El objetivo de está página es brindar un ámbito virtual que permita profundizar el intercambio de información de cómo mejorar el ajedrez en Puerto Rico. Todos los aspectos académicos y tradicionales del juego ciencia pueden ser discutidos y ampliados. Las críticas o sugerencias sobre este sitio serán bien recibidas. - Este blog no depende de ninguna asociación, club, o empresa y no tiene ningún fin comercial o de lucro. Ad altiora, et meliora, semper...Ad altiora tendimus
lunes, 15 de diciembre de 2008
FIDE Congress 2008
Bartlomiej Macieja – Wed Dec 17th, 05:39
From Chess Base News -http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5094
During the recent FIDE Congress in Dresden several important topics have been discussed and several important decisions have been taken. As I had the opportunity to participate in meetings of some committees and commissions, the Executive Board, and the General Assembly, I have decided to prepare this small report with a few comments.
Registration of FIDE
FIDE Deputy Chairman Georgios Makropoulos officially informed that FIDE had never been registered and promised to "improve" the current situation. Obviously, it was a shocking news.
New "Elite Grandmaster" title
Several officials proposed to introduce a new title "Elite Grandmaster" (higher that "Grandmaster"), due to the enormous growth of the total number of Grandmasters. According to my statistics, the situation is not as obvious as it may look at the first glance, as the total number of rated players grows even more rapidly. Let's compare the total number of Grandmasters to the total number of rated players, as well as to the total number of players rated over 2200:
1972:
83 / 794 = 0.105
83 / 692 = 0.120
2008:
1158 / 96509 = 0.012
1158 / 21023 = 0.055
Relatively, there is less and less Grandmasters...
Frequency of rating lists
A decision was taken to publish rating lists every two months.
K-factor (development coefficient)
Publishing more frequently rating lists leads to an effective decrease of the development coefficient. To understand this effect it is enough to imagine a player rated 2500 playing one tournament a month. With 2 rating lists published yearly, if he wins 10 points in every tournament, his rating after half a year will be 2500+6*10=2560. If rating lists are published 4 times a year, after 3 months his rating becomes 2500+3*10=2530 so it gets more difficult for him to gain more rating points. After 3 more tournaments the player reaches the final rating only about 2500+3*10+3*6=2548. With 6 rating lists published yearly, the final rating of the player is only about 2500+2*10+2*7+2*5=2544. Obviously it is only an approximation, the exact values may slightly differ, however the effect is clear. It looks like FIDE officials "forgot" to increase the K-factor some years ago to compensate the effect of more frequent rating lists. Or they were not fully aware they should have changed the K-factor in order not to change the whole system. The increase of the K-factor is essential not for the reason to make the system more dynamic, but for the reason not to make the system less dynamic! Eventually, it has been decided to increase the value of the K-factor to K=20 + K=30.
Rating floor
The rating has been decreased from 1400 to 1200.
Olympiad 2012
With +95-40 result (and one invalid vote) the organisation of the Chess Olympiad 2012 was granted to Istanbul (Turkey). The only opponent was Budva (Montenegro).
Mobile phones
According to the new rules it becomes possible to have mobile phones (or other electronic means of communication) in the playing venue, if they are completely switched off.
350-rule
According to the present rules, a difference in rating of more than 350 points shall be counted for rating purposes as though it were a difference of 350 points. The rule played a very important role when rating changes were calculated based on the average rating of opponents. Nowadays, when all games are counted separately, it has lost its statistical value. There was a discussion if to leave it as it is or to abolish it completely, eventually a kind of compromise has been agreed and the value of 350 has been substituted by 400.
Requirements for title norms
The requirements have been basically increased, for instance to achieve a GM norm at least 33% of opponents must be GMs.
Standardisation of time controls
The following standard has been set for classical games:
a) (G-90') + 30"
b) (90'/40 + G-30') + 30"
c) (100'/40 + 50'/20 + G-15') + 30"
d) 120'/40 + G-30'
e) 120'/40 + G-60'
f) 120'/40 + 60'/20 + G-30'
Tournaments, in which other time controls are used, shall not be taken into consideration for title purposes (GM, IM, WGM, WIM norms) starting from the 1st of July 2009.
