Chess Player Strip Searched

[Paolo Casaschi]

Personally I find amusing that the ECF constantly complains about shortage of resources while at the same time insists on a parallel grading system that consumes a huge portion of those resources.

In what sense do you think that a parallel grading system consumes a huge portion of the ECF's resources? Results would still have to be collected and new players identified whatever the back office process to generate numbers. The current administrator of the database has a reputation for being a stickler for points of detail and as a consequence the process is now running very smoothly as far as everyone is aware. It helps a bit that arbiters have finally noticed that computers might be able to help them run tournaments.

My mistake then.
Using the FIDE service I believe you only need the arbiter to upload the results at the end of the event and FIDE does the rest (apart the occasional fixes and corrections).
I thought that the ECF grading involved a number of middlemen (graders?) processing the inputs from the tournaments. If it's as simple as uploading the tournament file on the ECF server then it's much better than I expected. However if this is the case I do not understand what's the role of the graders and what happens between end June and end of July. If it's as simple as you seem to suggest, why can't the ECF grades be ready on the same day as he end of the reported period as the FIDE Elo? Few weeks of delay seem to suggest a lot of manual processing.

[Michael Farthing]

As I said before, when the federation chooses not to rate its own U13 and U14 championships, I think that says it all.

It might be a pride issue or a general distrust of FIDE; in any case the idea does not seem popular of phasing out the national rating following the downward expansion of the FIDE list, as it happened in many other countries. It might also relate to the ECF grading being perceived as a key value of the ECF for its members while trying to enforce compulsory membership. Personally I find amusing that the ECF constantly complains about shortage of resources while at the same time insists on a parallel grading system that consumes a huge portion of those resources.

I suspect (in the NW where we play on Fridays and are mostly 4 hour sessions) it's mainly that FIDE rated congresses at Major level or lower would force upgrade to Gold. While it's only a tenner or so it is an uplift in the entry fee of around 33% for the first such congress entered - perhaps no congress wants to be the first to take the risk. It disappoints me a lot - I'm only silver because I can't make use of gold - I'd much rather have FIDE ratings because on international internet sites the ECF grades are incomprehensible. I thought I was the only person who thought this way but I'm glad to see that I'm in the eminent company of Stewart Reuben.

Said that, you need to see things in context; I believe there are some English counties that for whatever disagreement with the ECF are still using their own county grading system: there might be a pathological pattern...

I think it's only Yorkshire and they're a bit odd (you see I'm Lancs so I can't say otherwise. T'wife is Scarborough, so don't let on to her what I've said).

[Roger de Coverly]

I thought that the ECF grading involved a number of middlemen (graders?) processing the inputs from the tournaments. If it's as simple as uploading the tournament file on the ECF server then it's much better than I expected.

Graders do the uploading, but they also have to check for new players and duplications. The system will still work if an arbiter sends in a pile of pairing cards.

I don't think the FIDE system can be that simple as the ECF have yet to load the results for the British Championship Congress.

If it's as simple as you seem to suggest, why can't the ECF grades be ready on the same day as he end of the reported period as the FIDE Elo? Few weeks of delay seem to suggest a lot of manual processing.

The FIDE cutoff is several days before the publication date whilst the ECF grades stay open for data after the cutoff. I'm thinking of Hastings which gets backdated to the first half of the season and the ECF County finals which are the last event of the old season rather than the first of the new. But let's not forget that ECF grading does involve that little bit more processing, given that it grades every game, not just those between rated players. I'm fairly sure it could run that bit faster, at the cost of putting more pressure on the volunteer graders to submit results earlier.

[Paolo Casaschi]

I think it's only Yorkshire and they're a bit odd

Your words... but once a few more countries in Europe abandon their national rating for the FIDE rating, what do you think they'll say about the ECF grades?

[Roger de Coverly]

but once a few more countries in Europe abandon their national rating for the FIDE rating

Will they entirely abandon rating events that wouldn't qualify for FIDE rating? I'm thinking of the Dutch in particular. Countries with no history of evening leagues or weekend Congresses don't have the same issues. Whilst I've seen French weekend events advertised, I get the impression that they are always rapid-play.

[Michael Farthing]

I think it's only Yorkshire and they're a bit odd

Your words... but once a few more countries in Europe abandon their national rating for the FIDE rating, what do you think they'll say about the ECF grades?

Err... I thought I was in agreement with you! I'd happily ditch ECF grades entirely. (Or go back to the wonderful system of 2a and 5b... ).

[Paolo Casaschi]

Graders do the uploading, but they also have to check for new players and duplications. The system will still work if an arbiter sends in a pile of pairing cards.

It all comes together then. FIDE solved the "check for new players and duplication" with the new admission rules requiring a FIDE ID before entering the event.
I wonder how many events run manually and need graders to input results.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Err... I thought I was in agreement with you! I'd happily ditch ECF grades entirely.

I think we agree Jokes are still allowed though

[Stewart Reuben]

Why Nick believes I wanted there always to be an arbiter present for games to be rated, I have no idea. The history of the FIDE Rating Regulations shows otherwise.

