11-09-2017, 08:53 PM
An inevitably emotive topic.
I don't entirely agree with the criteria as proposed, but salute the visibility and the discussion it's prompted - always a good thing.
It's right to have a filter on activity, and a filter on strength - maybe the details could be compromised on a little.
At one point with the juniors we pretty much just filtered out the clearly inactive and then ranked on ELO as a simple function of CS and FIDE grades - I still feel something that simple and semi-mechanistic is best and most objective.
As I've argued previously, the word "discretion" can easily become (conscious or subconscious) "bias" - it's best avoided, or at least minimised.
I don't entirely agree with the criteria as proposed, but salute the visibility and the discussion it's prompted - always a good thing.
It's right to have a filter on activity, and a filter on strength - maybe the details could be compromised on a little.
At one point with the juniors we pretty much just filtered out the clearly inactive and then ranked on ELO as a simple function of CS and FIDE grades - I still feel something that simple and semi-mechanistic is best and most objective.
As I've argued previously, the word "discretion" can easily become (conscious or subconscious) "bias" - it's best avoided, or at least minimised.