Coming late for a game
The Rules and Tournament Regulations Committee proposed to add the following article to the FIDE Laws of Chess: "Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game, unless the arbiter decides otherwise. Thus the default time is 0 minutes. The rules of a competition may specify a different default time.". The proposal was accepted by the Executive Board and recommended for the General Assembly to be approved. The final decision was however postponed till the Presidential Board Meeting.
A draw offer
A very emotional discussion regarding a possibility to offer a draw took place during the Rules and Tournament Regulations Committee meeting. Eventually, the Committee decided to propose to add the following point to the FIDE Laws of Chess: "The rules of a competition may specify that players cannot agree to a draw in less than a specified number of moves or at all, without the consent of the arbiter."
The majority of changes will come into effect starting from the 1st of July 2009.
Best regards
Bartlomiej Macieja
Comentarios sobre el informe de la ACP sobre el Congreso de la FIDE
Por Nick Faulks (Islas Bermudas)
de Noticias Chess Base: http://www.chessbase.com/espanola/newsdetail2.asp?id=6694
Siempre sentí que era una vergüenza que la ACP, a la vez que se queja frecuentemente de la gestión del ajedrez de la FIDE (¡No siempre sin motivo!), escogiese no contribuir en los muchos comités en los que se pueden realizar cambios. Por lo tanto fue muy grato ver al GM Macieja acudir a diversas reuniones el mes pasado y plantear con entusiasmo sus puntos de vista y los de sus colegas. ¡La pérdida de la selección polaca fue nuestra ganancia!
Leí con gran interés su resumen de lo sucedido en Dresde y me alegró que le diesen tanta importancia. Tengo algunos comentarios sobre eso y espero que quieran publicarlos. Por favor, tengan en cuenta que aunque estos pensamientos están influidos por mi pertenencia al Comité de Elo y Titulaciones, las opiniones que expreso son completamente personales.
Nuevo título de "Gran Maestro de Elite"
La comparación del número de GMs con la población con Elo superior a 2200 es de bastante poca utilidad. En 1972 la inmensa mayoría de los jugadores con suficiente fuerza de juego para estar entre 2200 y 2400 no tenía Elo sencillamente porque nunca habían jugado en una competición evaluada. Preferiría comparar el número de GMs con el de jugadores de cierta fuerza de juego, llamémosles "expertos". La población de GMs ha aumentado por 14 desde 1972, así que se nos pregunta si creemos que el número de "expertos" se ha incrementado por un factor aún mayor. No hay forma de comprobarlo, pero soy escéptico.
Factor K (coeficiente de desarrollo)
El GM Macieja está bastante en lo cierto en cuanto a que reducir el tiempo entre clasificaciones tiene el efecto de reducir el factor K, aunque no es él., como parece pensar, el primero que se dio cuenta de ello. No puedo justificar un efecto tan grande como él sugiere sin asumir una media de más de diez partidas evaluadas por mes, lo que parece alto, pero estoy de acuerdo en que, si todo lo demás se mantiene igual, debería garantizarse un incremento del 20% en el factor K en respuesta al cambio de dos listas anuales a cuatro y ahora a seis.
Es importante el matiz de que todo lo demás se mantenga igual. El Comité de Titulaciones y Elo mantuvo un largo y creo que bien documentado debate sobre el factor K y se acordó que sería correcto un incremento significativo. Sin embargo, también se acordó que el asunto era complejo y que podía haber consecuencias imprevistas. Por lo tanto, ya que se dispone de los resultados de torneos jugados desde 2005 en un formato fácilmente manejable, la conclusión fue que debía abordarse una investigación histórica, para adoptar una decisión final el próximo año que estuviera cimentada en análisis sólidos.
