Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

FIDE rating changes: Are they working so far?

@IsaVulpes said in #30:

Dear @Vlad_G92 ,

This is a very nice and instructive article, that is easy to follow and confirms a lot of things everyone believed, but few had actual proof for. Good work!!

I have just one issue with it
At the very end, you advertise your coaching, and you do it via "(geared for adults rated under 1800 FIDE or equivalent)"
Surely that goes against everything you taught us in the article prior!!
It should be something like "(geared for adults from Germany rated under 1800 FIDE, or for adults from India rated under 1500 FIDE)"!
Please fix

Thank you

That got a chuckle out of me, as much as one can retain a sense of humor after playing late night bullet ;)

@IsaVulpes said in #30: > Dear @Vlad_G92 , > > This is a very nice and instructive article, that is easy to follow and confirms a lot of things everyone believed, but few had actual proof for. Good work!! > > I have just one issue with it > At the very end, you advertise your coaching, and you do it via "(geared for adults rated under 1800 FIDE or equivalent)" > Surely that goes against everything you taught us in the article prior!! > It should be something like "(geared for adults from Germany rated under 1800 FIDE, or for adults from India rated under 1500 FIDE)"! > Please fix > > Thank you That got a chuckle out of me, as much as one can retain a sense of humor after playing late night bullet ;)

@NatalijaFirenkova said in #5:

It's helping more people climb to 2300 so they can pay for a title. That's what FIDE intended with the change.
Their are not gaining much from that

358.90 dollars for GM, WGM

178.45 dollars for IM, WIM

75.71 dollars for FM, WFM

54.08 dollars for CM, WCM

This definitely wasn't done for money

@NatalijaFirenkova said in #5: > It's helping more people climb to 2300 so they can pay for a title. That's what FIDE intended with the change. Their are not gaining much from that 358.90 dollars for GM, WGM 178.45 dollars for IM, WIM 75.71 dollars for FM, WFM 54.08 dollars for CM, WCM This definitely wasn't done for money
<Comment deleted by user>

@Onderweg said in #33:

Funny, as a Dutch guy I am like 6/6 against young Indian players rated higher than me

That is impressive, congrats! Definitely an outlier. I have never managed to defeat an Indian player of any rating :))

@Onderweg said in #33: > Funny, as a Dutch guy I am like 6/6 against young Indian players rated higher than me That is impressive, congrats! Definitely an outlier. I have never managed to defeat an Indian player of any rating :))

Just keep things as they were. We want to keep reinventing the wheel for things that are trivial and think were somehow smarter for that. And if the pool is stronger than in other places then it is what it is. You can't change the rating system just because of that. Just play the damn game.

Just keep things as they were. We want to keep reinventing the wheel for things that are trivial and think were somehow smarter for that. And if the pool is stronger than in other places then it is what it is. You can't change the rating system just because of that. Just play the damn game.

@arjun18_PM said in #32:

Their are not gaining much from that

358.90 dollars for GM, WGM

178.45 dollars for IM, WIM

75.71 dollars for FM, WFM

54.08 dollars for CM, WCM

This definitely wasn't done for money

Weird way to write the numbers and is it the fee for a single title or what FIDE has made since March 2024?
More money is more money, and a little become a lot over greater span of time.
Also lets remember it not just the rating floor 1000 -> 1400 but that is wasn't that long ago they invented the CM title in the first place.

They definitely trying to pump the general rating up, and they made a consolation prize title. "You are a candidate to being a master"

However is it just a cash-grab and it hurting the chess world or are players feeling good about having higher numbers as their ratings?
Has CM been a useful step-stone towards reaching FM to players that had otherwise given up on chess, or does it make people settle for less?

I dunno, it just seems clear that they done and for what reasons. What not as clear is if it been working out for a greater good, neutral effect, or watering down the value of ratings and titles.

