
Back to forum Garvin Gray (20180222) Norm qualification criteria, incorrect? In looking at the current group/event that I am playing in, which is Rapid SM 15, according to the current way FICGS sets the scores for norms, to get a FIM norm for that event, FEM is at 4 and FIM as at 4.5 for all players. It has occurred to me that this is different to how fide works out norm opportunities in round robin and swiss events. In those events, each players average rating of their opponents is worked out and then that is plugged into the system and then that expected score is used to work out what score they need to get a FEM or FIM norm or higher. To explain further as that might be unclear. In the group I am talking about, PoulErik Jorgensen has an equal chance of getting an FEM or FIM norm than someone who is rated lower than him, even though that other player is playing a field who is stronger. So using the FIDE way and the percentages for FEM and FIM norm, I play and average rating field of 2337.8, round up to 2338. This means that in a category 4 event, I need to score 56 percent, or 3.5 for an FEM and 67 percent or 4 points, not 4.5 for a FIM norm. Now also doing some further calculating, Alex Wosch is able to score a FSM norm as his average rating of opponents is 2,329 and would then need to score 4.5. Under the current arrangement, he is deprived of this opportunity. Therefore, I could give a rundown of all players, but I am of the conclusion that the current method of calculating Norm qualifications is inadequate and needs to be refined. My thoughts were triggered to this from the FICGS world cup when any player to reach a FEM norm needed to score 12/16, which was clearly an outlandish score given the field. Thibault de Vassal (20180225 22:44:25) Norm qualification criteria, incorrect? Hi Garvin! FIDE ? I'm not really surprised... As for ICCF, I don't know much the way it calculates norms but FICGS algorithm looks like the way IECG did it. Anyway I understand your point and that makes sense, of course. I guess that this rule was designed to be not too complex to display and understandable as well. I'm not sure yet about what to conclude on this, but anyway that's true, there is something to dig. Garvin Gray (20180226 02:50:10) Norm qualification criteria, incorrect? ICCF is the FIDE way. As all events are round robin, each player is told the score they need to achieve to get a Norm before the event begins. Almost any item can be easily understandable if kept simple, but does this mean it is the best system if it does not produce the most accurate results for player performances? For Comparison with ICCF: Here you have the point total for all players to get a norm in norm tournaments. At ICCF: In the Points table, they have columns which show what score each player needs to reach to get that particular norm. So that information is included in the cross table. Thibault de Vassal (20180227 20:01:33) Norm qualification criteria, incorrect? Thank you very much for information! (I must have forgotten... It's about 20 years I didn't play in a FIDE tournament ^^) I'll have to think about this but I'm not sure it would be easy to keep coherence here. In all cases, you're right, that's the best theorical way.
[Chess forum]
[Rating lists]
[Countries]
[Chess openings]
[Legal informations]
[Contact]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory] 