Kingston and Phil Innes
having playing strengths which are a bit obscured by
inactivity in USCF-rated events. In any event, the
games at GetClub may be played just as with a
typical skittles game, or in sharp contrast, more akin
to correspondence chess, and there is no sure-fire way
to tell the difference.

-- help bot