Dominic Lawson

[Richard Bates]

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.

I would argue that this is not a particularly useful approach in the context of the debate of what it means to be at a certain level in different games/sports. There are some games/sports where there is great potential for players of very limited strength to potentially compete with players of a far greater relative strength. Others where the same gap in relative strength will make it impossible for one to compete with the other.

What is the equivalent in chess of "i had trials at XYZ as a youngster"?

Surely the equivalent of these were the England trials, or at least they were when I was younger.

Mind you, after talking to some of the youngsters in the Sunday League I play football in, any cash strapped football club will offer trials to youngsters whose pushy parents pay for them, as they get the money and will occasionally find a star player or two without having to go scout for them. This means that the term "having trials at XYZ as a youngster" isn't as meaningful as it was several years ago.

Dan

Fortunately Austin got the joke on this one...

[Stewart Reuben]

It was years before the English Grading System caught on. I think they would have done better in the EBU in going for numbers. Originally grades were categories, spanning 8 grading points. The system really caught on only after the change to numbers.
Pairs could also be rated.
Poker tournaments ranking is by the amount of money won or a Grand Prix system.
I was commissioned by the Sunday Express to prepared a snooker rating system. It worked perfectly well according to the Elo System, one farme being like one game with a k factor of 1. It didn't catch on.

[Simon Brown]

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.

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'.....

Agreed completely that the claim made in the movie is inaccurate as most people would read/interpret the words, but I guess there is a way, see above, that someone could attempt to claim it was factual. So it feels like the same kind of 'obfuscating with words' that advertisers, PR folk, lawyers and politicians go in for.

John was a 130 player, maximum, from what I recall from CentYMCA in the 70s and 80s. I would be surprised if he won any Majors.

I've bought the book now and will read it over the coming weeks.

[MartinCarpenter]

The EBU system does actually calculate a number - in fact in theory a percentage expressing your expected pairs score vs a hypothetical 'average' field.

The only thing which worries me about NGS is that bridge scores (at pairs in particular) really aren't linear. They probably are when you're averaging 40 to 60 per cent vs the field, but getting notably more or less than that on a consistent basis is very difficult no matter how bad/good you are.

[JustinHorton]

John was a 130 player, maximum, from what I recall from CentYMCA in the 70s and 80s. I would be surprised if he won any Majors.

The list in full:

Shipton Chess Club Championship
Atheneaum Chess Club Tournament
Camden Chess Club Tournament- won twice
Islington Chess Club Tournament
Hampstead Hardiman Tournament
Maurice Chess Club Championships -won twice
International Students House Chess Club Tournament
Telscombe Chess Club Tournament

[Stewart Reuben]

Martin >They probably are when you're averaging 40 to 60 per cent vs the field, but getting notably more or less than that on a consistent basis is very difficult no matter how bad/good you are.<

That is also true of chess rating/grading systems. Elo systems do not rely on a linear relationship, although in the 40-60% range it is linear. The ECF system assumes linearity. Whether that means it is fatally flawed is quite another matter. ECF does have the 40 point rule. The FIDE 400 point rule isn't needed for statistical reasons. It is there to encourage high rated players to play against much lower rated opponents in open Swisses. John Nunn told me yesterday that some players were deliberately playing against very low rated fields in order to improve their rating. Nobody told me that when I was Secretary of the Qualification Commission. Each such win nets 0.7xk.

We seem to have got a long way from Dominic Lawson!