I'm sure that most people are enthralled by the GoR categories. A long time ago, a change was made to these, which went without any comment. I have always believed the change to be bizarre, and I would like to explain why.

Firstly, it used to be the case that games, in order to be Class A, had to be played within a tournament of at least 2 days duration. This was struck down at an AGM, and rightly so. Why would it matter if you have a mini 1 day event? If the thinking times are broadly the same, the quality of the games should be the same, and thus they should be weighted the same. It seems obvious logic.

class A:
well organized tournament, no handicaps in the top group, recognized by EGF member
time limit requirements: adjusted time minimum 75 minutes, basic time minimum 60 minutes; (Fischer time: basic time 45 mins, adj. time for 120 moves: 75 mins - see remarks)
weight for inclusion to EGF ratings: 1.00

Now, the part in red was added in over a year ago at least. Is it a logical modification? I struggle to see why, and I am not even sure what the point of it is. If handicaps are allowed in the system, then they should be treated equally across all thinking times, and across all ranks. If the rule is trying to say, dan players don't want handicap games, well, why should they be treated specially? Besides which, the set up is illogical.

Consider a 3 round event, with 1hr main time, and two periods of purchased (Ing) 20 minute overtime..... Players A to H are either 2d or 1d, the rest of the players, I to Z are much further down the table, being weak kyu players. The event is a McMahon, but with handicaps, set at Rank difference - 2. Everyone's games are class A. Now, run the same event, but kick out the dan players... oops, we arrive at a class B now. To me, that just doesn't make sense.

If somebody introduced the modifier weight = 1 - (H*0.05) [max H = 9], I would understand. This rule change, I have never understood.

Fede, I checked, it may have been there in secret, but officially...
http://web.archive.org/web/200601120938 ... O/gor.html

class A - well organized tournament, recognized by EGF member
time limit requirements: adjusted time minimum 75 minutes, basic time minimum 60 minutes
weight for inclusion to EGF ratings: 1.00

Ideally, tournaments would have enough participants at all levels so handicaps are not needed.

Best: no handicaps. Second best: compromise of no handicaps above some level. Worst: Handicaps allowed for all.

I have discussed many times elsewhere why rating handicap games is bad. No time to repeat that now.

Since the best option is not wanted yet, choosing the second best option is better than nothing.

Sure. Besides I see no good relation between ranks and ratings at all, at least not for each individual player.

It completely eludes me how a correlation of ranks and rating (about 100 rating points are supposed to represent 1 handicap stone) can be maintained if handicap games are edited out of the system.

Thin tournament fields do not imply a requirement for handicaps: it is possible (IMO, desirable) to play even games.

I'm not sure whether you disagree with the statement or are just making a different point.

Concerning "Ideally, tournaments would have enough participants at all levels so handicaps are not needed.", I agree that having enough participants is good if the tournament system is suitable, e.g., if it is McMahon. I disagree with the, IIUYC, implication that handicap games in (ordinary) tournaments would be good (or good for a case of a too thin field).

...no handicaps in the top group...


Is it a logical modification? I struggle to see why, and I am not even sure what the point of it is.

Not that I agree with all the implications, but I can understand why such a modification would be implemented - if the ultimate goal of a class A tournament is to see who is the strongest player on the day of the event, it would seem that playing the top group's games as even is a necessity. If you have these games handicapped it means it's a forgone conclusion who is the strongest and you might as well have declared him or her the winner beforehand.

Now, I don't understand all the nuances of how a class B tournament is different than class A, but what I gather from reading this thread, a class B is not weighted as heavily in rating calculations? I'll admit that seems a bit odd to me, and I agree that it's odd that the lack of sufficient top level players affects how rated games of players not in that top group are weighted...