Chess fraud in New Zealand

[Carl Hibbard]

You tell the organiser and he decides, based on that information, which section he is prepared to let you play. Armed with that, you decide if you want to enter or not.

It happens regularly, and we won't let any ungraded player play without some idea of their playing history and strength.

So could I squeak into the next U170 for example then?

[Sean Hewitt]

O

You tell the organiser and he decides, based on that information, which section he is prepared to let you play. Armed with that, you decide if you want to enter or not.

It happens regularly, and we won't let any ungraded player play without some idea of their playing history and strength.

So could I squeak into the next U170 for example then?

Last graded 186 in 2009? I don't think so!

[Carl Hibbard]

You tell the organiser and he decides, based on that information, which section he is prepared to let you play. Armed with that, you decide if you want to enter or not.

It happens regularly, and we won't let any ungraded player play without some idea of their playing history and strength.

So could I squeak into the next U170 for example then?

Last graded 186 in 2009? I don't think so!

Two years ago (rusty...) and that is the inflated version of the grading system, boo

[Carl Hibbard]

So two years out doesn't count?

2009 186
2008 164
2007 169
2006 167
2005 173
2004 173
2003 177
2002 168
2001 175
2000 165
1999 165
1998 176
1997 171
1996 167
1995 170
1994 164

Average is 170.625

[Sean Hewitt]

So two years out doesn't count?

2009 186
2008 164
2007 169
2006 167
2005 173
2004 173
2003 177
2002 168
2001 175
2000 165
1999 165
1998 176
1997 171
1996 167
1995 170
1994 164

Average is 170.625

Two years out does count. I would, at a push, consider you for an U180 section. But I dont believe, without further evidence, that a 186 player usually would drop below 170 in just 2 years out of the game.

Of course, your stated average is mathematically flawed as you are not comparing apples with apples. Re~calculate all your old grades to the new scale and then tell me what the average is.

Shark

[AustinElliott]

So two years out doesn't count? [as likely to reduce playing strength/effective grading]

Two years out does count.
Shark

So what about much "longer range" examples, like the one I gave earlier? I guess we are all saying that as a rule of thumb, the longer the gap, the less of their old playing strength we would expect a player to retain... which seems logical. But presumably, the longer the gap, the bigger an unknown it is how much the value should be "depreciated".

To make it more concrete, my last two ECF gradings as a junior (which I now know for the first time in three decades thanks to Richard James' collection of old SCCU lists - thanks Richard!) were 179 in 1978 (aged 16-17) and 173 in 1979 (aged 17-18). How I might do 32 years on as an out-of-practise middle-aged geezer is, I would suggest, a total guess.

I wonder if it partly relates to just how good a player the person was in the first place? I'm reminded of the story about Fischer playing skittles games against Reuben Fine in 1963, by which time Fine hadn't played competitively in almost 20 years (though he might well have carried on studying chess after he quit competing, since I think he wrote chess books after that date). Anyway, the notes to their game that appears in Fischer's My 60 Memorable Games say something like "Fine very nearly held his own", which suggests Fine had retained quite a bit of his playing strength. My guess would be, though, that a club player who didn't play for 20 years would "regress" much more...

PS Anecdotally, I can still solve some of Leonard Barden's weekly Guardian chess puzzles...

[Matt Mackenzie]

IIRC Fine's last competitive chess was in the early 1950s - so not *quite* 20 years, but still a fair stretch.

If I may use my own experience, I entered the Cumbrian Championships in the spring of 1994 having barely played for over four years.

To everyone's astonishment (and mine!) I won. Admittedly, though, I hadn't totally lost interest in the game - and had still been following tournaments, reading books and so on. Somebody who had taken a complete break for years on end might be a lot rustier........

But I have always thought of chess skill in the same way as say, riding a bike - once you have learned you never *really* forget

[Michael Jones]

I don't think that's necessarily a good comparison, because chess is more of a sliding scale of 'forgetting' - you're unlikely to forget how the pieces move, but might forget some of the opening/endgame theory/tactical acumen you had before. As regards riding a bike, I don't think you're likely to remember how to start but forget how to stop...

