2011 AGM: October 15th

[Paul Cooksey]

Since we are wandering all over the place; I don't understand why juniors don't have higher k. It seems to me to mitigate the undergrading issue elegantly, maybe to the benefit of those scared to play in weekend tournaments.

[Paul Sanders]

Paul I agree, initially a rating will help a junior but because of the k factor it will do medium term damage. And the medium term is usually the stage where a player considers giving up. It is much more difficult to get to 2000 from 1000 than it is from unrated if that makes sense. Stewart himself has been trying with limited success to get the k factor (designed for 2 lists a year) changed to accommodate monthly lists.

This is interesting stuff, and very relevant to ECF junior policy. My own very sketchy research shows that improving juniors average about 2.5 - 4 FIDE rating points per game played at the point where they are breaking the 2000 barrier. Of course you can improve outside of the FIDE rating system, but I doubt that it means you can get away with playing fewer games or doing less work. One of the benefits of a single rating system is that it takes a whole lot of subjectivity out of measuring improvement.

1000 to 2000 looks to me like about 5 years active tournament play, which means that for a child who starts at 6 - 7 aspiring to a 2000 rating by the age of 11-12 is a reasonable target. The hardest workers and the really early starters will surpass this of course, and different K-factors will achieve reliable ratings more or less quickly, but these things show up readily in the numbers.

[Stewart Reuben]

I don't believe it is just juniors who need higher k factors. It is all players whose ratings change dramatically (up or down).
Mikko Markulla (Chairman of the QC) agrees with me, but the FIDE PB, in their infinite wisdom, prevented most of the changes proposed by the QC and agreed by the General Assembly happening. That was against FIDE Statutes.

[Angus McDonald]

Alex is right again in my opinion.

My son came onto fide rating list at around 1500 grade. He's played his last 40 fide rated games at an average grading performance of around 2100. Still his grade is stuck at 1858. It will take years and lots of bucks for his fide rating to catch up.
imho

[Paul Sanders]

Alex is right again in my opinion.

My son came onto fide rating list at around 1500 grade. He's played his last 40 fide rated games at an average grading performance of around 2100. Still his grade is stuck at 1858. It will take years and lots of bucks for his fide rating to catch up.
imho

If this is your son's card http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=2401541 I can see what you mean, but it is difficult to imagine a rating system that can be reliable with so little data. The improvers are playing many more FIDE rated games - at least 50 per year.

[Paul Cooksey]

Alex is right again in my opinion.

My son came onto fide rating list at around 1500 grade. He's played his last 40 fide rated games at an average grading performance of around 2100. Still his grade is stuck at 1858. It will take years and lots of bucks for his fide rating to catch up.
imho

If this is your son's card http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=2401541 I can see what you mean, but it is difficult to imagine a rating system that can be reliable with so little data. The improvers are playing many more FIDE rated games - at least 50 per year.

This is the point about k. Most juniors improve rapidly in their teens. Doubling or trebling their k factor means they catch up to their real strength two or three times as quickly. Now we have regular rating lists, the chance of them overshooting their actual strength is much reduced.

I take Stewart's point some adults improve rapidly too, again a higher k for people with a big change in the last list, makes sense.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

This is the point about k. Most juniors improve rapidly in their teens. Doubling or trebling their k factor means they catch up to their real strength two or three times as quickly. Now we have regular rating lists, the chance of them overshooting their actual strength is much reduced.

What is the current situation? Is the k-factor for juniors the same as adults at the moment? i.e. It drops from 30 to 15 after 30 games? What is the difference between making the k-factor age-dependent (regardless of number of games played) and changing the value of the k-factor but only keeping it for 30 games as is done at the moment?

[Stewart Reuben]

Christopher. Age is not taken into account in determining the k factor in the current FIDE System.
My fault. I don't understand your last question.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Christopher. Age is not taken into account in determining the k factor in the current FIDE System.
My fault. I don't understand your last question.

Keeping everything as it is at the moment, but increasing the k-factor for juniors for the first 30 games they have rated.

[Paul Cooksey]

Christopher. Age is not taken into account in determining the k factor in the current FIDE System.
My fault. I don't understand your last question.

Keeping everything as it is at the moment, but increasing the k-factor for juniors for the first 30 games they have rated.

I think the current system needs relatively long periods of high k for juniors. Back in the day, when you came onto the list at 2200, and 2500 was an elite GM, the rating did not need to move so quickly. But now, if a player starts at 1200 when very young and needs to get to 2200, it does.

I think one of the tricky things with juniors is that while they usually improve, when and at what rate is hard to predict. This is where k in Elo is so much better than the arbitrary bonuses as we have in ECF. The junior's rating goes up fast following good results, but if they are not improving it stays as it was.

