London Chess Classic - Weekday U2050 & U1750

[Nick Grey]

There are a few forumites in these tournaments too. So a chance for you to post...

U2050
I thought RdC was sandbagging this one but taking a half point bye may not have been the best way to go about it.
Anyway two blacks on the trot for me and narrowly missing a game v Joe Skielnik.
Congratulations for Ollie Howell getting the plum board 10 seat close to the top players in the Open.
It is nice to see Paul Dupre back playing again.

U1750
Lets see if John R McKenna can get off the 'NUL' points.
Best wishes to all those travelling from south where trains are up the creek from strike action (though apparently that may just mean normal abysmal service).

[John McKenna]

I second what you wrote above about travel, Nick.

Got off the 'nul point'. I felt very sorry that my young opponent had to play me - more sorry than I felt for myself after my heedlessly needless loss in R1, on Mon.

I entered the Weekday new U-1750 section because I am under the ceiling. In previous years I was not low enough to enter the U-135 section and had to suffer being near the ground floor (pity those in the rating basement) of the U-1950 (now U-2050).

I believe it is good that the Weekday U-1750 FIDE-rated section has replaced the U-135 ECF-graded section. Now the games can be both graded and rated.

However, there are still quite a lot of players whose FIDE rating and ECF grade are mismatched, and I don't mean only juniors.

Will the day ever come when all regular tournament players have a FIDE rating that corresponds to their ECF grade? I somehow doubt it, and think FIDE need to be able to rate all games no matter what the time controls.

That would spell the end of the good old grading system, of course.

Hey, time to check the pairings!

[NickFaulks]

Will the day ever come when all regular tournament players have a FIDE rating that corresponds to their ECF grade? I somehow doubt it, and think FIDE need to be able to rate all games no matter what the time controls.

That was put forward as a formal proposal from the ECF in Baku. It gained the support of majority of the QC Council but was successfully blocked by a coalition led by senior English arbiters.

[John McKenna]

Our own governing body blocked by our own coalition of the unwilling!? Shades of Brexit, Nick, shades of Brexit.

[Roger de Coverly]

That was put forward as a formal proposal from the ECF in Baku. It gained the support of majority of the QC Council but was successfully blocked by a coalition led by senior English arbiters.

The minutes are here
http://www.fide.com/images/stories/NEWS ... nex_78.pdf

Do we assume that the rule change to rate ""club" and "weekend" games when both players are below 2200 will go ahead? I would expect organisers and players to say "thanks but no thanks" to that.

The proposal is to define rated games individually rather than by tournament, so that any games between two players below the appropriate level for the time control will be rated. Games involving a player whose rating is above that level will not be rated for either player. This proposal has the full support of the Council.

[LawrenceCooper]

That was put forward as a formal proposal from the ECF in Baku. It gained the support of majority of the QC Council but was successfully blocked by a coalition led by senior English arbiters.

The minutes are here
http://www.fide.com/images/stories/NEWS ... nex_78.pdf

Do we assume that the rule change to rate ""club" and "weekend" games when both players are below 2200 will go ahead? I would expect organisers and players to say "thanks but no thanks" to that.

The proposal is to define rated games individually rather than by tournament, so that any games between two players below the appropriate level for the time control will be rated. Games involving a player whose rating is above that level will not be rated for either player. This proposal has the full support of the Council.

"There were two proposals from ENG. The first, also proposed by BRA,
requested that all games played to a time control of at least one hour ( or 90
minutes ) per player should be acceptable for rating, without any rating limit
on the players. The Secretary said that the effect of this proposal on the rating
system was highly uncertain, and that the change in 1.1 should provide
valuable data in this area. After discussion, the proposal was rejected.

The second proposal was to remove the requirement that the first time
control, if any, should be at move 40. After further discussion, this was also
rejected."

[Roger de Coverly]

The Secretary said that the effect of this proposal on the rating
system was highly uncertain, and that the change in 1.1 should provide
valuable data in this area.

I would have thought the effect of partly rating a tournament by excluding games involving players over 2200 was uncertain. Rating faster games by higher rated players just includes more games. There are considerable differences for some players between their FIDE rating and ECF grade. I wouldn't attribute that difference solely to the effect of the ECF including games at faster limits. But is it titles that is FIDE's worry? Allowing weekend tournaments with short sessions to be rated could lead to qualification for titles being based on play in such events.

[NickFaulks]

"There were two proposals from ENG. The first, also proposed by BRA,
requested that all games played to a time control of at least one hour ( or 90
minutes ) per player should be acceptable for rating, without any rating limit
on the players. The Secretary said that the effect of this proposal on the rating
system was highly uncertain, and that the change in 1.1 should provide
valuable data in this area. After discussion, the proposal was rejected.

The second proposal was to remove the requirement that the first time
control, if any, should be at move 40. After further discussion, this was also
rejected."

The first proposal was always known to be DOA. It was the second that was in the balance.

[NickFaulks]

There are considerable differences for some players between their FIDE rating and ECF grade. I wouldn't attribute that difference solely to the effect of the ECF including games at faster limits.

Perhaps not solely, but certainly in part and it would be interesting to have some real data.

But is it titles that is FIDE's worry? Allowing weekend tournaments with short sessions to be rated could lead to qualification for titles being based on play in such events.

Absolutely not. Shortening the time controls required for norm events has not been contemplated.

[Roger de Coverly]

Absolutely not. Shortening the time controls required for norm events has not been contemplated.

FIDE's vanity titles, namely FM and CM, are ratings based, when they aren't given out as prizes.

