LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 14th 06, 11:33 AM posted to
external usenet poster
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,977
Default The cost related to professional rating

Note: I have an image in my mind of the
chess world without FIDE, USCF, etc.
This means that things like cost should
be understood differently than today.
More openly, adequately, explicitly, 1-1.


The cost of the professional rating
is caused by the necessity of
an effort by a personel, one part of
which handles the conditions
under which the competition takes place,
and by another (independent) part, which
updates (and occasionally corrects)
the data base. It's the involved people
and not the mathematical complexity
(what complexity?!) that will force
the expense.

This level of effort will be unnecessary
and even unpractical in the case of the
general chess playing public. Both the
playing conditions, as well as the data
base, can be (even should be) much
simpler in the general case.

The rating for professionals is not just
an issue of their ego but of their living.
The invitations to the tournaments
(partially or totally) may depend on the
rating, even on a fraction of a rating
point (despite the fact that such a difference
is meaningless, burried deeply in the noise)
-- that may be the simplest and the
most objective way for organizers or sponsors
to decide some of the invitations.

That's much different from the amateurish
seriousness, where not much more than ego
and personal satisfaction is involved
(but not their living). Thus professional
rating should be much more solid than
the rating service for the general audience.

Perhaps about 40 million chess players
around the world would not mind having
a (general) rating. Perhaps 4 millions
would qualify and care to have the
professional rating of on the first, lowest
level. While it is still realistic to carry
certain data managing procedures for
4 million players, it would be foolish to
attempt it for 40 million. It's not computers
but people who are the bottle neck.
Fortunately, amateurs don't really have
much need for those professional extras.


PS. I'll write about the realistic way
of organizing (decentralistically)
the 21 century chess world in still
another thread. Then things should
be clearer.

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
the open versus professional rating system (a warm-up post :-) Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) (Chess Politics) 185 July 22nd 06 09:27 AM
the open versus professional rating system (a warm-up post :-) Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) (Chess General) 70 June 27th 06 02:35 AM
Should the USCF rate the Olympiads? Sam Sloan (Chess Politics) 9 March 29th 06 11:52 PM
Should the USCF rate the Olympiads? Sam Sloan (Chess General) 9 March 29th 06 11:52 PM
Should the USCF rate the Olympiads? Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 9 March 29th 06 11:52 PM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.

About Us

"It's about Chess"


Copyright © 2017