[David Pardoe]

I expect that (although there may be a few pockets of resistance) if the new membership scheme is introduced the vast majority of those who do not approve of the idea will go along with the democratic verdict and try to make it work.

The nature of the change in demanding more money from less active players or clubs is going to encourage
(a) players to retire from playing
(b) leagues to remove events from grading
(c) clubs and leagues to be creative in exploiting the three games for free rule
and perhaps
(d) fewer Congresses to be run

Within the tent, you might encourage more games to be played. This does nothing for the ECF's revenues unless you encourage more players. I fail to see how a universal or mandatory scheme encourages more players.

All of which will mean that the necessary revenues won't be achieved and the cost the following year to be somewhat higher than £ 12.

Its interesting that we`re talking here about the individual Membership scheme, as proposed by Andrew Farthing, about which debates run deep into the night on the other thread.
Rogers analysis of the possible outcomes, and the shortcomings might have some credance in certain quarters.
An interesting point is the way the debate has moved away from `Individual` to `League/other bodies`, because of the way many organisations bundle charges for running leagues, etc, with the costs of `membership`/funding the ECF. The political `heavyweights` grab centre stage in the usual tussle for `points`.
At the moment players fund the ECF (via game fee) but are not members...
So the issues are pitched directly at individual membership, yet the actual voice of `individuals` is lost...its all about what `leagues` think....with there various concerns about bundled packages.
Should we actually take this opportunity, if we are going down the `Membership` route, of splitting this out, so that the process of collecting these monies is made clearer/more transparent. Currently these individuals are simply treated as pawns in the game.
The point about this is that if we`re directing this scheme at individuals, surely it is the voice of `individuals` that should be heard, and not be drowned out by various `group voices`, who have there own `power base/street cred` to protect in the usual political razz matazz..
And if we`re going to listen to the voice of `the people`, would it not be logical to actually give them a `voice` in all this. As Martin Regan and David Robertson have said... `individual` voting rights need to be included if this organisation is to have any real relevance...
I`ve said before that I think the Membership categories might better be structured to include `Temporary Membership`.

A Temporary Membership category, allowing newbies to join for say £7.50p & eligable to play say 10 games, including Congress games, could be very beneficial, draw in useful revenue, whilst at the same time allowing these people a fair chance to smell the coffee at a modest cost, and show some positive commitment/interest, rather than simply wavering on the touchlines. However, clubs need to recipricate and positively encourage such players.

Hopefully the ECF AGM will hear and discuss all the various points that have been raised, and not simply play to the usual `big guns`agendas.....

PS Who are `the people` some might ask... You might start by enlisting all those who have current ECF gradings. If they could supply email contact points, they could be registered for an `electronic vote`.
This might even encourage more players to activily seek gradings.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The Annual General Meeting (October 15th, 2011, Euston Hotel, London) approaches [...]

It's actually the Euston Square Hotel. Just across the road from the Wellcome Collection.

http://www.wellcomecollection.org/whats ... t=20111010

Well worth a visit if you have time.

[Phil Ehr]

Phil Ehr does imply he wants a higher level of funding. This enthuses me less . I am happy for the ECF spend money to encouraging mass participation, and also to develop elite juniors (those with GM/ WGM potential). I do have some concern that many of the juniors involved in international events do not have elite potential, and presumably Phil is advocating less stringent qualification. While I have no objection to any junior participating if there are no better candidates, I am also a bit reluctant to fund it.

Hi Paul, I am working under the assumption the ECF does not fund juniors into international championships, as least to any significant degree.

[Phil Ehr]

Phil Ehr wrote
" I am a parent of two juniors who are in their eleventh year of competitive chess."
Really? Since the age of 3 and 4?

Our older daughter started playing chess in her Reception year with intent to win! …thus competitive… OK…perhaps a better description of longevity and commitment to the game would be better in my statement.

Phil Ehr wrote
" I am also a chess coach at our children’s former primary school, which recognises the value of our game to the extent that every pupil is taught how to play. Chess maintains a presence in every classroom, where teachers actually use it to develop academic focus and promote good behaviour."

So you force the children to learn chess even if they don't want to
Do you force pupils to take part in UKCC?

In the event Ofsted inspectors on the Forum are taking note, the school does not ‘force’ any child to do anything. Classroom time is programmed for chess lessons in Reception, Year 1 and Year 2. Participation in the UKCC is simply an expectation like many other school activities. Two or three years ago, one of the older children was excused. Since then we had 100% participation running one UKCC tournament in each form from Year 1 and older. We are fortunate to be an independent, mixed-ability, one-form entry school. The head mistress and other teachers see the benefits that chess brings into the classroom. I understand that this level of participation would be much harder in larger schools and without support from teachers and the head. Children in this school are lucky! We started the school chess club in 2001 and ten years later we are a English Primary Schools National Joint Under 9 Champions.