One reason they work so well is that they can have swiss events and give the higher rank of masterpoints away for every match you draw or win. Seems to somehow act as a major incentive for people to enter the weekend congress equivalents. A tiny bit like grading prizes except everyone gets a few and there's no cost involved!If the argument is based on a simple "Xth in the country" then you might as well just say "Xth in the country". I would have thought the purpose of using an analogy is because the simple measure is not really valid because "Xth in the country" at football would imply something different to "Xth in the country" at chess. Not least because of the vastly differing levels of participation. More people also have a vague idea of where they personally would stand in terms of footballing ability (both actual and potential) so can relate better to the various levels. If one looks at the English football pyramid at present (and it would have been different 30 years ago) the top tier, and even to some extent the second tier, really have to be pitched at the global level. In chess terms i wouldn't say more than a handful of English players should be considered "premier league" standard.Nick Burrows wrote:Say about 150 English players in the Premier league + 20 per club in the 2nd & 3rd tiers - 20 X 48 = 960.
150 + 960 = 1110 players at a very rough approximation.
Is Stewart in the top 1110 English chess players?
The database ranks him at 926
Now, I reckon if someone had said something like that about the standard of play of (e.g.) John Healy, readers/listeners would have got a realistic take on it."If everyone who knows the moves of chess is a bit like anyone who's ever kicked a football at school, and anyone who plays regularly is like someone who plays Sunday park football, then passable level club players like me are sort of like the people who play in the Conference sides. Except we don't get paid."
I think I can see where the latter claim came from - I could believe that Healy, if he played regularly in w/end congresses, might have won '10 British Major chess titles in 5 years' - as in 'weekend Majors', so U-155/160/165/170 grading limited events. Just drop the Capitalisation, and you get 'major titles'... And if the tournaments claimed they were 'international'.....JustinHorton wrote:The film Barbaric Genius makes the specific claim that "during his chess career John won ten international chess tournaments" and its trailer says he won "10 major British chess titles in 5 years". I don't think these are remotely defensible claims.
Well yes, except (at 165 strength) I reckon you'd be rather lower down the pyramid than Conference standard. There's a big gap between "Sunday park football" and Conference sides, which are at the pinnacle of the amateur/semi-professional game. In fact the pyramid doesn't really start to resemble a "pyramid" until you get below the Conference. In the sense of several leagues feeding a higher level. And of course the number of professional chess players in England is miniscule. In the sense of people who earn a living out of playing, as opposed to associated chess activities.AustinElliott wrote:Interesting Q as to whether a national or global standard is the correct comparator for chess or football for this particular argument.
Re. football, even the people in the upper-echelon Conference sides represent a level where they are paid, sometimes fairly decently, for playing. Hard to find figures, but £ 250-750/week appears on various websites as an estimate for the Conference contenders. So you could probably add several hundred more players to the 1000 estimated to impact on the national consciousness as 'elite footballers'. 'Paid to play' in sport is a decent index of standard that many people would recognise, I think, even if the player is semi-pro as I presume many of the Conference footballers are.
Thinking about it, I might use that analogy next time someone asks me about what sort of standard of chess I play. Something like:
"If everyone who knows the moves of chess is a bit like anyone who's ever kicked a football at school, and anyone who plays regularly is like someone who plays Sunday park football, then passable level club players like me are sort of like the people who play in the Conference sides. Except we don't get paid."
I used to be graded higher than that in my teens in the 70s, Richard...! *Sigh*Richard Bates wrote:Well yes, except (at 165 strength) I reckon you'd be rather lower down the pyramid than Conference standard...
What is the equivalent in chess of "i had trials at XYZ as a youngster"?AustinElliott wrote:I used to be graded higher than that in my teens in the 70s, Richard...! *Sigh*Richard Bates wrote:Well yes, except (at 165 strength) I reckon you'd be rather lower down the pyramid than Conference standard...
I'd agree with you in terms of 'serious player-ness', though apparently 165 already means one makes the top 1500 (roughly) on the current ECF grading list... ...which slightly surprises me.
Ouch - good one. Best laugh I've had all weekend.Richard Bates wrote:What is the equivalent in chess of "i had trials at XYZ as a youngster"?AustinElliott wrote:I used to be graded higher than that in my teens in the 70s, Richard...! *Sigh*Richard Bates wrote:Well yes, except (at 165 strength) I reckon you'd be rather lower down the pyramid than Conference standard...
If you consider that a conference side can beat a premiership side, admittedly rarely, and that a good club player 180+ can beat a GM, also rarely, I would put 180+ at Conference level, so would only have 165 one level down.Richard Bates wrote:Well yes, except (at 165 strength) I reckon you'd be rather lower down the pyramid than Conference standard.
Surely the equivalent of these were the England trials, or at least they were when I was younger.Richard Bates wrote:What is the equivalent in chess of "i had trials at XYZ as a youngster"?