En vez de eso, la Asamblea General eligió aprobar la duplicación del factor. Por supuesto, estaban en su derecho, pero podemos esperar algunos resultados interesantes e imprevistos. Entre otras cosas sugiero que:
(1) veremos como muchos jugadores traspasan la barrera de los 2800 y
(2) los requisitos de Elo para los títulos de GM y MI serán irrelevantes.
No digo que eso sean consecuencias malas, pero ¿son intencionadas o no? ¿Quién lo sabe? Si alguien duda del caos que puede organizarse con cambios radicales y no sometidos a prueba, no necesitan mirar más atrás de la Olimpiada de Dresde y su nuevo y "revolucionario" sistema suizo de emparejamiento.
Normalización de los controles de tiempo
Me dejó intrigado la conclusión de este debate. En esencia los únicos incrementos permitidos serán 0 o 30", incluso aunque cada uno de ellos tenga inconvenientes. Además, no se permitirá introducir un incremento solo para la fase final de la partida: siempre me dijeron que a los jugadores más destacados les gustaba este sistema, pero que los relojes no podían gestionarlo. Ahora que los nuevos relojes DGT tienen esa opción, ha sido derogada.
Los problemas de un incremento cero son bien conocidos: pueden conducir a un sin sentido Rey + Alfil persiguiendo a un Rey + Caballo por todo el tablero hasta que caiga una bandera. Adviertan que ese comportamiento se convertirá en completamente racional si la tendencia a puntuar 3-1-0 se asienta. No obstante, si la FIDE y la ACP están unidas para ver esto como el avance del ajedrez, supongo que mi sitio no está en interponerme en el camino del progreso.
El mayor problema con el incremento de 30" es que a pesar de haber sido forzado a jugar con él muchos años, a muchos jugadores aún lo les gusta. En parte puede que sea debido a que, al final de una partida larga, el tema del control de la vejiga puede ser crucial. Por estos motivos siempre he apoyado que debería establecerse la rutina de que la fase de muerte súbita de cualquier partida se jugase con 2" de incremento, pero eso ahora estará prohibido.
Llegar tarde a una partida
Es de vital importancia. Macieja informa que:
"El Comité de Reglas y Normas para Torneos propuso añadir el siguiente artículo a las Leyes del Ajedrez: "Cualquier jugador que llegue tarde al tablero después del inicio de la partida perderá la partida a no ser que el árbitro decida otra cosa. Por lo tanto, el margen de cortesía es de 0 minutos. Las reglas de un torneo pueden determinar otro margen de cortesía". La propuesta fue aceptada por el Comité Ejecutivo y aprobada por la Asamblea General. La decisión final, sin embargo, fue aplazada hasta la reunión de la Junta Directiva"
Creo que esa no es toda la historia. No pude estar presente en la Asamblea General, que coincidió con una ronda de la Olimpiada, pero me dijeron que la propuesta que el Consejo presidencial considerará es distinta de la descrita y enormemente controvertida. Sería interesante oír la impresión de alguien que hubiese estado allí.
Una oferta de tablas
Por supuesto, era necesario cambiar las reglas, ya que los organizadores de torneos han estado actuando como si el cambio ya estuviese hecho. Curiosamente, se observó en dos comités que la Olimpiada de Dresde incumplía claramente las Leyes del Ajedrez de la FIDE tal y como estaban, pero nadie pareció pensar que eso fuese importante.
Suscribirse a:
Enviar comentarios (Atom)

3 comentarios:
Remarks on the ACP's FIDE Congress report
By Nick Faulks, Bermuda
I have always felt it was a shame that the ACP, while frequently complaining about FIDE's management of chess (not always without cause!), chose not to contribute to the many committee meetings where changes can be made. It was therefore very pleasing to see GM Macieja in attendance at a number of meetings last month, and keen to put forward the views of himself and his colleagues. The Polish team's loss was our gain!
I read with great interest his summary of events in Dresden, and was pleased that you gave it such prominence. I have a few comments based on his, and hope you will be willing to publish them. Please note that, while these thoughts are influenced by my membership of the FIDE Titles & Ratings Committee, the opinions expressed are entirely my own.
