Change in FIDE rating of all-play-alls

[Joseph Conlon]

I put this here as I just found out about it (thanks David from the IRO) and suspect others read the FIDE handbooks as much as I do.

FIDE all-play-alls are now rated as Swisses as from this January.

So whereas previously a 7-round 8 player APA with 4 rated players would result in 7 rated games for all players, now only games against the rated opponents count, i.e. each game is rated independently.

[NickFaulks]

Joseph,

If I may so so myself, I think QC did a good job of disseminating the new regulations. There were Zoom meetings before Christmas at which a Powerpoint presentation was made, to which federation officials were invited and everyone else was welcome. However, if you did not know about it or felt you had a better use of an hour and a half, that is understandable.

APAs may now produce fewer rated games, but against that you only need five whereas it used to be nine. I think getting an initial rating is about as easy as it was, and it may be a bit more accurate ( though still not very! ).

[Roger de Coverly]

If I may so so myself, I think QC did a good job of disseminating the new regulations.

Sean Hewitt used to run "get a rating" tournaments under his e2e4 banner. These were ten player all play alls using the 90 30 move rate over nine rounds. If at least four players had ratings, everyone got a rating provided they scored at least a draw or two. It's not a format that has seen much English use in recent years.

I don't recall any ECF publicity about the change.

[Joseph Conlon]

I did find the old format quite useful - as the rapidplay events I am running are organised into 8 player all-play-alls, and often there would be a number of players without FIDE ratings. So then players got 7 rated games even if there were only 4 rated players in the event.

But I recognise this is not a common format and I would be one of few organisers directly affected.

One thing I do think is silly about FIDE rapidplay ratings (if anyone involved in FIDE is listening...) is the fixed k-factor of 20. Players come on too low, or have pre-Covid ratings, and it takes ages for them to drag it up. There are many juniors whose FIDE rapidplay rating is probably about 500 points lower than it should be - that's a *lot* of games to get it to where it ought to be.

BTW - I encourage rapidplay organisers to submit events for FIDE rating as well as ECF rating. It doesn't cost anything and is a useful way to increase the number of FIDE rated players.

[NickFaulks]

One thing I do think is silly about FIDE rapidplay ratings (if anyone involved in FIDE is listening...) is the fixed k-factor of 20.

These are my regulations, and I am listening.

k=20 was working pretty well in many federations ( not ENG ) before the Covid restrictions. Junior ratings have obviously become unmoored, and without them playing a lot of games against adults very quickly, no k-factor will sort that out. The dirty little secret is that monthly rating lists are the problem - I warned of this when they were introduced, but there are no prizes given for standing in the way of progress.

BTW - I encourage rapidplay organisers to submit events for FIDE rating as well as ECF rating. It doesn't cost anything and is a useful way to increase the number of FIDE rated players.

Definitely. I hope I am not wrong, but I think they require only Silver membership, which should be acceptable.

[Wadih Khoury]

One thing I do think is silly about FIDE rapidplay ratings (if anyone involved in FIDE is listening...) is the fixed k-factor of 20.

These are my regulations, and I am listening.

k=20 was working pretty well in many federations ( not ENG ) before the Covid restrictions. Junior ratings have obviously become unmoored, and without them playing a lot of games against adults very quickly, no k-factor will sort that out. The dirty little secret is that monthly rating lists are the problem - I warned of this when they were introduced, but there are no prizes given for standing in the way of progress

It works well in places where they play a lot of rapid games. If I were to simplify the argument, you need twice as many rapid games as standard to reach equilibrium.
Now this is not an issue (beyond the closed pool problem) for junior beginners. However, once they reach a certain level, they tend to play more standard games.
If you assume a junior plays 2 standard Congress a month (10 games) and 1 rapid play (6 games), you can see it will take him/her much longer to increase the rapid rating. That player will have played for 400 standard points and 120 rapid points.
This k factor works if the ratio of games standard:rapid is 1:2, not 2:1 or 1:1.

I would say k=20 is not an issue for beginners who play a lot of rapid tournaments, nor for mature stable players. It is however creating a lag versus standard for growing players focusing on their standard games.

[Joseph Conlon]

These are my regulations, and I am listening.

k=20 was working pretty well in many federations ( not ENG ) before the Covid restrictions. Junior ratings have obviously become unmoored, and without them playing a lot of games against adults very quickly, no k-factor will sort that out. The dirty little secret is that monthly rating lists are the problem - I warned of this when they were introduced, but there are no prizes given for standing in the way of progress.

Some suggestions:

1. k-factor of 40 for juniors.
2. The differential junior k-factor used by the ECF (40 when going up in a month and 20 when going down) -this allows ratings to increase in all-junior events
3. A limit on the maximum difference between standard play and rapid play ratings (so e.g. a rapid rating could not lag a standard one by more than e.g 250 points and would automatically be pulled up if the standard play rating increased)

I think - currently, given the Covid effect on ratings - a serious problem is the way all-junior events can only shuffle rating points around, and also means other juniors then get brought onto the list on ratings that are too low and then too long to correct (which exacerbates the problem....)

As Wadih said, as juniors get stronger the natural development is to play more standard play games - but then also a lot of their rapidplay games may also be in all-junior events as stronger juniors may only play 'prestigious' rapid events, e.g. national championships or the equivalent.

What is 'needed' are lots of junior-adult games, but then this is also unfair on the adults having to play juniors rated 1200 who are really 1800.

[Joey Stewart]

Even better then hoping for a lot of adults happily willing to step up and lose hundreds of rating points for zero gain would be to allow a one time "reset" for junior players wishing to get a second chance at a fresh rating instead of having to go through the long grind of gaining several hundred points to get a number which truly reflects their strength - this also has the benefit of being a far more attractive proposition to their opponents as they would now be facing someone who wont be as damaging to lose to and might even be worth something if they win.