Chris Majer returns!

[Roger de Coverly]

If you need n games from the previous period to make up your 30, you would expect them to be the n most recent games.

I don't know that I agree with this. If, say, you consistently play around 25 games in a half year, then your grade at the moment is derived equally from all 50. On the half yearly system, December will be derived from the 25 after July 1st plus 5 from the the tail end of the previous year, June say. Thus the games played in June will be counted both in the list published in July and the list published in January. Similarly the games played in December will have been counted twice if they appear in the following July list.

[Alex Holowczak]

If you need n games from the previous period to make up your 30, you would expect them to be the n most recent games.

I don't know that I agree with this. If, say, you consistently play around 25 games in a half year, then your grade at the moment is derived equally from all 50. On the half yearly system, December will be derived from the 25 after July 1st plus 5 from the the tail end of the previous year, June say. Thus the games played in June will be counted both in the list published in July and the list published in January. Similarly the games played in December will have been counted twice if they appear in the following July list.

What's wrong with that? Both systems count the most recent 30 games. The fact that they appeared in a previous list isn't a problem, surely? At the moment this happens with the 12 month list. If I play 20 games two seasons in a row, the 20 games in season 1 are counted twice when they're counted to bring my games up to 30 in season 2's calculation.

I agree with Richard that if I expected to have games brought forward to get to a total of 30, I'd expect the most recent games to be brought forward.

[Richard Bates]

I don't understand why anyone thinks it is a good idea to have two officially endorsed grading lists in operation at the same time.

We do with FIDE-ratings in the 4NCL. The season lasts longer than the rating list. It doesn't cause that much difficulty.

Also seems a bit strange that leagues will be allowed to submit all their games at the end of the season and have them graded in the August list. Clearly it undermines the principle of six monthly lists, but for leagues intending to use one list (the August one) it is an entirely rational thing to do! For the accuracy/relevance of the grading list that they use, they would obviously want all games played in their league included in that grading list.

If a league doesn't submit its results in January, how are the graders supposed to know? It might have lapsed, for example. So there'd be no results to actually chase. So they submit in one big lump at the end. Is Richard then supposed to refuse the games because they didn't submit the pre-Christmas games pre-Christmas? That would be churlish. Besides, the precedent is that if a grading file is submitted late, then it ends up being graded as an event late to report anyway. So these would be events reporting late. How do you distinguish between the two types of late reporting?

From one perspective, I find it vaguely bizarre that it says that the ECF are intending to use the August list for the national stages of the Counties Championship. Which doesn't start until April!

Remember though that the Union stages start in October(ish) the previous year, and would use the June list. It would be ridiculous for someone to be able to play in (say) the Under 140 team at the Union stage with a grade of 139, then get kicked out of the team at the national stage if his grade rose to 141 in the January list.

I agree with all your points*. But every single one of them undermines the case for having a six monthly list on the basis that it is apparently to operate. The point being that (assuming you play enough) games played before Christmas will never affect your eligibility for year long competitions.

*(although on the 4NCL point there is only one list for the purposes of board order etc - the latest one - the SCCU site says that league objections can be dismissed by opting to use the 'out-of-date' August list which from the precedent of the 4NCL won't work).

[Alex Holowczak]

I agree with all your points*. But every single one of them undermines the case for having a six monthly list on the basis that it is apparently to operate. The point being that (assuming you play enough) games played before Christmas will never affect your eligibility for year long competitions.

I don't think this argument was the one put forward was it? I think the better arguments were: We're one of the few countries in the world who do this; it helps track junior improvement; it's an enhancement that won't cost us anything to implement. These were probably more convincing arguments.

*(although on the 4NCL point there is only one list for the purposes of board order etc - the latest one - the SCCU site says that league objections can be dismissed by opting to use the 'out-of-date' August list which from the precedent of the 4NCL won't work).

In which case, the league can modify their rules to make use of it. It's no big deal.

[Sean Hewitt]

I don't understand why anyone thinks it is a good idea to have two officially endorsed grading lists in operation at the same time.

We do with FIDE-ratings in the 4NCL. The season lasts longer than the rating list. It doesn't cause that much difficulty.

I thought the 4NCL used the list in force at weekend, not the one in force at the start of the season? I'm sure this was implemented last year or the year before.

From one perspective, I find it vaguely bizarre that it says that the ECF are intending to use the August list for the national stages of the Counties Championship. Which doesn't start until April!