New "Elite Grandmaster" title
The comparison of the number of GMs with the population rated over 2200 is rather unhelpful. In 1972 the vast majority of players of sufficient playing strength to fall into the 2200–2400 range had no rating simply because they had never played in a rated event. I should prefer to compare the number of GMs with those of a certain playing strength, let's call them "experts". The GM population has increased by a factor of 14 since 1972, so we are being asked to believe that the number of "experts" has increased by an even greater factor. There is no objective way to check this, but I am skeptical.
K-factor (development coefficient)
GM Macieja is quite correct that reducing the period between rating lists effectively reduces the K-factor, although he is not, as he appears to think, the first to notice this. I cannot justify an effect as great as he suggests without assuming an average of more than ten rated games played per month, which seems high, but agree that, other things being equal, a 20% increase in the K-factor might be warranted in response to the move from two lists per year to four, and now to six.
The point about other things being equal is important. The Titles & Ratings Committee had a lengthy and, I felt, well-informed discussion about the K-factor, and it was agreed that a significant increase was probably in order. However, it was also agreed that the issue was a complex one, and that there might be unforeseen consequences. Therefore, since the results of tournaments played since 2005 are now available in an easily manipulable form, the conclusion was that a historical investigation should be undertaken, with a view to a final decision next year which would be underpinned by solid analysis.
The General Assembly instead chose to pass an arbitrary doubling of the factor. Of course they had the right to do that, but we can look forward to some interesting and unpredictable results. Among others, I suggest that
1. we shall see numerous players breaking through the 2800 barrier, and
2. the rating requirements for GM and IM tiles will become irrelevant.
I'm not saying these are bad consequences, but are they intended or unintended? Who knows? If anyone doubts the chaos that can be caused by radical and untested changes, they need look no further back than to the effect on the Dresden Olympiad of the "revolutionary" new Swiss pairings system.
Standardisation of time controls
I was puzzled by the conclusion of this debate. Essentially, the only permitted increments will be zero or 30", even though each of these has drawbacks. Furthermore, it will not be permitted to introduce an increment only for the final section of the game - I had always been told that the top players favoured this but the clocks could not handle it, but now that the new DGT clocks have this feature it has been banned.
The problems with a zero increment are well known – it can lead to the nonsense of K+B chasing K+N around the board until someone's flag falls. Note that this behaviour would become entirely rational if the trendy 3-1-0 scoring were to catch on. Still, if FIDE and the ACP are united in seeing this as the way forward for chess, I suppose it's not my place to stand in the way of progress.
The biggest problem with the 30" increment is that, despite having been forced to play on this basis for many years, many players still don't seem to like it. This may be partly because, at the end of a long game, the issue of bladder control can become crucial. For these reasons I have always argued that it should be routine for the sudden death phase of any game to be played with a 2" increment, but that will now be prohibited.
Coming late for a game
This is vitally important. Macieja reports that
"The Rules and Tournament Regulations Committee proposed to add the following article to the FIDE Laws of Chess: "Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game, unless the arbiter decides otherwise. Thus the default time is 0 minutes. The rules of a competition may specify a different default time.". The proposal was accepted by the Executive Board and recommended for the General Assembly to be approved. The final decision was however postponed till the Presidential Board Meeting."
I believe that is not the full story. I could not attend the GA, which clashed with an Olympiad round, but am told that the proposal which the Presidential Board will be considering is in fact far different from the one described above, and immensely controversial. In the absence of any minutes from the meeting, it would be interesting to hear the impression of anyone who was there.
A draw offer
It was of course necessary to alter the rules, since tournament organisers have been acting as if the change allowing them to restrict draws had already been made. Interestingly, it was noted in two committees that the Dresden Olympiad was in clear breach of the FIDE Laws of Chess as they then stood, but nobody seemed to think this was very important.
