PDA

View Full Version : April FIDE ratings



Vlad
29-03-2006, 09:44 AM
On its official website FIDE has made available a file with expected changes in FIDE ratings. I have checked my name and what a surprise!!!
Instead of increasing my rating by about 32 points I am actually loosing 40 points.

The number of games is also wrong. I only played in the Australian Championship, which means I played 11 games, not 19 as in the file.

I believe there is a some kind of mess up. Somebody with my name played a 8 game tournament, which was counted under my name. Both my first and second name are very common in Russia.:)


The site says that corrections need to be sent as soon as possible. Dear rating officers, anything can be done?:) Thanks in advance.


P.S. I already had a similar experience more than 10 years ago. I played in 2 competitions with performance rating about 2300, which were counted for somebody else.:)

Rhubarb
29-03-2006, 10:11 AM
Drug, you really need to decrease the dose. Your unique ID code is 4126505. Copy and paste that into the right place and you'll find that all those other pesky Vladimir Smirnovs will literally disappear. You'll also find that you (like everyone else) is pending concerning Brizvegas.

Give it two more days.

[EDIT: okay downloading the FIDE file now ... preparing for big apology]

Vlad
29-03-2006, 10:45 AM
Prepared?:)

Rhubarb
29-03-2006, 10:51 AM
Okay,

Vlad, please accept my apologies for the previous post. As you say, FIDE has you -40 from 19 games and this is clearly incorrect.....

Vlad
29-03-2006, 10:54 AM
No worries. Thanks for your help.

Rhubarb
29-03-2006, 11:04 AM
In my defence, FIDE until now had tournaments and expected changes clickable for each player when they rated them. Sending out an expected change text file is new (serves me right for only directly checking ratings as opposed to the FIDE home page).

Sending out this text file, when we can't identify what the error is, just causes more vexation, but Vlad I'll try to fix it as soon as.

Bill Gletsos
29-03-2006, 01:37 PM
FWIW I notice that the 3204081 Andrew Hardegen rated 1934 and 3204383 Andrew Hardengen rated 2002 are both still on the FIDE list as is the deceased Paul Dozsa.

antichrist
29-03-2006, 03:14 PM
FWIW I notice that the 3204081 Andrew Hardegen rated 1934 and 3204383 Andrew Hardengen rated 2002 are both still on the FIDE list as is the deceased Paul Dozsa.

I wonder when burying Paul they enclosed his chess record and final rating?

pax
29-03-2006, 10:29 PM
I wonder when burying Paul they enclosed his chess record and final rating?

And an alfoil hat ;)

antichrist
29-03-2006, 11:27 PM
And an alfoil hat ;)

And the rubber band he used around his beard.

four four two
30-03-2006, 11:44 AM
They should have put a few restaurant menus in...just for old times sake.

Rhubarb
31-03-2006, 12:43 AM
Attached is a text file of all Australian-affiliated players and their expected changes for April. Please send me any errors and/or birthdays (only the year is published).


FWIW I notice that the 3204081 Andrew Hardegen rated 1934 and 3204383 Andrew Hardengen rated 2002 are both still on the FIDE list as is the deceased Paul Dozsa.Thanks Bill - have PMed you.

Bill Gletsos
31-03-2006, 01:01 AM
The following are Australians who are not in Greg's list but who are according to FIDE new to the FIDE list.

2451 Beltrami, Matthew AUS 1832 10
31359 Holland, Denis AUS 1976 12
31361 Krawcheni, Andrei AUS 2075 9
31366 Brown, Andrew AUS 1846 13
31381 McIntyre, Brock AUS 1990 9
31488 Frame, Nigel AUS 1701 10
31503 Sheldrick, Kevin AUS 2153 10
3204987 Watharow, Sean AUS 2011 14
3205703 Vijayakumar, Rengan AUS 1873 11
3206149 Bailey, Cameron R. AUS 2146 11
3206165 Cashman, Michael AUS 2072 13
3206203 Yu, Derek AUS 1929 12

Rhubarb
31-03-2006, 01:17 AM
The following are Australians who are not in Greg's list but who are according to FIDE new to the FIDE list.Right thanks, I forgot to add this list.

Vlad
01-04-2006, 07:57 AM
Well, everything as I expected. They put somebody's results on me. What is the next step? Can you sort it out, Greg?