Remember though that the Union stages start in October(ish) the previous year, and would use the June list. It would be ridiculous for someone to be able to play in (say) the Under 140 team at the Union stage with a grade of 139, then get kicked out of the team at the national stage if his grade rose to 141 in the January list.

Which is more ridiculous?

Option A : Someone playing in the U140 Union stage with a grade of 139 and then being banished from the national stages when his grade increases to 171 ; or

Option B : A player graded 171 helping his team to win the U140 national finals?

[Richard Bates]

I agree with all your points*. But every single one of them undermines the case for having a six monthly list on the basis that it is apparently to operate. The point being that (assuming you play enough) games played before Christmas will never affect your eligibility for year long competitions.

I don't think this argument was the one put forward was it? I think the better arguments were: We're one of the few countries in the world who do this; it helps track junior improvement; it's an enhancement that won't cost us anything to implement. These were probably more convincing arguments.

No this is an argument against it, obviously.

Whether six monthly lists (calculated independently, rather than on a rolling basis) are a "cost-free enhancement" depends on your view on whether it will make the grades more or less accurate. I would tend towards the view that for many it would make them less accurate because the volatility will increase (for players of established strength, grades based on a greater number are more accurate). I would be fully in favour of a six monthly rolling list. I would also be in favour of the August grades being calculated as now, but with a January list showing the season to date. I don't like the idea of two independent lists.

Any comparison with FIDE is misleading because of the fundamentally different statistical basis upon which the two systems are based. Logically FIDE needs frequent publication, in a way the the ECF list does not.

[Alex Holowczak]

I thought the 4NCL used the list in force at weekend, not the one in force at the start of the season? I'm sure this was implemented last year or the year before.

Well if they do, there's no problem. It's an example of a league using the up to date rating list if it so desires.

Option A : Someone playing in the U140 Union stage with a grade of 139 and then being banished from the national stages when his grade increases to 171 ; or

Option B : A player graded 171 helping his team to win the U140 national finals?

Option B could have happened for years anyway. The Semi Finals and Finals usually take place after the May cutoff, but the new June grade hasn't been published by the date the Final has been played. So they could be accused of playing with the wrong grade anyway. So really, you'd only end up playing with the "wrong" grade for one or two extra matches than you do now. (Admittedly this is half of the national stages!)

In my opinion, it's not an issue worth losing sleep over.

[Sean Hewitt]

Option A : Someone playing in the U140 Union stage with a grade of 139 and then being banished from the national stages when his grade increases to 171 ; or

Option B : A player graded 171 helping his team to win the U140 national finals?

In my opinion, it's not an issue worth losing sleep over.

I shall remind you of this when it happens at next years finals and there is a twenty page thread on this forum complaining about it.

[Richard Bates]

Option B : A player graded 171 helping his team to win the U140 national finals?

Option B could have happened for years anyway. The Semi Finals and Finals usually take place after the May cutoff, but the new June grade hasn't been published by the date the Final has been played. So they could be accused of playing with the wrong grade anyway. So really, you'd only end up playing with the "wrong" grade for one or two extra matches than you do now. (Admittedly this is half of the national stages!)

If a grade hasn't been published it doesn't exist. That's why it is dated by the publication date, not by the cutoff date.

Anyway you seem to be arguing two contradictory positions. On the one hand you say that leagues should use the most up-to-date grades (a la the 4NCL). Perfectly sensibly, since as most leagues stipulate "in order of strength", perhaps with a clause specifying +/-10pts to avoid abuse, and using the August list would undermine this completely when an alternative and more up-to-date official estimate of strength is in existence. On the other hand you say that it is "ridiculous" that the National Stages of the Counties Championship should use January grades!

[Roger de Coverly]

If I play 20 games two seasons in a row, the 20 games in season 1 are counted twice when they're counted to bring my games up to 30 in season 2's calculation.

If I understand the current long play system correctly, then the method used for a player playing a consistent 20 games a season would be to calculate a performance for each season and then set the grade as two-thirds this season plus one-third last season. So all games from the previous season are included twice but at full weight in the first year of counting and half weight in the second.

If you move to a system whereby you bring in the most recent ten from the previous period, the calculation switches to the grade being two-thirds of the performance this season plus one-third of the performance in the second half of last year.

