2010/ 11 grades
-
- Posts: 2720
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:16 pm
- Location: NW4 4UY
Re: 2010/ 11 grades
However, if you are using ECF grades to put a team in strict grading / strength order, you could use A-E to help you out - two players with the same grade, the A grade goes above the B-E grades.
Adam Raoof IA, IO
Chess England Events - https://chessengland.com/
The Chess Circuit - https://chesscircuit.substack.com/
Don’t stop playing chess!
Chess England Events - https://chessengland.com/
The Chess Circuit - https://chesscircuit.substack.com/
Don’t stop playing chess!
-
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:53 pm
- Location: Oxford, UK
Re: 2010/ 11 grades
Interesting.
As per the spec *on average* E grades will be just as representative as A grades. Of course, *variability* is higher for E players. My grade is E154, which might mean (say) that my "true grade" (whatever *that* means) is somewhere between 154 +/- 15 (say from 139 to 169); on the other hand someone with A154 might be 154 +/- 5 (say from 149 to 159).
I don't think you'd choose to put A154 ahead of E154 in strength, necessarily: you might be more tempted to use the 'A'-graded player in a club team if you thought them more likely to be able to play more games during the coming season, though, because they tend to play more: that's not a strength issue, of course.
As per the spec *on average* E grades will be just as representative as A grades. Of course, *variability* is higher for E players. My grade is E154, which might mean (say) that my "true grade" (whatever *that* means) is somewhere between 154 +/- 15 (say from 139 to 169); on the other hand someone with A154 might be 154 +/- 5 (say from 149 to 159).
I don't think you'd choose to put A154 ahead of E154 in strength, necessarily: you might be more tempted to use the 'A'-graded player in a club team if you thought them more likely to be able to play more games during the coming season, though, because they tend to play more: that's not a strength issue, of course.
-
- Posts: 8838
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
- Location: London
Re: 2010/ 11 grades
I would look at recent form, if available, and use that, rather than A-E categories. But if an E-grade player was performing much better or worse than his or her grade, I would then mentally discard the E-grade as unreliable. The bit about availability is a good point, though. If you can't get players to commit and say how much chess they are likely to play in a season, the A-E stuff will give some indication. And I say this as someone who once (for a match) looked up players grades (for both teams) going back three years... It turned out to be a bit of a pointless exercise, but it was interesting to be able to see people's grading history over the years and see if their grade was trending up or trending down.Dave Ewart wrote:Interesting.
As per the spec *on average* E grades will be just as representative as A grades. Of course, *variability* is higher for E players. My grade is E154, which might mean (say) that my "true grade" (whatever *that* means) is somewhere between 154 +/- 15 (say from 139 to 169); on the other hand someone with A154 might be 154 +/- 5 (say from 149 to 159).
I don't think you'd choose to put A154 ahead of E154 in strength, necessarily: you might be more tempted to use the 'A'-graded player in a club team if you thought them more likely to be able to play more games during the coming season, though, because they tend to play more: that's not a strength issue, of course.