Rhubarb
01-04-2006, 11:44 AM
Well, everything as I expected. They put somebody's results on me. What is the next step? Can you sort it out, Greg?FIDE's aware of the problem but I'll let send another email explaining that you gained 33.0 from Brisbane and some other Vladimir Smirnov lost 72.6 points on your behalf in Omsk (so your rating should be 2268 not 2195).

Do you have a middle name?

Vlad
01-04-2006, 12:46 PM
FIDE's aware of the problem but I'll let send another email explaining that you gained 33.0 from Brisbane and some other Vladimir Smirnov lost 72.6 points on your behalf in Omsk (so your rating should be 2268 not 2195).

Do you have a middle name?

However, we do have a middle name in our Russian sense.:) It is the first name of a person's father. My father's name is Nikolai. Consequently, my middle name is Nikolaevich.

I wander how is it possible to make an error like that one? Each player has his own number.

four four two
10-04-2006, 02:56 PM
Who updates the FIDE ratings for the ACF web site?:hmm:

They are still showing the january ratings.

Rhubarb
10-04-2006, 04:08 PM
Who updates the FIDE ratings for the ACF web site?:hmm:

They are still showing the january ratings. The link from the ACF site goes to Gary Bekker's Oceania site. I'm about to send him the sorted files for each of the Oceania countries now...

antichrist
10-04-2006, 07:04 PM
Greg, any rating on the fights we are having. Does Matt have any GM norms up yet. Give us a run-down mate.

arosar
12-04-2006, 07:44 PM
Apparently FIDE's made a correction to some ratings. Maybe Smirnov's has been corrected as well.

AR

Rhubarb
12-04-2006, 07:51 PM
Apparently FIDE's made a correction to some ratings. Maybe Smirnov's has been corrected as well.Alas no. If you're referring to the ChessBase.com story, it looks like FIDE only made a few top 100 corrections.

Mischa
12-04-2006, 10:57 PM
Is it usual for a tournament to advertise if it is to be FIDE rated?

Rhubarb
12-04-2006, 11:21 PM
Is it usual for a tournament to advertise if it is to be FIDE rated?Yes, it really should be advertised as FIDE rated if it's going to be.

BTW, I think I wrote on the Doeberl Cup thread that I would be happy to have the Doeberl Major FIDE rated if the organisers wanted to, but since I don't think it has been advertised as such, I guess it won't be. But if there's no objection from any of the FIDE rated players in the Major (and it's hard to see why there should be) it could still be FIDE rated if the organisers wish.

Rincewind
13-04-2006, 09:57 AM
Yes, it really should be advertised as FIDE rated if it's going to be.

BTW, I think I wrote on the Doeberl Cup thread that I would be happy to have the Doeberl Major FIDE rated if the organisers wanted to, but since I don't think it has been advertised as such, I guess it won't be. But if there's no objection from any of the FIDE rated players in the Major (and it's hard to see why there should be) it could still be FIDE rated if the organisers wish.

Had the Doeberl U2000 been advertised as FIDE rated I would have been much more inclined to play. As it is, I decided to not play this year.

___


The other issue with not publicising which events will be rated in which system before the fact is that it exposes the organisers and officials to accusations of rating tampering via reporting bias.

For example, say I run an event and a friend/club mate of mine does really well. Then I can, after the event, decide to FIDE rate the event, thereby artificially boosting my friends FIDE rating by introducing reporting bias. Likewise if someone I don't like does really well, I can artificially keep their rating down by not submitting the event for FIDE rating.

The same is true of club events, particularly rapid events, where many are played and not rated but could be submitted for rating if the organisers felt so inclined.

The argument could even be extended to international events which might be rated in the national rating system. Here I think the national ratings officers should make an effort to publicly announce which events they will be rating before the event commences so that they are protected from any accusation of introduction reporting bias.

In short I think all events should publicise which rating system their events will be submitted to for rating. In cases where the rating officials rate an event without any direct submission from the organisers (e.g. Queenstown being rated in ACF list) then the rating officials should make an announcement of intention before the event commences. This just seems to make good sense to me. Why introduce even the possibility of reporting bias?