[Matt Mackenzie]

I don't think that's necessarily a good comparison, because chess is more of a sliding scale of 'forgetting' - you're unlikely to forget how the pieces move, but might forget some of the opening/endgame theory/tactical acumen you had before. As regards riding a bike, I don't think you're likely to remember how to start but forget how to stop...

Sure, but my point is that is often a short-term thing - you can get the hang of things quite quickly. I know quite a few players who have been out of the competitive side of chess for much longer than I was, but have "got good" again quite rapidly after returning.

A few have really struggled, but in my experience they are the minority

[Roger de Coverly]

My guess would be, though, that a club player who didn't play for 20 years would "regress" much more...

You also run into the issue that standards (may) have improved. Of course it's always possible to blame an inability to regain the previous grade on grade deflation.

It's a style thing as well. If a player relied on knowing the latest theory for part of their playing strength, that's not going to be possible without a bit of catching up. New systems spring up as well. Back in the 1970s, plans against the Pirc and Modern involving Be3/g5 and Qd2 were not highly regarded. Nowadays, known as the 150 Attack, they are critical to the playability of the d6, g6, Bg7 complex. Most players know the system as well even down to, well. 150 level

[Sean Hewitt]

So what about much "longer range" examples, like the one I gave earlier?

To make it more concrete, my last two ECF gradings as a junior (which I now know for the first time in three decades thanks to Richard James' collection of old SCCU lists - thanks Richard!) were 179 in 1978 (aged 16-17) and 173 in 1979 (aged 17-18). How I might do 32 years on as an out-of-practise middle-aged geezer is, I would suggest, a total guess....

Each case on it's own merits. 170 ish 30 years ago is more like 180 in todays money. I would certainly let you know you play in a U170 event, but not an U140. An U160 would be possible but an U150 would be improbable for me. Other organisers might take a different view of course.

If you really had no idea how strong you were I might let you play in the lower section initially with the provision that I might move you to the higher section during the event, based on results.

[Richard Bates]

Some people turning up after 20 years armed with a load of 1980s theoretical knowledge would often be at an advantage...

I would guess that past grades are a lot less meaningful for players who effectively gave up as juniors. Players who retired some time later in general have more of a solid base to work from.

[Richard Bates]

170 ish 30 years ago is more like 180 in todays money.

An interesting statement. Do you mean in an actual playing strength, or in some way relative to other players? Is it intended to imply that there has been general inflation in the grading list over 30 years (of which i wouldn't be too convinced, arguments about the recent changes notwithstanding)?

Someone who hadn't played for 30 years would of course have to cope with not just 'rustiness' and possible lack of up-to-date opening knowledge (although i am unconvinced how important that is, even at quite high levels) but also probably and perhaps most importantly, limited experience of modern time controls.

[AustinElliott]

Yes, time controls is an interesting one, though as a junior player in the 1970s I remember playing under a wide variety of different time controls, e.g. 30 in 1 hr (inter-school games), 30 in 75 min (league) 40 in 2 hrs (county & national club competitions). And the junior tournaments had all sorts of time controls too - 30 in 75 min, 42 in 105 min, even 40 in 75 min. It sounds like it is much more standardised now.

Another thing, of course, is endgames. I reckon I only played out a serious endgame about once in every 15-20 competitive games, if that, as I played chess in the old adjudication era. Tournaments were virtually the only places I ever played a endgame, and not all that many there - no rapid-play finishes in those days! And although we kids played mainly 5 minute and blitz to practise, we usually got bored and gave up if it looked like reaching an endgame.

[Adam Ashton]

To comment on the original issue I'm afraid that for once I completely agree with Mr Giddens. I'm astonished at the amused/light tone a lot of people seem to have taken. The amount of money is not relevant it was simply blatant cheating.

As for "actually .. i just wanted to play chess without media or any "special treatment". Just be a normal chessplayer not a wgm .."

Never heard such crap in my life. Lifetime ban if you ask me. Ok it might not bother her very much since she seems to have largely quit anyway. Still it's the principle!