Standardizing ACF Tournament Rules

[Chexhero]

John, I am with you on using the ratings to separate players into divisions for tournament play, provided there are enough players to have multiple divisions. Many have talked about how much the ratings have changed in the new system and they indeed have. Compared to the Butler system, players ratings are closer together, the ratings range has decreased. Because of this, ACF will need to change their previous and I believe current division placement based on ratings, which I don't think has been used for awhile. I spoke to Rich Beckwith about this in an email and this is what I proposed:

2000 and above-Master
1950-1999- Gray area (player can choose master or major)
1650-1949- Major
1600-1649- Gray area (player can choose major or minor)
1599 and below- Minor

If you look at the ratings on the ACF site you will see that there is an extremely low number of players below 1600. I have also noticed that the number of players playing in minor divisions has been low for about the last year or so. (only 4 minors in last years Nationals!) That is a bit of a problem, but otherwise we should put the ratings to use as this will ensure fair division placement in tournaments.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

John, State level events are not governing by ACF. Your standartization fails at this point.

Joe, best and right placement in Divisions shall base on performance, not rating. All these main-gray areas must be well forgotten.

Master Dvision should have only 12-16 players. I am not aware if we have more than 16 Masters + GrandMasters across the globe

[Chexhero]

Joe, best and right placement in Divisions shall base on performance, not rating.

I agree, it should be based on performance and in my opinion, the ratings do correspond to performance. How else are you going to accurately measure player performance? Using ratings to determine where players should play provide a scientific way of determining division placement. I think there could be exceptions made. For example, if a new player joins a tournament in majors and dominates it, even if his rating doesn't reach master yet, he could be boosted up to the masters in his next tournament. As far as limiting the number of masters, idk. If you look at the players above the 2000 mark I don't think there is anyone in there that should not qualify for masters.

[Chexhero]

I should also emphasize Alex, there is a difference between qualifying to play in masters and being labeled a true master. In no way am I saying if you qualify for masters you are a master. In my case, I would not say I am a true master, but I think most would agree I should be playing up with the masters and not down in the majors.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

but I think most would agree I should be playing up with the masters and not down in the majors.

Of course you are eligible if you are among top 12-16 best players in country, no doubts.

Every year it could vary. Probably top 6-10 players in Masters this year shall play next year in Masters too, others should go back and be selected from Majors. Things change dramatically.

I am in favor of small Master Division where only strong outstanding players should play ... thats what Master Division is about.

Noone should have a patent to stay in Master Division to the rest of life and if player level dropped, than player also should be dropped to lower Division and open gates for new good players.

Playing in Masters - high privelege.

Also, rating is a far more reliable measure than tournament performance.

You make me a day !

Alex

[Chexhero]

I am in favor of small Master Division where only strong outstanding players should play ... thats what Master Division is about.

Fair enough

[Irma Sierra]

I wonder why only 16 players can be MASTER??....why if one master gets the lower position has to go to majors?...always has to be one the last one, no? what if one with 2150 rating gets the lower position? then he would be sent to majors? and the major with 1900 who wins the category go to masters division instead of the other??? hmmmm

[George Hay]

I don't understand getting "kicked up stairs" for winning a division!
Shouldn't ratings, more or less, determine what division someone plays in?
--George Hay

[Alex_Moiseyev]

I wonder why only 16 players can be MASTER?

I didn't say 16, I said 12-16. Maybe 8-10 ... Whatever works better and whatever players like more. We are living in democratic society.

It's not really MASTERS Division, just main annual tournament.

if you finished in top 6-10 players in your Division this year, you are eligible to play in the same Division next year. Other players go down.

And Youth Champion and 3 winners of Major + 2-4 players with high rating should go up.

So ... it's up-down process with good frequency and rotation every year. People are coming in and get out.

Shouldn't ratings, more or less, determine what division someone plays in?y

In my eyes - not. What is your opinion ?

Joe, the way you propose is the same old way and method which we are using for decades, only numbers for rating zones adjusted. But in the 21st century we have to move forward and make the whole process more competitive.

[George Hay]

Getting bumped up to the next higher division for winning does seem too arbitrary to me!
Someone could win a division by one point or by winning every game, in any event that would
be reflected in the ratings. I agree with Chexhero on using the ratings. I am thinking ahead to
when we will have more and more players at tournaments!
--George Hay

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Currently V. Anand and B. Gelfand play Chess World Championship Match in Moscow, Tretyakov Art Gallery. Here is an official match site.

http://moscow2012.fide.com/en/live?g=20120520

I want to quote you here an exact words by Boris Gelfand:

"I believe that, not only in chess, but in life in general, people place too much stock in ratings".

I disagree with you and Joe regarding rating role but we are on the same page with one thing: I also would like to see more and better players at tournaments !

[Chexhero]

Alex, since I have been an ACF member for the last year and a half, I have never recalled a time that ratings have been used to group players. We never even had ratings for several years. Rather your method of good tournament performance is what has been used and the truth is, we obviously have people who don't like that method, people have complained and it has even been evident in this forum. The ratings work the same way for everyone. A consistent formula is used to calculate players ratings and depending upon who you play and how well you do determines what rating you will get. It is scientific, it is fair, and that is why I like it, but like I said there could be exceptions made. There are quite a few players out there, so what is a way we can better measure player performance than using the rating data that we have? How can it better measure player performance and help us group divisions better?

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Joe, there is only one way to prove pudding - eat it !

You can move ahead and send your proposals to ACF Exec and I will support you. The only important thing is - we have to follow exactly these restrictions and only rating can be used without any exceptions. After 5-6 years we'll see - if it works.

Unfortunately last several years the only system was in place - "self selection" where everyone played in Division he/she wanted.

The system and method I proposed is used in many other sports: finals/semifinals/quater finals etc. It's never been in place in ACF.

Anyway - lets use rating but ... use it with full strength and no exceptions. if your rating is 1960, you played in IL State event, didn't do well and your rating dropped to 1945 - wait for another year.

[George Hay]

Mr. Alex, thank you for the link to the Chess WCM. As for ACF Tournament (and Match) Rules, I hope the ACF never adopts or agrees to the "Armageddon game" that could be used in the Chess WCM as a last tie-break game. That is where White (moving first in chess) would get more time on the clock than Black (moving second), but if the game is a draw Black is declared the winner. That changes the very nature of the game! Such a rule has no place in checkers!
--George Hay

[Alex_Moiseyev]

George, you are switching to another subject now.

This Armagedon method not for us indeed and checkers don't have any indications of "draw death".

I support Joe idea to re-animate old system with adjusted rating zones and don't try anything new.