@arjun18_PM said in #32: > Their are not gaining much from that > > 358.90 dollars for GM, WGM > > 178.45 dollars for IM, WIM > > 75.71 dollars for FM, WFM > > 54.08 dollars for CM, WCM > > This definitely wasn't done for money Weird way to write the numbers and is it the fee for a single title or what FIDE has made since March 2024? More money is more money, and a little become a lot over greater span of time. Also lets remember it not just the rating floor 1000 -> 1400 but that is wasn't that long ago they invented the CM title in the first place. They definitely trying to pump the general rating up, and they made a consolation prize title. "You are a candidate to being a master" However is it just a cash-grab and it hurting the chess world or are players feeling good about having higher numbers as their ratings? Has CM been a useful step-stone towards reaching FM to players that had otherwise given up on chess, or does it make people settle for less? I dunno, it just seems clear that they done and for what reasons. What not as clear is if it been working out for a greater good, neutral effect, or watering down the value of ratings and titles.

I think this mostly summarizes the feelings I've had about the youngsters and that I don't feel that much impact from the floor rise change ...

For me as a 30 years old playing some of those ~1700 rated, 12yo kids (which you then see next year/two with 2000+) is frustrating as I usually have not that much to gain, while a lot to loose...

Also I am for quite some time kinda critical (not publicly, but I've shared my thoughts with couple of people) of how the Swiss tournament systems works and sadly the vast majority of (FIDE) tournaments I can play are Swiss system ones...
My problem with those Swiss tournaments is that they (logically) use your Elo to determine who you will play in 1st round, the problem I see is that they do the same even after rounds 1 and 2, too. Basically who you play is only determined from the past rounds (you can't play someone you played, color stuff, etc.), your points and then it immediately default to the Elo ... IMO it would make more sense to use something like Buchholz would be beneficial ... Also given the believe the URS is superior to the Fide Elo, I'd be nicer to resolve the other level tiebreak resolution (like in 1st round etc.) using that than the Fide Elo.

I think this mostly summarizes the feelings I've had about the youngsters and that I don't feel that much impact from the floor rise change ... For me as a 30 years old playing some of those ~1700 rated, 12yo kids (which you then see next year/two with 2000+) is frustrating as I usually have not that much to gain, while a lot to loose... Also I am for quite some time kinda critical (not publicly, but I've shared my thoughts with couple of people) of how the Swiss tournament systems works and sadly the vast majority of (FIDE) tournaments I can play are Swiss system ones... My problem with those Swiss tournaments is that they (logically) use your Elo to determine who you will play in 1st round, the problem I see is that they do the same even after rounds 1 and 2, too. Basically who you play is only determined from the past rounds (you can't play someone you played, color stuff, etc.), your points and then it immediately default to the Elo ... IMO it would make more sense to use something like Buchholz would be beneficial ... Also given the believe the URS is superior to the Fide Elo, I'd be nicer to resolve the other level tiebreak resolution (like in 1st round etc.) using that than the Fide Elo.

@IDontCare94 said in #37:

My problem with those Swiss tournaments is that they (logically) use your Elo to determine who you will play in 1st round, the problem I see is that they do the same even after rounds 1 and 2, too. Basically who you play is only determined from the past rounds (you can't play someone you played, color stuff, etc.), your points and then it immediately default to the Elo ... IMO it would make more sense to use something like Buchholz would be beneficial ...
Buchholz would be no help after round 1 (everyone in the group has the same) and even after round 2 it would still have too few possible values within a group. It would make more sense in the later rounds though.

What I see as a problem is that many open tournaments have too many players for the number of rounds, making the results quite random. They will always be for most of the standings (which doesn't matter as people mostly rather care about their rating performance or rating gain/loss than about their rank) but with too many players even the players on the top often haven't played each other.

@IDontCare94 said in #37: > My problem with those Swiss tournaments is that they (logically) use your Elo to determine who you will play in 1st round, the problem I see is that they do the same even after rounds 1 and 2, too. Basically who you play is only determined from the past rounds (you can't play someone you played, color stuff, etc.), your points and then it immediately default to the Elo ... IMO it would make more sense to use something like Buchholz would be beneficial ... Buchholz would be no help after round 1 (everyone in the group has the same) and even after round 2 it would still have too few possible values within a group. It would make more sense in the later rounds though. What I see as a problem is that many open tournaments have too many players for the number of rounds, making the results quite random. They will always be for most of the standings (which doesn't matter as people mostly rather care about their rating performance or rating gain/loss than about their rank) but with too many players even the players on the top often haven't played each other.