Graham. Had I thought that the only matter standing in the way of English chess being rated was that it has to be 2 hours thinking time for each player once at least one player was rated 2200+, I would have supported Ignatius Leong when he wanted to bring it down to 1.5 hours. I wouldn't have liked it. I think the quality of the rating is very important as they affect title norms. But I would have lived with that. There might even have been a compromise, perhaps 105 minutes. Indeed, when I first drafted the thinking times, I might have used 90 minutes as the norm. To think the rather ridiculous time control at 36 moves stands in the way of integration is absurd. Why ridiculous? It does not serve English players well as they have to adjust from 36 to 40. Why absurd? Simply change the number to 40, it was based on 24 moves in an hour.

The London Chess League was rated for two years, but the players made it clear that they didn't want that because the chess lacks gravitas. I wanted the Counties Championship to be FIDE Rated, but there was no inclination in that direction. 2 hours thinking time is no problem for that event. I assumed events elsewhere would be similar.
The prize for getting everything rated is very high. Not just English chess, but worldwide.
Monthly rating for the ECF would result, in my opinion, in about 10-20% more chess being played.
By the way, when the BCF Grading system was at a particularly low ebb, Gerry Walsh and I independently thought of passing over the whole system to Toti Abundo and FIDE.

[Roger de Coverly]

Monthly rating for the ECF would result, in my opinion, in about 10-20% more chess being played.

Could you explain why? Are you expecting 10-20% more players to appear from nowhere because of monthly grades, or is it that players of 100 games a season would play 120 if there was monthly rating?

Going in the opposite direction, assuming there are to be no e2e4 events this season, how much less graded and rated chess will be played?

[Paolo Casaschi]

The London Chess League was rated for two years, but the players made it clear that they didn't want that because the chess lacks gravitas.

I can understand (even if I disagree) this kind of feedback from the stronger players that already have a FIDE rating. I'm surprised by this kind of feedback from the lower ranks of the LL, especially the players that do not have a FIDE rating yet. Does your feedback includes both groups?

[Roger de Coverly]

I'm surprised by this kind of feedback from the lower ranks of the LL, especially the players that do not have a FIDE rating yet.

It was quite a few years ago when the minimum rating was still 2000. You couldn't rate the London League now for players over 2200 as many games are now single session G/90 or equivalent.

There was a long period when the minimum rating was 2000. As a consequence almost all the players over 175 and a number of those over 160 acquired ratings provided they played once or twice in the relative handful of prestige internationally rated events such as 4NCL, British Championship and Major Open, Hastings, Isle of Man etc.

At the time of the experiment, adjournments were still very much in use. It was part of the problem that adjournments created scheduling problems for busy players. Whilst they might not have minded for BCF grading agreeing draws in better positions or resigning prematurely, it could potentially cost a title if they sacrificed International Elo points.

[NickFaulks]

Why Nick believes I wanted there always to be an arbiter present for games to be rated, I have no idea. The history of the FIDE Rating Regulations shows otherwise.

I could think of no other explanation for your continued insistence that FIDE regulations require this, when you know that they say the opposite. I was able to interpret this only as a contribution towards the guerrilla campaign being waged on this forum to bring in this requirement, at least in England.

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger >Could you explain why? Are you expecting 10-20% more players to appear from nowhere because of monthly grades, or is it that players of 100 games a season would play 120 if there was monthly rating?

It is the latter, although there would be a measure of the former (usually retired players who returned to chess). My opinion is based on what I have seen happen in the US, the London Chess Association (when it had its own rating list) and FIDE. The increase would not be overnight. It might take 2-3 years. I believe the rating changes should be more dynamic and, at last, FIDE have come around to that viewpoint for players U2400.
Of course the loss of the e2e4 events is a serious blow to English chess.

My feedback about the LL and rating came from all players anecdotally. No formal poll was ever taken. The initiative was solely my idea, although of course the LL Committee agreed. Remember it was only the first division at the time. Some said they didn't like it. Nobody ever said to me, 'I like it being FIDE Rated', or 'That's a pity it is no longer rated.'

Nick, they don't say the opposite. It is expressed in a very obscure way amd I didn't understand. Perhaps it should read:
If the competition is supervised by an arbiter or arbiters, those arbiters must be FIDE certified.
Alternatively B.01.03 serves no purpose.

[NickFaulks]

Alternatively B.01.03 serves no purpose.

No, it was inserted at the behest of the Arbiters and its purpose is completely clear.

"0.3 All arbiters of a FIDE rated tournament shall be licensed otherwise the tournament shall not be rated."

The second half is of course superfluous, merely repeating the first. I assume it is there because it makes it sound more punitive.

The Arbiters are a trade union, and they operate a closed shop. Nobody may work as an arbiter unless they have paid their union dues.

They have announced that their next move will be against organisers, requiring that every event must have an arbiter on site - in their minds that person will be paid, because otherwise there's no point. Perhaps we shall see minimum rates set out in the regulations. This will encourage more people to pay to join their union. It is not a novel business plan.