Rhubarb
13-04-2006, 10:40 AM
Had the Doeberl U2000 been advertised as FIDE rated I would have been much more inclined to play. As it is, I decided to not play this year.
OK, I agree I should have asked the Doeberl organisers before they started advertising if they wanted the Major FIDE rated, but I admit it didn't occur to me. I don't know if they considered the idea.


The other issue with not publicising which events will be rated in which system before the fact is that it exposes the organisers and officials to accusations of rating tampering via reporting bias.

For example, say I run an event and a friend/club mate of mine does really well. Then I can, after the event, decide to FIDE rate the event, thereby artificially boosting my friends FIDE rating by introducing reporting bias. Likewise if someone I don't like does really well, I can artificially keep their rating down by not submitting the event for FIDE rating. Normally, tournaments would not be FIDE rated if the decision to rate them was after the tournament. This year's Australian Junior was an exception. I had an email discussion with Graeme Gardiner (which I alluded to on this board) in which he said the organisers had decided not to rate the Australian Junior when I asked which tournaments in Brisbane they wanted FIDE rated. As Gary Bekker pointed out after the tournament, though, the Australian Junior has been FIDE rated for the past 8 years (I was unaware of this), and the players had a reasonable expectation that it would be FIDE rated. So the ACF waived the FIDE fee to get it rated as funding was an issue.

This error occurred because I thought it was better to simply ask organisers whether they wanted tournaments rated, rather than pressure them into rating them. I won't be making that mistake again for tournaments that have previously been FIDE rated.

four four two
13-04-2006, 10:49 AM
Graeme didnt want the Australian junior FIDE rated?:hmm:
Crikey!:rolleyes:

Rhubarb
13-04-2006, 11:00 AM
Graeme didnt want the Australian junior FIDE rated?:hmm:
Crikey!:rolleyes:I said the organisers decided not to. As I said, I should have at least pointed out to them that the Australian Junior has in recent times been FIDE rated.

It should be pointed out also that the end of year tournaments have different organisers each year and that they are often advertised up to a year in advance, meaning that details such as exactly which tournaments will be FIDE rated can be overlooked.

Rincewind
13-04-2006, 11:05 AM
I said the organisers decided not to. As I said, I should have at least pointed out to them that the Australian Junior has in recent times been FIDE rated.

Clearly publicising the rating policy of events also helps with setting appropriate player expectations. In Brisbane I was not sure if the major was going to be FIDE rated. Looking at the archives it appears it has been the two times previous to Brisbane but six years ago it might not have been (or maybe I just can't find it or it wasn't held). I guess the might have been some player expection that it would be FIDE rated based on recent history but there is not as strong a case as exists with the junior.

four four two
13-04-2006, 11:10 AM
Not blaming you Keg...;)

The Australian junior would have cost less than $300 to get FIDE rated yes?:hmm:

Considering the strength of the Australian junior nowadays and the fact that a number of those juniors would have FIDE ratings going into the tournament Im very surprised that Graeme wouldnt have automatically asked for that tournament to be FIDE rated.:hmm:

antichrist
13-04-2006, 11:54 AM
Kegless, is there reason why the SEC could not be FIDE rated next year?

Ian Rout
13-04-2006, 12:06 PM
BTW, I think I wrote on the Doeberl Cup thread that I would be happy to have the Doeberl Major FIDE rated if the organisers wanted to, but since I don't think it has been advertised as such, I guess it won't be. But if there's no objection from any of the FIDE rated players in the Major (and it's hard to see why there should be) it could still be FIDE rated if the organisers wish.
Without having specifically asked the organisers, it's always been my impression that the Major was not FIDE-rated simply because there were so few FIDE-rated competitors that it wasn't worthwhile, especially when a block was four opponents. With the floor dropping the number of rated entrants will increase over time.

Ian Rout
13-04-2006, 12:11 PM
Kegless, is there reason why the SEC could not be FIDE rated next year?
You will probably come up against the rules about minimum rate of play:

http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=B0201

Introducing increments might make the tournament rateable.

Rhubarb
13-04-2006, 12:14 PM
Kegless, is there reason why the SEC could not be FIDE rated next year?The participants would be required to be members of their national federation, which for Australians means being a member of their state association. Also, the time control would almost certainly need to be increased from the one hour per game to the minimum as described here (http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=B0201).

