|
|
| (1) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Sunday, Apr 4, 2010 12:40] |
New Rating List
There is a new rating list published at PCCC site. However it does not include 6th ISC and in my opinion it's not correct list. This is an invalid list and it does not make any sense to use it for obtaining of titles. This is a big scandal. How can 6th ISC be ignored? There should be some strong explanation for this. I am wondering why everyone is pretending like there was no 6th ISC competition at all. Does this means that competitions are included in a rating list optionally, depending how problemists performed.
All the ratings calculated going forward will be invalid because the starting rating will be invalid. If this ISC is removed from the rating calculation than all others should be removed too. There should be some responsibility in maintaining of rating list. I think that this is very big mistake to publish rating list without 6th ISC results included.
|
|
| (2) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Sunday, Apr 4, 2010 12:54] |
I think the opposite - it was wrong to include previous ISC in the rating lists. As I have explained in the "missing ISC results" topic.
But regardless of whether Misha's or my opinion prevails, the consistency is lacking in any case, especially with no explanation provided.
|
|
| (3) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Sunday, Apr 4, 2010 13:05] |
Juraj, I agree with your opinion that ISC should not be rated event. However that has to be announced in advance. Last year I lost some points, this year when I think I should gain some points it's not counted. It's almost that somebody decided not to publish results of this competition this year because some problemists will lose a lot of rating points. The worst thing is that there is no any explanation why the results of 6th ISC are not published. The whole rating list does not make any sense if somebody optionally decides if some competition will be counted or not. There should be some consistency in calculating rating.
Personally I decided that I will not participate in any PCCC event going forward. I am very disappointed with our organization. I think that $7000 that FIDE gave to our organization should be used to pay somebody to drive our competitions in a timely manner. I do not know where that money has been spent since I did not see any financial report. However I know that it’s possible to find somebody that will be willing to organize our competitions and FIDE albums in such way that results/publications are never late.
|
|
| (4) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Sunday, Apr 4, 2010 13:51] |
Of course, I definitely agree with your statement about advance announcement of rated / unrated status of ISC. Once announced as rated, it should be rated. Well, with one caveat - that some serious irregularities might have been uncovered preventing rating of ISC. But then again, timely and convincing explanation is necessary.
Regarding money and PCCC: Hasn't PCCC always worked with (nearly) no money, i.e. based on the private money of members and active people, or with help of local WCCC sponsors as found by organizers? Myself, I have participated at three congresses (paid by myself, once with support of Slovak organization thanks to my successes) and regarding official competitions, I have judged one Album (all costs paid by myself, they were small anyway, except my time) and directed one Album (financial costs largely refunded by Slovak organization). I have not seen a penny from PCCC and I do not demand it by any means, just like the absolute majority of other active people. I even did not think PCCC might have some money, they rather should not as this provokes ill feelings.
|
|
| (5) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Sunday, Apr 4, 2010 15:01] |
Juraj, I never earned any money from PCCC either. I do not even expect. I am in chess problems because I do enjoy solving/composing problems. However I read somewhere that FIDE allocated $7000 for PCCC last year. If that's the case I would not mind that we have some professional secretary that will take care to drive our events (follow up on all deadlines and make sure they are met). It's obvious that current way of driving our events is not working. There are no penalties at all if some deadlines are missed. FIDE album publishers are not obligated to meet any deadlines. We just get information that FIDE album is late and that's all. Why we cannot make a contract with a publisher and obligate them to meet deadlines. If they are missed there should be some penalty. This way FIDE album is always late and never published on time. To be worst even if FIDE album is late same publisher gets it again for the next cycle. Why we cannot check how other organizations are doing and organize our competitions in some better way? It looks like there is some group of people that have some other interests and they are not interested in changing anything in our organization. I would not mind paying some membership fees yearly (like in some other sports organizations) if it will improve the quality of our competitions and provide publishing of results in a timely manner. Also, I am wondering where did PCCC spent money $7000 last year. It would be nice if that money is invested in financing of some web site where we can get information in a timely manner. Right now official PCCC site is updated once in a couple of months. In other organizations information is updated daily.
|
|
| (6) Posted by Frank Richter [Sunday, Apr 4, 2010 15:08] |
Why the ISC should be included into rating calculation without official results?
|
|
| (7) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Sunday, Apr 4, 2010 15:42]; edited by Miodrag Mladenović [10-04-04] |
Frank wrote:
QUOTE
Why the ISC should be included into rating calculation without official results?
My question is: Why there are no results for competition that was held on January 27th? If you check the announcement of this tournament it's stated there that results will be published by April 1st. I hope that I do not have to prove you that any calculation with rating published today is invalid. Some solvers were supposed to lose more than 20 points. Some were gaining a lot of points. Yes, there are no yet official results but based on the preliminary results it’s obvious that there will be some significant changes. Because the rules for obtaining of titles are created in such a way that it’s important what was the highest rating at some point (depending on the title it’s a different one) it’s obvious that this can cut down someone’s maximum rating if they performed badly in some subsequent tournament. Also, it can go other way around. Somebody who solved badly at this tournament but did well in some of the subsequent one can achieve false rating higher than they are supposed to do. Also any calculation with wrong ratings is producing new wrong ratings. At some point no one will be able to fix this calculation. By the way I already gained the GM title in solving so I am not directly influenced by this. However it’s obvious to me that this is wrong. To publish rating without a calculation of very important tournament with 200+ solvers does not make any sense.
|
|
| (8) Posted by Frank Richter [Monday, Apr 5, 2010 19:56] |
In generally I fully agree with you, Miodrag. I cannot see any reason for the delay, and there should be some explanations on the PCCC website.
But what shall they do - no result, no base for rating calculation ...
|
|
| (9) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Monday, Apr 5, 2010 21:30] |
I think it was better not to publish new rating list until 6th ISC results are calculated. That's the only way to keep rating calculation correct. Any other way is wrong because it leads to irregular rating calculation.
|
|
No more posts |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General New Rating List |
ISC 2024