The ECF grading data will have games involving players rated over 2200 which are not included in the FIDE rating calculations. So data is out there as to whether the rate of play makes any difference to the expected outcomes.

[Alex Holowczak]

Will the day ever come when all regular tournament players have a FIDE rating that corresponds to their ECF grade? I somehow doubt it, and think FIDE need to be able to rate all games no matter what the time controls.

That was put forward as a formal proposal from the ECF in Baku. It gained the support of majority of the QC Council but was successfully blocked by a coalition led by senior English arbiters.

Indeed, I proposed it, wrote a paper, and spoke (not very eloquently ) in favour of it, only for two other English arbiters of advanced years in the room to speak against it. I knew in advance that they would. One - who often complains about the FIDE-rating system by saying that English FIDE-ratings are poor compared with ECF grades due to what FIDE have done with the rating system - therefore spoke against a proposal that if passed, would have enabled many more English events to get into the FIDE-rating system, and thus help to solve many of the problems he has historically complained about.

The Secretary said that the effect of this proposal on the rating system was highly uncertain, and that the change in 1.1 should provide valuable data in this area.

I would have thought the effect of partly rating a tournament by excluding games involving players over 2200 was uncertain. Rating faster games by higher rated players just includes more games. There are considerable differences for some players between their FIDE rating and ECF grade. I wouldn't attribute that difference solely to the effect of the ECF including games at faster limits. But is it titles that is FIDE's worry? Allowing weekend tournaments with short sessions to be rated could lead to qualification for titles being based on play in such events.

My proposal ended up being a de facto amendment of Nick's, albeit tabled in advance of seeing Nick's proposal. The Chairman insisted that it wasn't and should be considered separately. I didn't agree with this at the time and said so, but that's what happened. I think the impact of Nick's proposal muddied the waters of mine, although I'm sure that wasn't the intention.

Nick's proposal won't make any difference in England though, because I suspect Roger's right that no English organiser would want to operate on the basis of some games being rated and some not. I realise that a game between a rated player and an unrated player isn't rated at the moment and so this is already true at the bottom end of the scale, but that's necessary for algorithmic reasons fundamental to the method of calculation; whereas the reason for not doing it at the top end of the scale is due to an arbitrary restriction on the necessary length of the game. Psychologically, I think that doesn't sit well with English organisers; I certainly wouldn't have an open FIDE-rated event where just the games played by U2200 players could be FIDE-rated, but not for the stronger players.

For confirmation, changing the title regulations was never part of the ECF's proposal.

[Roger de Coverly]

For confirmation, changing the title regulations was never part of the ECF's proposal.

If games of less than four hours can be rated for all players, a player could become a CM or FM without ever playing a four hour or longer session. Is that a problem?

[Alex Holowczak]

For confirmation, changing the title regulations was never part of the ECF's proposal.

If games of less than four hours can be rated for all players, a player could become a CM or FM without ever playing a four hour or longer session. Is that a problem?

In my opinion, no.

They could do that now, of course. A player rated 2199 who only ever plays in Hampstead, wins in Round 1 one of the events, and voila.

[John McKenna]

FIDE could extend their rapidplay ratings to cover the kind of time controls used to grade "slow-play" games in England, or create an additional "semi-rapid" rating for such games. Then many English players would acquire a FIDE rapid, or "semi-rapid" rating, but never get a FIDE standard rating. If players want titles they would have to get a standard one by entering the appropriate events.

I do not believe that ECF slowplay grades should be allowed to adulterate FIDE standard ratings.

The ECF used to derive revenue from the sale of paper grading books. Those days are gone, and now the online grading system is a loss leader. The ECF could cut those losses by agreeing, with FIDE, a way to change English grades into International ratings.

Then the ECF could find something more productive to concentrate on.

Personally, my ECF "slow-play" grade of 144A (my rapidplay grade is 143) and my FIDE "standard" grade feel in sync and about right.

In the ongoing Weekday U-1750 sectionat the London Classic there are 3 players with a slow-play grade of 149, yet their standard (std.) FIDE ratings are 1672, 1573 & 1467!

The event is being paired by std. FIDE rating, by the way.

The top 3 rated players are a Moroccan at 1744, a Latvian at 1731 and a Peruvian at 1720, fair enough.

However, the 4th and 5th are English players with FIDE ratings of 1712 &1711 respectively, BUT their ECF grades are 135 & 152, respectively!

Those kinds of anomalies kind of make a lottery, or mockery, of the pairings.

I could look for more but I rest my case.

Yesterday, my young opponent asked me after the game why he (graded 75, converted to 1262) had to play me (144 & 1703).

For some reason I tried to blame it all on the pairings being done by FIDE ratings and ECF grades converted to FIDE ratings for players who don't yet have a rating, like him.

Of course, I am mainly to blame for arriving late for my 1st round game and losing, thereby setting up our 2nd round mismatch.

[Although, as I tried to indicate above, it could've easily been the (rating/grading) system(s) that was to blame.]

I knew things were not quite right when after 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 dc 4.e3 , he went 4... Nc6?! A kind of QGA/Chigorin Def. that is not played by players of any great strength (even Morozevich might not be able to make it respectable).

Another example of the mixing of two systems that have incompatibilities, and so do not work well together.

[IanCalvert]

[quote="John McKenna"]Our own governing body blocked by our own coalition of the unwilling!?

Whatever the merits, this is carrying English eccentricity a little far... Is it unprecedented?

What is the most eccentric English behaviour at FIDE " committee " meetings ever?

I think it reasonable to expect English delegates not to speak against ECF proposals at FIDE : so that we can punch above our weight??