EDIT: As Ian has just pointed out.

antichrist
13-04-2006, 12:16 PM
thanks very much

Rhubarb
13-04-2006, 12:18 PM
Without having specifically asked the organisers, it's always been my impression that the Major was not FIDE-rated simply because there were so few FIDE-rated competitors that it wasn't worthwhile, especially when a block was four opponents. With the floor dropping the number of rated entrants will increase over time.Right, and Shaun has advised it will almost certainly be rated next year.

Rhubarb
13-04-2006, 01:14 PM
Not blaming you Keg...;) Well maybe you should. :eek: Organisers are often going to take their cue from the FIDE Ratings Officer. I hope to now have sorted out any mistakes that were partly caused by the transition period in me taking over the position.

Bill Gletsos
10-05-2006, 01:16 PM
I notice FIDE still haven't corrected Drug's rating, even though they have posted an updated April ratling list as recently as May 6th.

MichaelBaron
10-05-2006, 01:23 PM
However, we do have a middle name in our Russian sense.:) It is the first name of a person's father. My father's name is Nikolai. Consequently, my middle name is Nikolaevich.

I wander how is it possible to make an error like that one? Each player has his own number.

Something similar has happened to me a couple of rating lists ago..some Baron from France lost about 60 points on my behalf in 7 rated games I have brought it to Fide's attention immediately but it has still taken them about 2 months to fix it and give my rating points back to me. One person you can contact about this problem is Garry Bekker.

Bill Gletsos
10-05-2006, 01:26 PM
Something similar has happened to me a couple of rating lists ago..some Baron from France lost about 60 points on my behalf in 7 rated games I have brought it to Fide's attention immediately but it has still taken them about 2 months to fix it and give my rating points back to me. One person you can contact about this problem is Garry Bekker.Greg Canfell is now the ACF FIDE Rating Officer and has been since late last year, not Gary.

four four two
10-05-2006, 11:55 PM
The question I want to know is,when is the ACF site going to update the FIDE ratings to April...?:hmm:

Bill Gletsos
11-05-2006, 12:06 AM
The question I want to know is,when is the ACF site going to update the FIDE ratings to April...?:hmm:The ACF site does not maintain the FIDE ratings but has always just had a link to Gary Bekker's Oceania site where they have always been listed.

four four two
11-05-2006, 12:28 AM
The problem is Gary doesnt handle the FIDE ratings anymore...so I guess a "new" page has to be set up so Greg can provide updated ratings.:hmm:

Brian_Jones
11-05-2006, 08:24 AM
Ah! The effieciency of Australian chess administrators!

Rhubarb
11-05-2006, 09:36 AM
I notice FIDE still haven't corrected Drug's rating, even though they have posted an updated April ratling list as recently as May 6th.
I have just sent my fourth email to FIDE, containing a number of corrections, not just drug's. I'll give them another week before it will be time to take more stringent action.

Rhubarb
11-05-2006, 09:51 AM
The problem is Gary doesnt handle the FIDE ratings anymore...so I guess a "new" page has to be set up so Greg can provide updated ratings.:hmm:I'll have to speak to Gary about this. One thing that has changed for the April list is that FIDE appears to no longer be emailing country-specific statistics to each federation, and is perhaps expecting people to mine the info themselves. Who knows with these people.

I believe Gary was previously using these emails to update the web page. Therefore, his site can be viewed as an archive of ratings information from FIDE for the Oceania countries.

For the record, I sent Gary a number of files containing the FIDE ratings of each Oceania country in early April, after splitting, sorting, and remerging the entire FIDE list. Presumably, Gary didn't use the info as he was instead waiting for the email from FIDE which never came.

Edit: In any case, the entire Australian list is near the start of this thread (expected change text file), and attached is an Excel file of the April list for anyone who can't add that expected change to their old rating. Individuals can also check their own rating history at http://www.fide.com/ratings/index.phtml

Rhubarb
11-05-2006, 09:53 AM
Ah! The effieciency of Australian chess administrators!Thank you for your thoughts! I wish I could be more professional like you!

four four two
11-05-2006, 10:27 AM
In any case, the entire Australian list is near the start of this thread (expected change text file), and attached is an Excel file of the April list for anyone who can't add that expected change to their old rating. Individuals can also check their own rating history at http://www.fide.com/ratings/index.phtml

Thanks for that Greg,makes it easier to resolve potential bets and arguments.;)

Vlad
11-05-2006, 10:42 AM
It looks like it is a very common practise to unexpectedly loose/gain points nowadays. See for example, the following article below.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3089

I have also just noticed that one friend of mine from Russia (who have not played chess in the last 5-6 years), lost 16 points in a competition that was played in Philadelphia. His name is Dokutchaev, A, his rating was 2425. He played 3 games against 2100 players and scored 1/3. Firstly, it is very unlikely to believe that he could possibly score 1/3 against 2100. Second, why would he go from a Russian countryside to USA to play 3 games with 2100 players. Clearly he would not be able to afford it. Maybe I should call him and ask whether he played.

