English Chess Forum

Thanks for that Loz

Nick I was under impression the view in general of British chess was the grading was "Overated" in respects to South being overrated. That is what our friends from above have often suggested. I personally think it matters where you play league chess, I think that is vital. In Berkshire league if that is your core league , to be 200 is very tough. I know a few players from certain more enclosed leagues who get to this level by beating the same people.

I don't think Surrey are underrated from looking at their team.

I've heard this theory about the Southerners being overrated but I don't believe it. It is possible that their strong players are the most accurately rated though as they play in the largest pool. Perhaps Northerners are underrated though (small pool)?? Don't know where that leaves us Midlanders. I think there are a fair number of county players who almost excursively play in their local leagues (and perhaps the local tournament once a year), play the same players repeatedly as you say and end up with grades which are "different" from "big pool" players.

Ben

That was Keith Arkell's view a few years ago (although what he actually said was that in his experience of playing congresses all over the country, northern players were under-graded)

I think the more events where there are players from different areas (e2e4, 4NCL), the more accurate the gradings are likely to be

It may not just be the local leagues they play in, the time controls used may be a factor too, as grades from mostly evening chess don't necessarily translate accurately to 5 hour county chess

I think 4NCL is a total lottery for grading. I have a player in my team callled Sam Williams who is 184 ECF?!?! It is quite amusing. There is literally no junior even I think could hold his ECF rating against him in UK.

Kind regards

Ben

Mick Norris wrote: It may not just be the local leagues they play in, the time controls used may be a factor too, as grades from mostly evening chess don't necessarily translate accurately to 5 hour county chess

From the point of view of International ratings, the Surrey team was far more experienced. 15 of the 16 I think with FIDE ratings as against less than half the Warwick team.

Is it a disadvantage playing 5 hours to a finish when your local league is 3 hours plus adjudication or adjournment? But that applies on paper to the Surrey players as well as the Birmingham league.

Ben Purton wrote:I think 4NCL is a total lottery for grading. I have a player in my team callled Sam Williams who is 184 ECF?!?!

That would have included games from 2008 and 2009 as well as 2010. ECF grades react to poor results and if the only graded chess is in the 4NCL, that's what will count.

http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=410977

Surrey league is a 2h 40m session. Most of top division opts for QP, but adjudication and adjournment are also options, so I don't think that proves anything. What it might prove is that gradings are a measure of performance and not a reliable predictor of future results! I have played in matches where one team has outgraded the other by 30 points a board and lost the match - that's why people acually play the game. Warwicks players might well have tried too hard to win once they were behind, and in a KO, it doesn't actually matter much whether you lose 8.5-7.5 or 14-2. Just go back and plot revenge!

Roger, besides this he is still inaccurately rated because of the 2-4 year lag of the ECF

Nick Thomas wrote:Perhaps a maths'y person with too much time on their hands (Alex?) could work it out exactly.

O hi. I have just gained time on my hands now that exams are over for the year.

Therefore...

Surrey: 3227
Warwickshire: 2865

Difference: 362

A difference of 50 points under the ECF system is the value for an expected win. So with 362, Surrey should have had 7.24 more wins than Warwickshire. So let's say 7. In effect, you'd have 9 draws and 7 Surrey wins, so the expected final score should be 11.5-4.5. So you could argue that Warwickshire underperformed by 3 points.

Re: your later assertion - which I deleted from your quote and can't be bothered to go and find again - I think 4 of the Warwickshire team played in the 4NCL last season; yourself and Andy were the only two regulars. I don't think that many of the Surrey team were from memory - not knowing them means I paid less attention to their games - but they certainly had more than Warwickshire.

Warwickshire were without (for this Quarter Final) Mason, Naylor, James, Shephard, Hainke, McCumiskey, Weaving, Maciol, Pitcher... and that's off the top of my head.

Just in case all this Surrey adoration goes to their heads, we in Bedfordshire consider a victory over Surrey to be one of our best ever county match results.

To quote from the Bedfordshire website:-

“Minor Counties Semi-Final
Sutton, 22/5/93
Was this the best Bedfordshire county match result?
Due to football division 2 playoffs and major roadworks around Heathrow, there were major holdups on the route to the match. The Surrey captain was kind enough to delay the start of the match but after 30 minutes the clocks had to be started or the room booking would have run out before completing the match. Unfortunately, only 4 Bedfordshire players were present and had to guess which boards they were playing on. Howard Ingham was the last player to arrive 55 minutes after the original start time.
The task facing Bedfordshire was considerable, behind on the clock and outgraded by an average 187 to 176. (which would have been even worse if Surrey hadn’t needed a last minute reserve on board 12)
Once the match started, everything went in our favour, Bedfordshire building up a healthy lead and keeping it throughout.
The average grading difference was 12 points per board. This may not sound very much but over 16 boards it should translate to a score of 10-6 in favour of the higher graded team. To win by 9.5-6.5, almost reversing the predicted score, is a considerable achievement. To achieve this, the team performed at an average grade of 196, 20 points higher than their published grade.”

I am pleased to say that nine of the Bedfordshire players that day have played for the County team this season. That either shows exceptional team loyalty or, more likely, that we are all growing old together.

Going by my limited experiences for Yorkshire U175 I really couldn't say that folk in the South were overgraded.

2007 U175 Surrey effectively gave us no less than 3 defaults and still won 9.5 - 6.5(!). 2008 it was a mere 1 default, and 10 - 6.... Nothing in it grade wise so the first effort was probably objectively at least as miserable as that Warwickshire performance

2009/10 vs Middlesex and Essex(U180) were both appropriately close 8.5-7.5 results.

Under 140 Semi between Worcestershire and Hampshire: Hants 1 up with 5 to go. Worcestershire winning 1, may be a perpetual in another, and even in the others... We looked doomed an hour ago.

Hampshire wins 9-7.

U180: Lancashire 5-7 Nottinghamshire.

Excellent playing conditions at the Newcastle-Under-Lyme Bridge Club.