Comentarios sobre el informe de la ACP sobre el Congreso de la FIDE
Por
Siempre sentí que era una vergüenza que la ACP, a la vez que se queja frecuentemente de la gestión del ajedrez de la FIDE (¡No siempre sin motivo!), escogiese no contribuir en los muchos comités en los que se pueden realizar cambios. Por lo tanto fue muy grato ver al GM Macieja acudir a diversas reuniones el mes pasado y plantear con entusiasmo sus puntos de vista y los de sus colegas. ¡La pérdida de la selección polaca fue nuestra ganancia!
Leí con gran interés su resumen de lo sucedido en Dresde y me alegró que le diesen tanta importancia. Tengo algunos comentarios sobre eso y espero que quieran publicarlos. Por favor, tengan en cuenta que aunque estos pensamientos están influidos por mi pertenencia al Comité de Elo y Titulaciones, las opiniones que expreso son completamente personales.
Nuevo título de "Gran Maestro de Elite"
La comparación del número de GMs con la población con Elo superior a 2200 es de bastante poca utilidad. En 1972 la inmensa mayoría de los jugadores con suficiente fuerza de juego para estar entre 2200 y 2400 no tenía Elo sencillamente porque nunca habían jugado en una competición evaluada. Preferiría comparar el número de GMs con el de jugadores de cierta fuerza de juego, llamémosles "expertos". La población de GMs ha aumentado por 14 desde 1972, así que se nos pregunta si creemos que el número de "expertos" se ha incrementado por un factor aún mayor. No hay forma de comprobarlo, pero soy escéptico.
Factor K (coeficiente de desarrollo)
El GM Macieja está bastante en lo cierto en cuanto a que reducir el tiempo entre clasificaciones tiene el efecto de reducir el factor K, aunque no es él., como parece pensar, el primero que se dio cuenta de ello. No puedo justificar un efecto tan grande como él sugiere sin asumir una media de más de diez partidas evaluadas por mes, lo que parece alto, pero estoy de acuerdo en que, si todo lo demás se mantiene igual, debería garantizarse un incremento del 20% en el factor K en respuesta al cambio de dos listas anuales a cuatro y ahora a seis.
Es importante el matiz de que todo lo demás se mantenga igual. El Comité de Titulaciones y Elo mantuvo un largo y creo que bien documentado debate sobre el factor K y se acordó que sería correcto un incremento significativo. Sin embargo, también se acordó que el asunto era complejo y que podía haber consecuencias imprevistas. Por lo tanto, ya que se dispone de los resultados de torneos jugados desde 2005 en un formato fácilmente manejable, la conclusión fue que debía abordarse una investigación histórica, para adoptar una decisión final el próximo año que estuviera cimentada en análisis sólidos.
En vez de eso, la Asamblea General eligió aprobar la duplicación del factor. Por supuesto, estaban en su derecho, pero podemos esperar algunos resultados interesantes e imprevistos. Entre otras cosas sugiero que:
veremos como muchos jugadores traspasan la barrera de los 2800 y
los requisitos de Elo para los títulos de GM y MI serán irrelevantes.
No digo que eso sean consecuencias malas, pero ¿son intencionadas o no? ¿Quién lo sabe? Si alguien duda del caos que puede organizarse con cambios radicales y no sometidos a prueba, no necesitan mirar más atrás de la Olimpiada de Dresde y su nuevo y "revolucionario" sistema suizo de emparejamiento.
Normalización de los controles de tiempo
Me dejó intrigado la conclusión de este debate. En esencia los únicos incrementos permitidos serán 0 o 30", incluso aunque cada uno de ellos tenga inconvenientes. Además, no se permitirá introducir un incremento solo para la fase final de la partida: siempre me dijeron que a los jugadores más destacados les gustaba este sistema, pero que los relojes no podían gestionarlo. Ahora que los nuevos relojes DGT tienen esa opción, ha sido derogada.
Los problemas de un incremento cero son bien conocidos: pueden conducir a un sin sentido Rey + Alfil persiguiendo a un Rey + Caballo por todo el tablero hasta que caiga una bandera. Adviertan que ese comportamiento se convertirá en completamente racional si la tendencia a puntuar 3-1-0 se asienta. No obstante, si la FIDE y la ACP están unidas para ver esto como el avance del ajedrez, supongo que mi sitio no está en interponerme en el camino del progreso.
