Grading Cheat or Patzer?

[Brian Towers]

Come to that, the grand prix very strongly encourages it.

In this modern age this is the market driven approach which is adopted as standard business strategy by most if not all successful companies.

If you are selling sugar or alcohol, say, what matters is that more and more people buy more of your stuff. Whether or not they use your products responsibly is none of your concern as long as they continue buying.

[Roger de Coverly]

Has anyone suggested modifying the Grand Prix rules to take some form of weighted average of all results, rather than just the best ones?

The original format in the Grand Prix, back in the 1970s was that it was a simple race as to who could score the most points.

You could perhaps go back to that, keeping a leader board of those scoring the most points. For the actual winners and prizes, normalise the results, so if you play 14 events and score 800 points (using the existing definitions), this normalises to 400 points.

[NickFaulks]

A statistician looking at these results would form the hypothesis that they are statistically dependent. That is, that the 4.5/5 and 5/5 results were obtained by the same person that obtained the other results. If the (calculated) odds of this being true were less than 1 in 20 then this would be flagged as significant at the 95% level and call for some explanation.

No, that's not the point being made. The suggestion is that results of a game may be to some extent dependent upon earlier results in the tournament. If so, then the standard statistical tests to check whether the set of overall tournament results could reasonably have been achieved by the same player would at least need to be adjusted.

[John Moore]

Nigel, in your blog piece, you say it "might be better to keep taking the tablets" and then link to a blog post where one of the main points was not being medicated. Both that, and your use of the word 'wacky' suggest to me that you shouldn't be opining on mental health issues, certainly not on a forum or blog.

OK, everyone here is completely normal and not in the least bit in denial.

I have been catching up with this thread. Can I say that I agree about 101% with Chris Kreuzer and the remaining -1% goes in favour of Mr Davies - who I don't know and from his occasional interventions on the Forum, I am rather glad I don't.

I should say that I am by no means completely normal and I am rather proud of the fact.

[Nick Grey]

On the new prizes quite clear. On others Tournaments clearly states not average performances.

We are all in denial if we think other factors do not affect performances but then again I'm quite glad we are not a sport with the full disclosures required.

Anyway - this one is really clear until the next witch hunt. It could be you.

Tradewise Most Improved Player Prizes Regulations

New prizes have been introduced for the most improved adults and juniors each season. The prizes are within reach of active players who have a very good season. The competition is open to all members, not just those who play congress chess. The prizes are as follows:

Most improved adults

Prize category Condition Prize amount
Sub 180 Category: Grading was under 180 in the base list. £350
Sub 140 Category: Grading was under 140 in the base list. £350

Most improved juniors

Prize category Condition Prize amount
Over 140 Category: Grading was 140 or above in the base list. £150
Over 100 Category: Grading was 100 or above in the base list. £150

Note – where the base list refers to that published for August 2015.

To qualify for a Most Improved Player Prize, a player must:
•Be a paid up member of the ECF for the subscription year 2015-6
•Have a standard play grade category A-E in the base list
•Have a standard play grade category A-E in the August 2016 list
•An adult is a player born before 1st September 1997; otherwise the player is a junior.

No person can win more than one prize. The source data will be from downloads available from the ECF Grading website. The August 2016 download is a copy of the first monthly update of the initial list for grades based on season 2015-6 games.

The winners will the players obtaining the highest increase in grading in standard play, weighted by a multiplier M which takes into account the number of games played as follows:

formula Where: N0 is the number of games listed in the base year and N1 is the number of games listed in the following year rounded to two decimal places.

The calculations will be performed automatically by ECF. There is no need to apply for a prize. The winners will be notified directly by email and the results published on the ECF website.

The multiplier is used to give broadly equal chances to all players irrespective of the number of games played. For any queries please contact [email protected]

[Brian Towers]

Note – where the base list refers to that published for August 2015.

To qualify for a Most Improved Player Prize, a player must:
•Be a paid up member of the ECF for the subscription year 2015-6
•Have a standard play grade category A-E in the base list
•Have a standard play grade category A-E in the August 2016 list
•An adult is a player born before 1st September 1997; otherwise the player is a junior.

A bit harsh on Joe Watson (South Shields) whose last grade was 179C in July 2002 and has just got a 215F in the January list. Still, his August 2016 grade is likely to be lower, after all a week ago he let slip a draw against a mere 185. But what if it actually goes up even more?

[Ian Thompson]

Note – where the base list refers to that published for August 2015.

To qualify for a Most Improved Player Prize, a player must:
•Be a paid up member of the ECF for the subscription year 2015-6
•Have a standard play grade category A-E in the base list
•Have a standard play grade category A-E in the August 2016 list
•An adult is a player born before 1st September 1997; otherwise the player is a junior.

A bit harsh on Joe Watson (South Shields) whose last grade was 179C in July 2002 and has just got a 215F in the January list. Still, his August 2016 grade is likely to be lower, after all a week ago he let slip a draw against a mere 185. But what if it actually goes up even more?

He'll remain ineligible to win anything because he doesn't have an A-E grade in the base list.

[Brian Towers]

He'll remain ineligible to win anything because he doesn't have an A-E grade in the base list.

Exactly. That's why it's a bit harsh on him. He does have a legitimate sub 180 history going back several years, just not from last year. Or perhaps this is just grade inflation?

[MartinCarpenter]

Minimally sub 180 has gone to ~190 not 215!

[Nick Grey]

Not sure why you think harsh. One year is fine for annual awards. And this one is new. The other rules are not new.

Going back to the original post 14 years of inactivity does not imply Joe is a patzer or a grading cheat.

[Roger de Coverly]

Going back to the original post 14 years of inactivity does not imply Joe is a patzer or a grading cheat.

Returning with an F grade (5 games) just implies a short run of decent results.

[David Blower]

I really don't know enough about the situation, to know if someone is losing games on purpose or not.

However, in general terms, if there are complaints made about anyone to the ECF, you would assume that the ECF have a proper procedure in place, to investigate such claims, and to take appropriate action, if someone was found guilty. Such a procedure would hopefully include that you don't put someone in a position which could be compromised, whilst an investigation is taking place. This does seem to be a bit basic for me to be saying this, does anyone think I am wrong?

[Roger de Coverly]

However, in general terms, if there are complaints made about anyone to the ECF, you would assume that the ECF have a proper procedure in place, to investigate such claims, and to take appropriate action, if someone was found guilty.

I wouldn't assume that at all. Given the propensity for it to be used for score settling, not having a complaints procedure can be an advantage. There's a scheme for directors, but that gets misused as shown last year.


What happens in practice is that the complaint is raised unofficially on social media. In a recent case, observations about the performance and demeanour of a player were being made on Facebook long before similar comments were made on this forum which was itself before a sometimes obsessive blog author went to town on it.

[Jonathan Bryant]

However, in general terms, if there are complaints made about anyone to the ECF, you would assume that the ECF have a proper procedure in place, to investigate such claims, and to take appropriate action, if someone was found guilty.

I'm not sure why anybody would assume that. Several years ago - 2011 if memory serves but you can find relevant threads on these boards if you look - somebody was caught cheating via mobile phone use at a tournament. It emerged that there was no mechanism by which the ECF could ban that person (again iirc there was a voluntary agreement that the player wouldn't enter tournaments for a while.

I've seen nothing since then to suggest the situation is in any way different now.


If we substitute 'hope' for 'assume' then I'd be in full agreement with you. Of course you'd want very robust and transparent procedures to avoid the sort of thing that Roger describes above. I'm sure this is a very difficult thing to achieve - and equally sure that this is why it hasn't happened yet/why there's no apparent enthusiasm to make it happen