Poll: Should the Richardson Cup be FIDE rated?
This poll is closed.
Yes
89.66%
26 89.66%
No
3.45%
1 3.45%
I am not fussed either way
6.90%
2 6.90%
Total 29 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Should the Richardson Cup be FIDE rated?
#1
amuir Wrote:Main reason for not wanting ELO rating is scared of losing rating points and therefore losing out on selection for a future event e.g. Olympiad team, Cappelle/British selection etc If a player say rated 2300 with a K -factor plays someone 2000 and loses then can lose 13 points but only gain 2 if win , so odds not good from their point of view.

Ok.

amuir Wrote:Olympiad selection depends on many criteria

Hmmm.

Andrew McHarg Wrote:Surely not including all games these top players play in their Fide ratings is going to make their grades not the truest representation of their playing strength? Which - in my opinion - somewhat defeats the purpose of having a grade... ?

Exactly! Why not use the larger sample? As for defining a serious player I would probably consider it those who have an interest in going to one of these events you listed in the first quote. An individual vote seems the fairest way. I have done a poll out of curiosity.
Reply
#2
There are too few events FIDE rated in Scotland these days. I can understand players reluctance in playing in a rated event where there are 2 games a day. I played in one where there both 2 games a day and 1 game a day and it was exhausting Big Grin
Anyway rating is only part of the equation. You can gauge a players true strength during a match. The rating only shows one part of overall picture of a player
Reply
#3
Quote:amuir wrote:Main reason for not wanting ELO rating is scared of losing rating points and therefore losing out on selection for a future event e.g. Olympiad team, Cappelle/British selection etc If a player say rated 2300 with a K -factor plays someone 2000 and loses then can lose 13 points but only gain 2 if win , so odds not good from their point of view.

This argument is fine Andy, except it just hasn't happened as far as I can see (having checked the last few years)

I hope Steve Mannion doesn't mind, but using him as an example (as he was named as being against FIDE-rating the event) here are his Richardson opponent's and results recently...

season 11/12, 1 game vs 2411 CS-graded opponent, score 0/1
season 09/10, 3 games vs 2256/2460/2538, score 2.5/3
season 07/08, 1 game vs 2305, score 1/1

Taking Keti as a second example (she is an Edinburgh West titled-player, though I don't know if she is one of those Andy is referring to) she has played players graded 2330, 2324, 2384 and 2179 in the last 3 seasons - scoring 1.5/4.
Reply
#4
Jacob Aagaard lost to Neil Berry in SNCL
Vlad Barnaure lost in Richardson
it put them off
Reply
#5
I find it incredibly strange that potential hits to grade puts people off from playing Chess. Whatever happened to caring about having fun in what is - for most - a leisure activity? I guess the game is much more serious for Grandmasters who may make a living out of it, but surely it sends out the wrong message to those who aspire to be like them? I highly doubt any titled player would write in one of their books that the best way to never lose is to simply stop playing Chess and do something else with your time. Or to be fearful of opponents at certain tournaments and try to avoid these tournaments because you feel there is a statistical disadvantage to you.

Isn't the idea to make strong moves and leave the grade to settle where it ought to based on that?

Don't get it. :\
Reply
#6
amuir Wrote:Jacob Aagaard lost to Neil Berry in SNCL
Vlad Barnaure lost in Richardson
it put them off

Well, if that's the only reason they have then that's frankly pathetic! Barnaure lost to Alan Tate (I know cos I was there) but neither Alan nor Neil are the '2000 opponents' alluded to previously.

There have been players representing Scotland (chosen primarily based on FIDE ratings) having had no FIDE-rated activity in the previous 4 years (at least). Preserving a FIDE-rating by not playing any rated events just so you can represent your country seems wrong to me.
Reply
#7
Andy

"There have been players representing Scotland (chosen primarily based on FIDE ratings) having had no FIDE-rated activity in the previous 4 years (at least)."

Name one
Reply
#8
amuir Wrote:Andy

"There have been players representing Scotland (chosen primarily based on FIDE ratings) having had no FIDE-rated activity in the previous 4 years (at least)."

Name one

My mistake Andy. I ought to have written 'almost no FIDE-rated activity' in the previous 4 years. Apologies.
Reply
#9
I voted yes.

Players should never be selected on rating alone anyway, other factors are just as important, e.g activity, potential and dedication. I would much rather see an improving and active 2250 player selected than a 2300 who has played very few games (and none in Scotland!).
Reply
#10
Just to expand a little on some of the comments so far.

Vlad Barnaure misread the calendar entry for the Richardson and was under the impression that only the final was to be rated (rather than all the matches) - that was his specific objection.

The fact the opponent is unknown prior to the game seems to be a negative for some players.

*****

The SNCL made the decision to stop rating at their AGM at the end of last season.

Was this a decision by the clubs or was it by players? Was it overwhelming or close? I dont suppose there are minutes of the discussion or the vote recorded.

*****

Magnus Carlsen's Norway with a similar population size to Scotland has 892 world ranked players, Jacob's Denmark, another 5 million pop, has 1839 - compared to Scotland’s 289.

Iceland with a population of 319,000 has 339 – one in every thousand Icelanders is a FIDE rated player.

*****

Scotland were 75th in the Olympiad.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)