El mayor problema con el incremento de 30" es que a pesar de haber sido forzado a jugar con él muchos años, a muchos jugadores aún lo les gusta. En parte puede que sea debido a que, al final de una partida larga, el tema del control de la vejiga puede ser crucial. Por estos motivos siempre he apoyado que debería establecerse la rutina de que la fase de muerte súbita de cualquier partida se jugase con 2" de incremento, pero eso ahora estará prohibido.
Llegar tarde a una partida
Es de vital importancia. Macieja informa que:
"El Comité de Reglas y Normas para Torneos propuso añadir el siguiente artículo a las Leyes del Ajedrez: "Cualquier jugador que llegue tarde al tablero después del inicio de la partida perderá la partida a no ser que el árbitro decida otra cosa. Por lo tanto, el margen de cortesía es de 0 minutos. Las reglas de un torneo pueden determinar otro margen de cortesía". La propuesta fue aceptada por el Comité Ejecutivo y aprobada por la Asamblea General. La decisión final, sin embargo, fue aplazada hasta la reunión de la Junta Directiva"
Creo que esa no es toda la historia. No pude estar presente en la Asamblea General, que coincidió con una ronda de la Olimpiada, pero me dijeron que la propuesta que el Consejo presidencial considerará es distinta de la descrita y enormemente controvertida. Sería interesante oír la impresión de alguien que hubiese estado allí.
Una oferta de tablas
Por supuesto, era necesario cambiar las reglas, ya que los organizadores de torneos han estado actuando como si el cambio ya estuviese hecho. Curiosamente, se observó en dos comités que la Olimpiada de Dresde incumplía claramente las Leyes del Ajedrez de la FIDE tal y como estaban, pero nadie pareció pensar que eso fuese importante.
More about FIDE Congress 2008
Bartlomiej Macieja [Wed Jan 07th, 16:24]
More about FIDE Congress 2008
Dear Nick
Thank you for your kind words and valuable comments on my report on the last FIDE Congress.
I am always glad to see a discussion on important topics, to get known opinions of other chess players, chess enthusiasts or FIDE officials. Being the General Secretary of the ACP I tried to organise global surveys, additionally publishing views of the leading players "on hot topics in chess". Regretfully, many FIDE committees and commissions work almost only during congresses, often discussing important and complex topics during one day. At least, this is my experience of 5 years cooperation, while I believe the main work should be done between congresses. Starting serious discussions only during a meeting, can hardly ever lead to satisfactory results. "We have no time to open a discussion on this topic.", "We have no time for further discussion, let's «simply» vote.", "We have no time to hear your opinion, just say in one word if you are «for» or «against», «yes» or «no»", "We are unable to take a decision now, let's postpone it for the Congress 2012 (or from one committee to another)." are the most frequently heard sentences.
New "Elite Grandmaster" title
The problem is complex. I made a comparison of the number of GMs with the population rated over 2200 only in order to show, that the number of grandmasters does not dramatically grow over years (what is commonly being thought).
There might be however different reasons for introducing a new title. For instance in order "just" to have a new title limited to a small group of current GMs. We have FMs, IMs, GMs, why not to establish a new category of players, and new, and new, and new (if the number of players continues growing). The introduction of a new title will lead also to an increase of tournaments, including closed tournaments, with the purpose to allow participants to make a new title norm. It will also motivate many grandmasters to work harder, to improve their skills. Nowadays, if they achieve 2550 or 2600 rating and become a grandmaster, there is nothing more they can hope for (unless they are young enough). They understand very well they will never become world champions or play in Linares. They can only gain or lose some rating points, but nobody will notice it.
No doubts there are positives of the introduction of a new title, however proper arguments should be given. "Oh, my God, there is something wrong, we have so many Grandmasters, we have to do something" is not one of them, because there is nothing wrong and the number of grandmasters depends on the total number of players. Obviously I am not talking about the growth related to the decrease of the rating floor. We have the enormous growth of the total number of players in the system, so there is nothing unusual that the number of grandmasters grows as well.