In any case this all shows how great the current FIDE regime is.:hand:

Rhubarb
11-05-2006, 10:51 AM
^ The good news is that with the new General Data Exchange format, at least the transcription errors by FIDE will mostly be eradicated, if not the fake tournaments.

four four two
11-05-2006, 10:58 AM
Thats an interesting article Drug. The excuse of a mix up in FIDE id numbers seems a convenient one to use when a discrepenancy is noticed.:whistle:

Can anyone tell me how FIDE id numbers are assigned to players?

Is it done by national federations or FIDE itself?:hmm:

Are they random generated like pin numbers or is there some sort of chronological order in which they are assigned?

Rhubarb
11-05-2006, 11:04 AM
Thats an interesting article Drug. The excuse of a mix up in FIDE id numbers seems a convenient one to use when a discrepenancy is noticed.:whistle:

Can anyone tell me how FIDE id numbers are assigned to players?

Is it done by national federations or FIDE itself?:hmm:

Are they random generated like pin numbers or is there some sort of chronological order in which they are assigned?The numbers are assigned by FIDE. Most Australians have 7-digit numbers starting with 320. Note that I double-check every single player's ID in every single report, including the part-ratings file, something apparently not done by the Indian Chess Federation in this case.

four four two
11-05-2006, 11:11 AM
The Indian chess federation is still in a bit of turmoil.:uhoh:

Some of those rating losses may have been due to political shenanigans...rather than imcompetent bureuacrats.:hmm:


You would think a computer savvy country like India would be able to avoid such obvious stuff ups.:whistle:

Vlad
14-05-2006, 10:38 AM
Thanks to Greg for his help, I have finally received an e-mail from FIDE saying that my rating will be corrected to 2268.

MichaelBaron
14-05-2006, 10:57 AM
There is IM Baron Rodriguez in Spain who is ranked about 100 elo points above...Just wondering if there is any chance to pinch some of his rating points :rolleyes:

Rhubarb
16-05-2006, 08:51 AM
Thanks to Greg for his help, I have finally received an e-mail from FIDE saying that my rating will be corrected to 2268.Hi drug, it would be fantastic for me if you you could forward that email to me. (t'would be ... something)

Vlad
16-05-2006, 11:56 AM
Where to?

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2006, 07:27 PM
FIDE have corrected Vlad's rating to 2268 on the FIDE website and in the latest 18th May rating list.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2006, 07:31 PM
However they dont appear to have assigned the incorrectly assigned 8 games to anyone else at this stage.

Bill Gletsos
16-06-2006, 06:58 PM
Note FIDE has posted an updated April 2006 rating list as of 15/06/2006. This is at least the 3rd updated list since the original April list was released.

Rhubarb
17-06-2006, 07:44 PM
Note FIDE has posted an updated April 2006 rating list as of 15/06/2006. This is at least the 3rd updated list since the original April list was released.And your point is ...?

Bill Gletsos
17-06-2006, 07:47 PM
And your point is ...?Only that anyone wanting an up to date FIDE April rating list needs to keep an eye on the downloads page as FIDE dont announce it on their main web page.

Rhubarb
17-06-2006, 08:35 PM
Only that anyone wanting an up to date FIDE April rating list needs to keep an eye on the downloads page as FIDE dont announce it on their main web page.My point is that these 'updated' lists are not in the slightest bit comprehensive but are based on bits and pieces the incompetent idiots on the FIDE payroll whimsically decide they might do something about.

I have sent an ever-increasing list of corrections, dating back to late last year, six times now, in an extremely polite fashion, to many different email addresses at FIDE. The only one they fixed was Smirnov's, and only then after he emailed them himself.