Yes @mkubecek this is a problem, and one that organizers should pay more attention to. Having a 500-person 9R Swiss event leads to terrible pairings for the middle chunk of the players, alternating between +300 and -300 opponents. Even accelerated pairings such as the ones implemented in Reykjavik don't fully smoothen this effect. There's another massive event at Tegernsee (GER) ongoing right now that uses Baku Acceleration for the first 5 rounds: https://chess-results.com/tnr957277.aspx?lan=1&art=2&rd=6&turdet=YES&flag=30

The other pairing system mentioned above by @IDontCare94 , that takes into considerations the TB score, rather than the starting rank by Elo is the basis of the so-called Dubov Pairing System. As far as I know, it has been ratified for usage in rated tournaments since 2018, but it hasn't been implemented in many tournaments, mostly because the main developers (Heinz Herzog of Swiss Manager and Roberto Ricca/Luigi Forlano of VEGA) haven't had the time to code it properly. Willing to stand corrected on it if someone has more info. Here's some useful info about its inner workings: https://spp.fide.com/c-04-4-1-dubov-system-2/

I think it makes a lot more sense to separate the tournaments by hard cutoffs in rating ranges, for example, 1400-1700, 1700-2000, 2000+. If I were a tournament organizer, that's what I would do, at least...

Yes @mkubecek this is a problem, and one that organizers should pay more attention to. Having a 500-person 9R Swiss event leads to terrible pairings for the middle chunk of the players, alternating between +300 and -300 opponents. Even accelerated pairings such as the ones implemented in Reykjavik don't fully smoothen this effect. There's another massive event at Tegernsee (GER) ongoing right now that uses Baku Acceleration for the first 5 rounds: https://chess-results.com/tnr957277.aspx?lan=1&art=2&rd=6&turdet=YES&flag=30 The other pairing system mentioned above by @IDontCare94 , that takes into considerations the TB score, rather than the starting rank by Elo is the basis of the so-called Dubov Pairing System. As far as I know, it has been ratified for usage in rated tournaments since 2018, but it hasn't been implemented in many tournaments, mostly because the main developers (Heinz Herzog of Swiss Manager and Roberto Ricca/Luigi Forlano of VEGA) haven't had the time to code it properly. Willing to stand corrected on it if someone has more info. Here's some useful info about its inner workings: https://spp.fide.com/c-04-4-1-dubov-system-2/ I think it makes a lot more sense to separate the tournaments by hard cutoffs in rating ranges, for example, 1400-1700, 1700-2000, 2000+. If I were a tournament organizer, that's what I would do, at least...

I'm afraid that once the number of players is too large, more sophisticated pairing systems can only make things a bit less awful but it can never work well. The accelerated swiss systems mostly focus on the top part but in the middle they IMHO often make the pairing even more random. With 500-600 players and 9 rounds, even the top cannot work well and accelerated swiss often allows an underrated player to "sneak from below" and grab a high spot without meeting any of the strongest players.

I agree that splitting into multiple section is the only way to keep things reasonable. I would just suggest leaving some overlap, e.g. up to 1700, 1600-2000, 1900 and more.

I'm afraid that once the number of players is too large, more sophisticated pairing systems can only make things a bit less awful but it can never work well. The accelerated swiss systems mostly focus on the top part but in the middle they IMHO often make the pairing even more random. With 500-600 players and 9 rounds, even the top cannot work well and accelerated swiss often allows an underrated player to "sneak from below" and grab a high spot without meeting any of the strongest players. I agree that splitting into multiple section is the only way to keep things reasonable. I would just suggest leaving some overlap, e.g. up to 1700, 1600-2000, 1900 and more.

This topic is now closed.