Ratings Meeting in Athens

Ratings Meeting in Athens
Wednesday, 09 June 2010 12:16

The meeting was held in Athens on June 2nd and 3rd. The participants were Mikko Markkula, Stewart Reuben and Nick Faulks from the Qualification Commission, Jeff Sonas and Bartlomiej Macieja who provided the statistical support and David Jarrett.

The meeting concentrated on the current rating system and whether any changes were necessary before the major review of the regulations at the 2012 Congress. At last year’s meeting much concern was expressed about inflation in the system. Although there were differing explanations, it was generally felt that many complex factors were involved. It was agreed that there was no necessity for remedial action at this time.

Several recommendations will be made to the Presidential Board for their consideration, including that there were no technical impediments to a reduction in the rating floor to 1000 or the publishing of monthly lists if this was decided by FIDE. It was agreed that the regulations should be clarified regarding when tournaments must be received for rating in current list.

The current requirement of 9 games for an initial published rating was examined. Statistically there did not seem to be any reason to increase the requirement to 10 or more games. However, there were some reservations for players achieving initial ratings above 2200. It was recommended to leave the requirement of at least 1 point from 3 games against rated players from the first result submitted for unrated players.

New players entering the rating list with unusually high ratings, tend to be overrated and new players entering the list with unusually low ratings, tend to be underrated. It was recommended that the K factor for ‘new’ players (those that have not yet played 30 games) should be increased from 25 to 30. The initial rating would not be affected but it would impact on their rating until they had played 30 games and improve the predictive power of their rating in that period. The effect on the rating list was minimal.

It was recommended that if FIDE decides to go ahead, then a separate rating list for Blitz and a separate list for Rapid should be produced. FIDE should decide on need and cost structure.

A list of items that everyone thought should be considered in the major review for 2012 was made, including whether FIDE should stay with the Elo system or consider alternatives.