The funny thing is that already in the past there were various working groups of grandmasters set to solve the problem of criteria. The absolute numbers were every time different, but the conclusion was always the same - the introduction of a new title is useful if the members of the working groups get it.
K-factor (development coefficient)
The discussion on the proper value of the K-factor took place on several levels. There were unofficial talks, a discussion during the Titles and Ratings Regulations Committee meeting and during the Qualification Commission meeting, it was mentioned during the General Assembly. To be honest, I don't understand why a discussion on exactly the same topic is taking place on different meetings during the same Congress, usually from the beginning, every time leading to different results. It shows something is wrong with the process of taking decisions in FIDE, sometimes I have a strong impression that they are random. What would be wrong if a specialised committee took the final decision? It is a more global remark, far not only corresponding to the discussion on the proper value of the K-factor.
During the Titles and Ratings Regulations Committee meeting, mentioned by you, it was decided that "the K-factor should be increased to 25, after doing a test on tournaments played since 2005". The Qualification Commission changed it value to 20 (30 for players who have never reached 2400) and it was later accepted by the General Assembly (as a part of the Qualification Commission's report). There was no discussion on the General Assembly, the change was only mentioned by the chairman of the Qualification Commission.
The increase of the number of rating lists published yearly shall always be accompanied by an increase of the K-value just in order not to change too much in the system, in other words, not to make the system less dynamic. It is an obvious mathematical fact, though, as I wrote, probably "forgotten" by the responsible FIDE officials. I am glad the Titles and Ratings Regulations Committee has finally decided to make some studies, however the problem has been known for ages, the reduction of the length of a period from 6 to 3 months was introduced already in 2000! No K-factor value change has been made since, no report has been published.
The change made in Dresden is indeed much bigger than only to compensate the effect of more frequently published rating lists and I share the same feeling with you that the new value of the K-factor was chosen without a proper study (although we might be wrong as the chairman of the Qualification Commission informed at the General Assembly that he had all the numbers).
The question, what the value of the K-factor should be, remains open. Let's try the following approach:
Let's imagine 2 players with different initial ratings, let's say 2500 and 2600, achieving exactly the same results against exactly the same opponents for the whole year. The main idea of the ELO system is that if two players do participate in tournaments and show exactly the same results, their rating should be the same. You can think about it also as "forgetting about very old results". Please note that it is far not the same approach as used in many other sports, for instance in tennis. In the ELO system, if a player doesn't participate in tournaments, his rating doesn't change (I don't want to discuss now if it is correct or not). But if he does, there is no reason why his rating should be different than the rating of another player achieving exactly the same results against exactly the same opponents.
With one rating list published yearly, as was initially done by FIDE, the value of at least K=700/N was needed to reach the goal. As the majority of professional players play more than 70 rated games, the value of K=10 would play its role. However, with more rating lists published yearly, the initially higher rated player will always have higher rating than his initially lower rated colleague, unless the K-factor is extremely high. For this reason it is better to ask the question, which value of the K-factor will reduce the initial difference by 100 (for instance from 100 points to only 1 point) in a year?
In a good approximation, the answer is K = (m*700/N)*[1-(0,01)(1/m)], where m is the number of lists published per year. For N=80, we get: if m=2 -> K should be 16, if m=4 -> K should be 24, if m=6 -> K should be 28, if m=12 -> K should 33, if m=24 -> K should be 37, if m=48 -> K should be 38. Otherwise, an initially higher rated player may have a year later higher rating even if he was achieving worse results than an initially lower rated player. It would not only be strange, but also unfair, as for many competitions, including the World Championship Cycle, the participants are qualified by rating.
Please note, that if N is lower, the K-factor should be even bigger.
