PDA

View Full Version : ratings people are tops



bobby1992
29-02-2004, 06:45 PM
thanks people for the 70 not to mention the 150.just when i thought 2000 was so far away, and i might never get there along comes this free bonus thank you very very much i love it as i am sure every other chess player in the country does,well done.

Rincewind
29-02-2004, 08:54 PM
thanks people for the 70 not to mention the 150.just when i thought 2000 was so far away, and i might never get there along comes this free bonus thank you very very much i love it as i am sure every other chess player in the country does,well done.

If everyone in Australia also gets the 70 points, what's the difference? I wouldn't get hung up over any particular number as all ratings are relative they are not an absolute measure of anything.

It might actually work against you as you no longer qualify for u-2000 rating prizes. :D

skip to my lou
29-02-2004, 08:57 PM
If everyone in Australia also gets the 70 points, what's the difference? I wouldn't get hung up over any particular number as all ratings are relative they are not an absolute measure of anything.

It might actually work against you as you no longer qualify for u-2000 rating prizes. :D

I was about to post a very similar message. Wouldn't you now be playing for open prizes? How is that "tops"? :eek:

Trent Parker
01-03-2004, 12:59 AM
lol. The additional 70 pts. is supposed to keep the australian ratings system into line with fide ratings. Bill explained it to us NSWCA council members a month ago. Fide ratings are inflating because fide has a rule that says that the winner of a tournament shall not lose ratings points. The top players keep playing each other so small increases in the overall rating of these players could result. The big differences is when a top level player plays in a not-so-top tevel and are up set by a much lower rated opponent but is still able to win the tournament, (s)he will not lose the ratings points than otherwise be te case. This apparently filters right down through the fide rating system thus inflating fide ratings. And the apparent average inflation since the last time the ratings were adjusted was of 70 ratings points

Bill please correct me if i have stuffed anything up here, i'm sure i have. :-D

Kevin Bonham
01-03-2004, 01:11 AM
I think the main inflation problem with FIDE was their rating floor which used to be set at 2000. You could perform below 2000 as many times as you liked and no data were recorded, and then suddenly you perform at 2005 and you are FIDE 2005. Hence a lot of players were coming in to the lower levels rated 200 or sometimes even 300 points above their actual strength. Fortunately they have been fixing that with lower ratings floors now.

Garvinator
01-03-2004, 01:15 AM
I think the main inflation problem with FIDE was their rating floor which used to be set at 2000. You could perform below 2000 as many times as you liked and no data were recorded, and then suddenly you perform at 2005 and you are FIDE 2005. Hence a lot of players were coming in to the lower levels rated 200 or sometimes even 300 points above their actual strength. Fortunately they have been fixing that with lower ratings floors now.
wouldnt there always be a slight inflation problem if you have a rating floor set at any rating, for the reason highlighted above :hmm:

Bill Gletsos
01-03-2004, 09:24 AM
lol. The additional 70 pts. is supposed to keep the australian ratings system into line with fide ratings. Bill explained it to us NSWCA council members a month ago. Fide ratings are inflating because fide has a rule that says that the winner of a tournament shall not lose ratings points. The top players keep playing each other so small increases in the overall rating of these players could result. The big differences is when a top level player plays in a not-so-top tevel and are up set by a much lower rated opponent but is still able to win the tournament, (s)he will not lose the ratings points than otherwise be te case. This apparently filters right down through the fide rating system thus inflating fide ratings. And the apparent average inflation since the last time the ratings were adjusted was of 70 ratings points

Bill please correct me if i have stuffed anything up here, i'm sure i have. :-D
You have it pretty much correct.
FIDE in the past had that rule that the winner of the tournament did not lose rating points. Hence if the player who one the tournament did not perform to their rating the net result of the ratings for that pool of players was an increase in the average rating. This was particularly noticeable at the top end of the FIDE list.
However the biggest problem with FIDE inflation is due as Kevin points out because of FIDE's rating floor.
Of course back when the floor was 2200 and there were far fewer FIDE tournaments world wide the problem was not such a major problem. However once FIDE dropped it to 2000 and the number of FIDE tournaments increased it became a real issue. As the floor drops the problem still occurs because more people then try for FIDE ratings.

Also FIDE ignore an unrated players results for any tournament where their results are below the rating floor.
For example lets assume the rating floor is 2000 (it is currently now 1800) if an unrated player plays in a 9 round tournaemnt and gets a performance rating of 1900 this is discarded. In his next 9 rounder he gets a performance rating of 2080. In his next 9 rounder he gets a performance rating of 1980. His published rating for that period will be somewher between 2000 and 2080.

Note if the tournaments had been played in the order perfomance rating 2080, then 1900 then 1980, all three tournaments would have counted because the player would no longer have been unrated after the first tournament.

However irrespective of the order of the 3 tournaments based on his performance over all 3 tournaments his true strength for the period should be under 2000.