View Poll Results: What should FIDE do about the 400 point rule?

Voters
18. You may not vote on this poll
  • Nothing

    7 38.89%
  • Increase the cutoff to a different figure

    1 5.56%
  • Remove the cutoff entirely

    5 27.78%
  • Use a different formula for games with large rating differences

    2 11.11%
  • Replace Elo with a more predictive system (even if more complex)

    6 33.33%
  • Other (specify in thread)

    0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 20 of 20
  1. #16
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    14,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos View Post

    A Jeff Sonas said in an article:
    800 or so point rule would make sense.
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  2. #17
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,274
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    800 or so point rule would make sense.
    According to the FIDE rating adjustment table, at a rating difference of over 735 the higher rated player should score 100%, so an 800 point cutoff is equivalent to no cutoff.

    The problem with applying the formula to large differences is that it assumes Elo probabilities have the same inevitability as probabilities for rolling dice or tossing coins. In practice scoring over 90%, even against inferior opposition, is difficult in a game that has a high margin of a draw, that can be lost with one mistake, and that gives the weaker player the advantage of the first move half the time.

  3. #18
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,685
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Rout View Post
    According to the FIDE rating adjustment table, at a rating difference of over 735 the higher rated player should score 100%, so an 800 point cutoff is equivalent to no cutoff.
    I deliberately did not point that out in my previous post and wondered how many people would actually know it or both to look it up.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  4. #19
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,865
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos View Post
    ... Around October 2005 FIDE changed from calculating the average rating of a player’s opponents in a tournament to doing game by game calculations for the tournament. It is at this time FIDE really should have gotten rid of the 350 point rule altogether as it really serves no purpose. ...
    Thanks for this background.

    Just to expand on your point, one player with a very low (or high) rating can significantly affect the average opposition rating, and therefore the expected score of a player in a tournament, so it makes sense to have a cut-off to prevent this. However, if ratings are calculated game by game, then the cut-off will only slightly change the expected score for each game, so the effect is minimal.

    I completely agree that the useless cut-off should be removed.

  5. #20
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,865
    Just to give an idea of the effects of different systems, let's assume a nine player round-robin, with each player rated 2800 drawing every game, each scoring 4/8. Obviously there would be no change in their ratings.

    Now add a single player rated 2000, creating a 10 player round-robin, with each player playing nine games. Assume the 2800 players again draw every game with each other, and all of them win against the 2000 player, each scoring 5/9, or 56%.

    Without the cut-off, the average opposition rating for the 2800 players is 2711, and their expected score is 5.6, or 63%, so that without a cut-off, they would lose about 30 rating points, assuming a k-factor of 50 (for simplicity).

    With a 400 point cut-off, the average opposition rating for the 2800 players is now 2756, and their expected score is 56%, so that with the cut-off their ratings would effectively not change - again assuming a k-factor of 50.

    Finally, with game-by-game ratings, the only game that affects the ratings of the 2800 players is their win against the 2000 player. The expected score here is 99%, so their ratings would again effectively not change.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Half-point Byes
    By David Webster in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-10-2019, 07:24 AM
  2. Rule of law substituted by rule of men
    By Igor_Goldenberg in forum Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 17-12-2014, 09:43 PM
  3. Half point BYE
    By forlano in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 23-12-2010, 07:19 PM
  4. Drunkeness- What is the point?
    By Oepty in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 29-03-2005, 07:16 PM
  5. Suttor one point ahead going into R10
    By News Bot in forum Chess Australia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 19-01-2005, 10:01 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •