21-01-2013, 10:26 AM
Thanks, Alex: for clearing up the fact that there is no actual "80 point rule" but that discretion is available to teams to vary their move orders within reasonable bounds that do not infringe such an "80 point rule" (or similar) were it there!
1. I think we do need an "80 point rule" (or similar ... and I'd be happy with "50 points") ... and it needs to be spelled out clearly in the rules.
2. It should be in respect of "published" rather than "live" ratings.
3. It should, however, critically, be permitted to refer either to CS or FIDE ratings, which is the way CS international selectors use ratings in their assessments of playing strength for selection purposes (they also occasionally use other, non-rating criteria, by the way) and which has solely to do with the fact that there are two potentially good but slightly different markers of "strength", whether anyone likes it or not, and they might well starkly conflict.
4. If the CS ratings published earlier in this thread are correct (I haven't checked as I can't get worked up about such things) Keti and I may have played out of strict "CS" rating order in the last Richardson round against Poly (as I may be some 30 CS points ahead of her on the last published list, a fact of which, if it is true, I have been quite blissfully unaware). Yet on "FIDE" ratings, which have in the past few years for both of us included almost all of our games, Keti is currently some 50 points ahead of me.
5. Of course, Keti should have played board 1 for Edinburgh West v Poly. But if CS insists on solely applying CS ratings without reference to FIDE, I'd be (perversely in my view) "forced" to play ahead of her. As a certain tennis player might have said, expletives deleted, "You cannot be serious!"
5. Without going into details (which I could), the reason for this is that the CS rating system is much more responsive to even short periods of "under-par" or "over-par" performances than FIDE, whose statistical drag calculation (especially for players, who have got over FIDE 2400) is much more pronounced than in the CS system ... both systems are as statistically "reasonable" as the other but clearly for the same players ratings can commonly be quite different. Having said that a "50 point" rule would more or less get over that purely statistical quirk.
1. I think we do need an "80 point rule" (or similar ... and I'd be happy with "50 points") ... and it needs to be spelled out clearly in the rules.
2. It should be in respect of "published" rather than "live" ratings.
3. It should, however, critically, be permitted to refer either to CS or FIDE ratings, which is the way CS international selectors use ratings in their assessments of playing strength for selection purposes (they also occasionally use other, non-rating criteria, by the way) and which has solely to do with the fact that there are two potentially good but slightly different markers of "strength", whether anyone likes it or not, and they might well starkly conflict.
4. If the CS ratings published earlier in this thread are correct (I haven't checked as I can't get worked up about such things) Keti and I may have played out of strict "CS" rating order in the last Richardson round against Poly (as I may be some 30 CS points ahead of her on the last published list, a fact of which, if it is true, I have been quite blissfully unaware). Yet on "FIDE" ratings, which have in the past few years for both of us included almost all of our games, Keti is currently some 50 points ahead of me.
5. Of course, Keti should have played board 1 for Edinburgh West v Poly. But if CS insists on solely applying CS ratings without reference to FIDE, I'd be (perversely in my view) "forced" to play ahead of her. As a certain tennis player might have said, expletives deleted, "You cannot be serious!"
5. Without going into details (which I could), the reason for this is that the CS rating system is much more responsive to even short periods of "under-par" or "over-par" performances than FIDE, whose statistical drag calculation (especially for players, who have got over FIDE 2400) is much more pronounced than in the CS system ... both systems are as statistically "reasonable" as the other but clearly for the same players ratings can commonly be quite different. Having said that a "50 point" rule would more or less get over that purely statistical quirk.