Rating pools may be identified with countries. Most players play most of their games within a limited geographical region. Even in Malaysia, we do not often see many Klang Valley players going out of that region to take part in chess events. Only the serious and committed players are willing to bear the costs and time commitment to go out of their way to participate in chess events.
International events see even more serious players travel out of their country to play. The recent Bangkok Open caters for the serious players as well as the adult players who are on part-holiday. Nevertheless, it provides a platform for the comingling of players from different countries. From a ratings perspective, players from different rating pools (countries) come together and the results provide interesting reading.
The table below summarises the rating gains and losses grouped by countries:
[Note: The +s exceeds the -s due to higher K-factors applicable to the Asian players, including several young ones who were still on K=30. The +s and -s should be equal if the same K factor is used for all players.]
Players from China and India clearly made the most gains in total while Singapore and Kazakhstan gained the most per player. It may be argued that the Chinese and Indian players are under-rated which is probably true for the batch that played in Pattaya which comprised many promising and improving young players on a serious mission.
Brunei lost the most rating points due to one player losing a whopping 130 points, while other Asian countries are within what I see as normal ranges of +s and -s.
Europe, represented by adult players combining holiday with chess, collectively lost the most rating points. Nineteen European countries were represented and every country lost rating points except for CZE (Dubina +10), FRA (5 players +24) and SWE (Akesson +5).
My next post shall consider the impact of young improving players in Pattaya on ratings deflation to further understand the above results.