English Chess Forum

I will make this one last post and then leave Mr de Coverley to argue with anyone who will listen to him. It is such a shame that he can only imagine problems, I am positive he would find it much more satisfying to imagine solutions.

I can categorically state that within the Norfolk County Chess Association there is a vast majority of the membership who are supportive of the ECF because they have been told the facts about the new system and hopefully because it is administered efficiently (yes even in Norfolk we can blow our own trumpets). Our committee does not make up imagined obstacles but rather work to help the ECF which we fully accepted as our governing body.

This whole thread came about because one person can't be bothered with the admin that would allow his event to be graded as all other events including club championships and contests are in Norfolk, but it has to be said that he is a lone voice amongst Norfolk's players as all others accept the system. As far as my email inbox goes I have received a multitude of support from our players and apart from this organiser there is only one other dissenter in our county and he started this thread. He may have a possible two supporters in his club but he has none throughout the rest of Norfolk. We have survived attacks from lone dissenters in the past and we shall do so again.

I thank Bob Jones, Adam Raoof and Richard Bates for their positive contributions to the thread but will not be posting any more items that one particular person will use to accuse me of wrongdoing or giving my county wrong information. I will merely finish by saying I am well aware of how to use the system as far as events internal or external go but merely applied a rule regrading games for grading without knowing there was another rule that negated it; I am now off to email Richard and ask where I can find that rule.

Interesting you express it terms of "survive" , "attacks" and "dissenters". In the wider world beyond Norfolk, the views expressed by your "dissenters" still have traction.

Unlike other parts of the country, if you want to play chess in Norfolk, there is little choice but to go along with the membership compulsion enforced by the Norfolk committee. If you don't agree or at least acquiesce, presumably you don't play.

I think you will find that the changed rules for grading events are filed on the ECF site under "membership". It's an intrinsic part of the new system which surely all Norfolk players should be aware of, that events get free grading for Silver members, but with the caveat that they must sign up for the Game Fee rules which mean they pay £ 6 for every Bronze or non-member who takes part.

John, I said in my email to you yesterday, I have no agenda, no followers or supporters. Not sure where you are going with all this. I only asked if non-MO members could get their games graded some other way. Please let it rest. I have no quarrel with anyone.

I entered the said local congress in 1999 and the results did not reach the BCF Grading system. Therefore - although it is my nearest rapidplay congress - I went elsewhere until 2010 - when it was graded and earned me enough points for Roger to present me a prize - my first since Charlton 1985. I play Rapidplay congresses for grading points not the prizes, and/or to reactivate my chess brain in September, so I hope this congress will be ECF-graded (at least in part) in 2013.

The BCF grading system was in a state of crisis in July 1999 so almost anything could have happened. The recently on line archive implies the 1999 Congress was graded as we both have rapid-play grading records for July 1999 (5 games).

I played Guildford Rapidplay (6 rounds) in 1999 but ended round 5 with so few game and grading points that I scratched and watched round 6 of the top division instead. My 20-point grading drop proves it was Guildford which was graded.

I cannot really comment on the lower sections, but looking up my personal record and those of my opponents seems to confirm that the top section at the very least was graded.

Checking local club members (unlikely to have travelled to Guildford) shows that they have 5 games in the July 1999 calculations as well, thus implying the lower sections were also graded.

E grades are based on as many games as available so E75 in 1999 would have been 571 (6 games) + 250 (5 games) so 821/11 = 75. The dispute is whether the 5 at 250 is Guildford or Bourne End.

Again not the bottom section, but there is an ex member who used to play in the Bourne End event, despite having retired from active play. He shows up in 1999 as well.

Roger - I think we are both right. The 1999 BCF grading list was the unique one with a CD and showing how many games each player played in each half year, and the Rapidplay threshold increasing from 6 to 10 games. This BCF list, the ECF site, and the cumulative scores wallchart at the congress (and my paper record and spreadsheet) all agree on 9 of my opponents grades and for 6 of them the number of rounds of the congress in question.

Three of my Bourne End opponents played 5 games in the Jan-June'99 half year with the other two playing 9 and 11. I scored three draws with the highest 2 draws adding up to 252 and overall 415/5.

The first three Guildford opponents played 6 games that year, the 4th round one 5 games like me. My 5th round opponent has never been graded but his forename, geography, and performances at a Richmond Rapid 2009 and at Woking CC in 2012 are plausibly the same player as 98 on the congress wallchart. However a value of 69 would be consistent with being paired with 0/4 in round 5, and my 250 score on the ECF site.

I think therefore it is indisputable that the sections I played in at both Bourne End and Guildford in 1999 were both graded by the BCF, but my Bourne End results were not. Three of my first 5 Rapidplay congress results didn't get graded, so I am somewhat sensitive about it. The others were the last Kensington in autumn 1999 and Reading 2001, where I've checked some opponents also have no games in those years.

If you've followed the debate about the candidate for President, you will be aware that the grading system was in a state of chaos in 1999.

One of the issues was the correct identification of players.

So whilst your grading record is this one
http://www.ecfgrading.org.uk/?ref=121138K, there's also this mystery person that the new detail system makes public
http://www.ecfgrading.org.uk/?ref=210994D

So the Bourne End event was graded, but not every player was correctly identified as an existing player. This was a very common fault with the 1999 list.