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

"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.

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.

I am incredulous that Mr Sloan believes that ratings in Europe do not go that
low. The system in England, for example, most certainly does.

Paul Buswell

"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

[ rec.games.chess.computer trimmed from the newsgroups list. This has ]
[ nothing to do with computer chess. I'm not convinced there's any ]
[ politics either... ]

Sam Sloan wrote:
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.

That just isn't true. I'll be playing in a fortnight in a tournament in
the UK with prizes for ratings under 125, under 170 and under 225. This
is the BCF rating (they prefer the word `grading' but I don't think that's
important) which uses much smaller numbers than FIDE and the USCF; those
categories are roughly U1600, U1950 and U2400 FIDE.


As a result, European tournaments are much smaller than American
tournaments.

Is this true or is it an inference from the false assumption above?


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.

Turn down your spam filters a notch or two and you'll find lots of
people wanting to help you with that.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Sadistic Disposable Apple (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a tasty fruit but you never have
to clean it and it wants to hurt you!

"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?

"Terry" wrote in message
...

"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.

But FIDE has plans to rate players down to 1000 including all chess players
: profi and non-profi, weaker and stronger. And then the national ratings
will be unnecessary to put it mildly (USCF rating as well ;-)
Surely it may be a good business for FIDE ;-)

Regards,
Jerzy

"Jerzy" wrote in message
...
"Terry" wrote in message
...

"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.

But FIDE has plans to rate players down to 1000 including all chess
players
: profi and non-profi, weaker and stronger. And then the national ratings
will be unnecessary to put it mildly (USCF rating as well ;-)
Surely it may be a good business for FIDE ;-)

Regards,
Jerzy




Have you considered the quantity. It must run into millions.
They will bite off more than they can chew.
National ratings will still be needed as the requirement for
a fide rating will be to play another fide rated player.

Regards