So games from the previous season are counted once or twice depending on their place in the date sequence. Hence my comment about end of season games counting for more in the series of published grades. Examples can be constructed to illustrate the potential anomalies. You take a player who always has a 140 performance over their first ten games of a season and 160 over the last ten. Under the current calculation methods, their grade is always 150. Under a "last games count" system, their grade is 153.

Perhaps on average across the whole list it makes no difference whatsoever. A parallel run would check this out. Has the change been tested?

[Roger de Coverly]

On the one hand you say that leagues should use the most up-to-date grades (a la the 4NCL).

Leagues have two issues which pull them in opposite directions.

You have "order of strength" conventions which direct you to using the more recent list. A flexible approach would allow match captains to retain board orders from earlier in the season, or to promote or demote players based on the most recent list.

The other issue is eligibility, which could take the form of explicit grading limits or indirect limits based on establishing squads of players eligible for particular teams. For eligibilities, I think you want a rule which said that if you were eligible when the squads were selected in September, you keep that eligibility through the season. The ECF evidently regard the Counties Championships as a single event rather than separate Union and National competitions.

[Alex Holowczak]

Anyway you seem to be arguing two contradictory positions. On the one hand you say that leagues should use the most up-to-date grades (a la the 4NCL). Perfectly sensibly, since as most leagues stipulate "in order of strength", perhaps with a clause specifying +/-10pts to avoid abuse, and using the August list would undermine this completely when an alternative and more up-to-date official estimate of strength is in existence. On the other hand you say that it is "ridiculous" that the National Stages of the Counties Championship should use January grades!

Not at all. I'm suggesting that:
(a) Grade-restricted leagues should use the start of season list, so people don't suddenly find themselves ineligible for something they started off eligible for
(b) Non-restricted leagues should use the most up-to-date list, since it doesn't make much difference. For example, a cup competition in Worcestershire with a grading handicap decided yesterday to use the most up-to-date list, since they could; it rendered no one ineligible, it just altered the handicap.

If you move to a system whereby you bring in the most recent ten from the previous period, the calculation switches to the grade being two-thirds of the performance this season plus one-third of the performance in the second half of last year.

Agreed. That sounds like an improvement to me!

Has the change been tested?

Well it's the rapidplay system, so I assume it must have been at some point in the last 15 years.

[Richard Bates]

Not at all. I'm suggesting that:
(a) Grade-restricted leagues should use the start of season list, so people don't suddenly find themselves ineligible for something they started off eligible for
(b) Non-restricted leagues should use the most up-to-date list, since it doesn't make much difference. For example, a cup competition in Worcestershire with a grading handicap decided yesterday to use the most up-to-date list, since they could; it rendered no one ineligible, it just altered the handicap.

If somebody is 125 on the August list and plays board 12 in their U140 team, and then top graded 155 on the January list what board should they (be allowed and/or forced to) play on in the National qualifiers?

Alternatively if somebody is 143 on the August list but 137 on the January list, should they be allowed to compete in the National stages U140?

And what if the Regional Unions rule that the most up-to-date lists should be used for their qualifiers?

Well it's the rapidplay system, so I assume it must have been at some point in the last 15 years.

Doesn't everyone know that the Rapidplay list is a bit of a joke?

[Alex Holowczak]

If somebody is 125 on the August list and plays board 12 in their U140 team, and then top graded 155 on the January list what board should they (be allowed and/or forced to) play on in the National qualifiers?

Alternatively if somebody is 143 on the August list but 137 on the January list, should they be allowed to compete in the National stages U140?

And what if the Regional Unions rule that the most up-to-date lists should be used for their qualifiers?

The words "mountain" and "molehill" spring to mind.

Doesn't everyone know that the Rapidplay list is a bit of a joke?

My rapidplay grade has always been more accurate than my standardplay grade. At least, that's my impression of it...

[Roger de Coverly]

Well it's the rapidplay system, so I assume it must have been at some point in the last 15 years.

If you go back that far, it was a struggle to get any sensible grading list at all, never mind proper testing. Does anyone recall the 2000 list which on first publication contained only games from the second half of the season?

http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/0001/grad.htm

I'm uneasy about citing the rapid-play list as an example. Being discrete tournaments rapid play events are weeks if not months apart, so there isn't the potential anomaly that a league game played on a Wednesday is only counted in one season or one half season's results whereas one played the very next day will be included in two consecutive lists.