As you have mentioned, the issue of the value of the K-factor is a complex one. However, before starting a discussion on possible consequences of the change, it has to be clearly stated, that the system we had before the change was very bad. Since 2000, two players achieving exactly the same results against exactly the same opponents for the whole year, let's say in 80 games in a row, would have rating difference of about 26 points (yes, so much!) if the difference between their initial ("old") ratings was 100. After 2 years and 160 identical results in a row, the difference would still be as high as about 7 points. Even after 3 years and 240 identical results, the difference of 1 or 2 points would most probably still exist. At the same time, FIDE officials were publishing important regulations (for instance World Championship Cycle regulations) with sentences like: "In case of equality of ratings two decimals will be taken into consideration.". If, after achieving exactly the same results, the players may easily have the difference in ratings as high as 26 points (with 80 games per year!), and at the same time somebody is trying to count two decimals, it means, he is not aware of how the system works. And that's what I tried to say in the second part of my comment.
I hope I have managed to prove that a significant increase of the K-factor is not only possible, but is essential. Because of that I am glad the Titles and Ratings Regulations Committee has mentioned K=25 (close to K=28 - see above and close to K=24 recommended by Jeff Sonas already in 2002), promising to perform a serious study on other consequences the change will (surely) bring. Unfortunately, the Qualification Commission has decreased the value to K=20 (without promising anything) and has passed it through the General Assembly (without any comment or question from any delegate). It means, the players mentioned in the example described above, will still have rating difference of over 5 points after a full year (and 80 games in a row) of achieving exactly the same results, while I can bet that FIDE officials will continue counting 2 decimals. Well, nevertheless it is already a big improvement in comparison to the difference of 26 points we had before the change.
It has to be admitted, that even with two rating lists published yearly, K=10 was resulting in the final difference of as much as 18 points.
As for the consequences of the change, you are right pointing out that "we shall see more players breaking through the 2800 (or 2500) barrier", but the effect shall not be significant enough to justify a statement that the rating requirements for GM and IM titles will become irrelevant. Much more important, and I believe a very positive change, is that ratings of young (old) players will become more adequate to the progress (regress) they are making.
Standardisation of time controls
Chess players, arbiters, organisers, journalists find it very difficult to understand and to adapt to different time controls in different tournaments. The situation has become very serious, as it is difficult to find two tournaments in which to play in a row with the same time control. The situation has been finally normalised in official FIDE events, however the standardisation of time controls is also necessary in all other tournaments. The number of possible time controls has been reduced to 6 and I consider it as a huge step forward. Obviously, many people can say that their favourite time controls are missing, but it is unavoidable with such a huge reduction. The chosen time controls are the most widely used. I should add that it was not a random selection, but it was actually a common proposal of Deputy President and the World Championship Committee Chairman Georgios Makropoulos, Technical Commission Chairman Dr Andrzej Filipowicz, Qualification Commission Chairman Mikko Markkula, Titles and Rating Committee Chairman Dr Dirk De Ridder, Rules and Tournament Regulations Committee Chairman Geurt Gijssen, Arbiters' Council Chairman Panagiotis Nikolopoulos, Organiser's Committee Chairman Stewart Reuben, Rating Administrator Casto Abundo, ACP Representative GM Bartlomiej Macieja, slightly modified during the Executive Board meeting. It shows how many representatives of different groups considered that change important.
Moreover, depending on the results of the change, further reduction is possible in 4 years.
I shall clarify that tournaments, in which other time controls are used, shall not be taken into consideration for title purposes (GM, IM, WGM, WIM norms) starting from the 1st of July 2009. However, for tournaments like Bermuda Open or any other unrated or rated tournament without GM, IM, WGM, WIM norms, the change has no effect.
A draw offer
I understood you were quite surprised while stating that "it was noted in two committees that the Dresden Olympiad was in clear breach of the FIDE Laws of Chess as they then stood, but nobody seemed to think this was very important.". Well, you know not worse than me that FIDE rules are often being changed during events (cycles). Probably you know that the rules are being changed also after events have been finished. Even the number of qualification spots are being changed (or announced) after the qualification events have been finished. So what kind of problem can it be to change the FIDE Laws of Chess and announce on the 1st of July 2009 that the Olympiad in Dresden was played according to the rules?
Best regards
Bartlomiej Macieja
Publicar un comentario