Posts: 462
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
1
2300+: If you enjoy/are good at playing lower rated players, don't mind playing two games in one day (players who don't calculate much tire less, for instance), and have no problem with the FNR then I see no reason why you would not want weekenders to be Fide rated....
However 2300 and below have nothing to lose so if you want to play chess, why not.
This new Fide rule sounds too good to be true and I don't really understand why they would want it to be honest.
Posts: 1,000
Threads: 94
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
2
My own statistics against lower rated players bear this out.
I have played the Scottish Championship 21 times - my average opponent is lower rated than me - I would guess 17 or 18 times I have lost rating points - never beaten a GM.
Playing higher rated abroad - 3 IM norms - beaten 8 GMs - net gain of rating points.
The problem is people know me too well in Scotland, know my weaknesses, and therefore Largs/Edinburgh weekends are bad odds for me to gain points.
But I really wanted to play Largs - could we not have 2 sections ?
(a)FIDE rated (b) non-FIDE rated where the 2300s can play each other
Posts: 18
Threads: 3
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation:
1
The grading system is based on a set of probabilities regarding the results of games between players with various grading differences. In theory, playing a lot of players with much lower grades gives a large number of small grading gains combined with an occasional large grading drop, but with an overall neutral outcome. From earlier contributions to this thread it's clear that there are people who don't believe the assumptions behind the calculations are correct.
Does FIDE or any other body carry out regular research to compare actual results with the outcomes predicted by theory?
Posts: 354
Threads: 29
Joined: Jul 2013
Concur with Alan J. There was discussion on here 2 years ago when I queried CM/NM titles having played loads of them at turn based chess on Chess.Com
see the thread at <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.chessscotland.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1141&p=12431&hilit=cm+2200#p12431">viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1141&p=12431&hilit=cm+2200#p12431</a><!-- l -->
There seems to be a view with some that it is selling out or not dignified to claim a CM title. I say nonsense and we should get past this in Scotland. I have respect for a CM in the same way I respect a FM/IM/GM. You have reached a certain level and earned that title. While the CM is attainable to many of us mortal chess players, you clearly can't achieve it over night and without lots of hard work, study, games etc. They are hardly being given away like confetti.
CM is surely a good goal/stepping stone/milestone to FM and beyond. Would be good for our game if we had more CM players. It may not be the most welcome praise, but none the less I sincerely congratulate Adam on his recent CM title. 3 Recently new titled players in Scotland in the last year is fantastic.
Posts: 247
Threads: 6
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
0
Thanks Jonathan. I still stand by what I said on that thread, and there is a stigma against claiming it, although when you look at it logically I believe it is just elitist nonsense (admittedly something I bought in to). If you have made the rating, the benefits of claiming it make so much sense now. There are loads of people in Scotland similar to my position who can claim it, and I hope more do. I can handle the stick. My haters are my motivators :p .
Back to Largs, 5pm on Friday is the cut off for an entry. Hmm...
Posts: 383
Threads: 19
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
0
Perhaps there’s going to be a late busload of blindfolded Fide rated players :ymdevil:
Posts: 576
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
WBuchanan Wrote:Perhaps there’s going to be a late busload of blindfolded Fide rated players :ymdevil:
But Walter the bus was cancelled on August 22 - page 3 of this topic.
Perhaps a longboat full of Norsemen ?
Posts: 576
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
steve smith Wrote:The grading system is based on a set of probabilities regarding the results of games between players with various grading differences. In theory, playing a lot of players with much lower grades gives a large number of small grading gains combined with an occasional large grading drop, but with an overall neutral outcome. From earlier contributions to this thread it's clear that there are people who don't believe the assumptions behind the calculations are correct.
Does FIDE or any other body carry out regular research to compare actual results with the outcomes predicted by theory?
Last time I saw any analysis of CS grading data the fit was reasonable.
But a reality check is needed here.
No grading system is perfect.
But they usually provide the best mathematical treatment available.
Lets hope selectors use the published grading data wisely - plus any unpublished data they have access too.
It is always a difficult job to do.
