I know a lot of people like CXR, but isn’t it really irrelevant to serious chess?
FIDE doesn’t use CXR in its decision making for invitations to any of it’s events. FIDE uses USCF ratings. So, what’s the point in getting sidetracked by a meaningless statistical measurement tool?
It is very difficult becoming a USCF master or expert because USCF ratings are statically sound; tested over many years. But, CXR? When one meets a CXR master an appropriate response should be “Ho hum. No big deal. Anyone can be one of those.”
I don’t know many people that like CRX. It is only used in a few places and seems to be irrelevant. I wish that our scholastic committee would ignore them as well.
I think you got it wrong. FIDE users FIDE ratings. In my experience playing outside the US, it is beneficial to have a FIDE rating, or at least have a recent FIDE rating performance. International organizers most likely won’t use your USCF rating for pairing and class prize purposes.
FIDE uses FIDE ratings not US Chess ratings. Ours are separate. We will convert other systems ratings to ours when we have a system that can be converted.
Recall that we are now a 501(c)(3). As such, anything that gets people playing chess is good for US Chess. Also, in some circumstances, qualifying invitations are apparently based at least in part on CXR rated events.
I do not find great value in their expanded metrics, but it doesn’t mean that they’re meaningless/useless.
The idea of “…anything that get people playing chess is good for US Chess.” is not true, irrespective of its relationship to 501(c)(3). MANY things that get people playing chess are good for US Chess, and many things that get people playing chess are good for the primary mission of US Chess, but not all things that get people playing chess are necessarily good for US Chess. Whether something is good for US Chess still needs consideration, and whether there is an optimum way to configure the implementation of an idea so that it maximizes both the benefit to the public and to US Chess is also a worthwhile consideration.
It’s easy to disprove the hypothesis by use of an extreme example, which thereby indicates that there is some point at which something that gets people playing chess is not good for US Chess. The question then becomes a matter of degree.
A competing rating system with a minuscule market share, historically used mostly by a very few scholastic organizers who objected to US Chess membership requirements.
CRX is only as important as we permit it to be. Unfortunately, the current policy for scholastic nationals permits it to be, an overreaction to the perception that the wrong people won a few under sections in years past.
CXR is good in its own little way for those who disagree with the way that US Chess is run. Only problem is that they don’t have any money. Maybe its time for someone to invest in it but from a scholastic point of view so tournaments are more affordable for those younger players who maybe can’t afford uscf tournaments in areas that dont really have much of a chess popular. Maybe it’s time for CXR to be a low cost scholastic brand of chess.
Costs for scholastic memberships are very low - especially in comparison to other youth activities - and rating costs are a whole 25 cents per game. IT costs far less to rate the players game in our area than it costs to rent his/her chair.
My point is . . . . and I welcome clarification from anybody . . . . FIDE selects 100 youth players (in different age groups) to play in FIDE Youth World Championships.
I can understand FIDE using FIDE ratings as a criterion. But, besides that isn’t the USCF rating system (or the National rating system for other countries) the default for making their selections?
If so, what’s the point for using other rating systems?
A rating system is only as necessary as it is used by higher numbers of players.
CXR seemed like a good idea and system with its setup and metrics. The problem is there are not enough players using it to make it significant to tournament players. And there have not been enough people using it for at least nine years that I am aware.
So to answer your question, it does appear to be a waste of time.
For anyone with a FIDE or USCF rating…yes…CXR is a waste of time. The “Top 50” on the CXR site could care less about the CXR rating (which is pegged to a FIDE or USCF rating anyway), if they’ve even heard of it.
Some states have decided that CXR is a way to introduce OTB ratings to pre-USCF youngsters without the cost or structure of USCF tournament play. To those groups, they think (or thought) that CXR is worth it.
FIDE is not involved in the selection. Federations choose their “qualified players” and other delegates as they see fit. US Chess appears to use US Chess ratings.