Survey: Online Grading Database / Grading Seminar

General discussions about ratings.
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Survey: Online Grading Database / Grading Seminar

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Aug 28, 2011 12:33 am

Something that really should be captured and recorded is the annual player count, both standard and rapidplay. It's available for more recent years and shows a generally static trend even though there's a 15% churn rate.

The annual count is around 10,000 for standard play rising to around 12,000 when you include rapidplay.

In the late eighties the count would have been in excess of 20,000. You can establish this from the number of pages in the printed list and the number of players per page. So at some time, the player count must have fallen off dramatically. I don't know when this was

Richard Haddrell

Re: Survey: Online Grading Database / Grading Seminar

Post by Richard Haddrell » Sun Aug 28, 2011 7:34 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:In the late eighties the count would have been in excess of 20,000. You can establish this from the number of pages in the printed list and the number of players per page. So at some time, the player count must have fallen off dramatically. I don't know when this was
It’s hard to establish figures for the eighties. Only one ECF grading list (1988) actually bears out Roger’s "in excess of 20,000" claim, though his impression may well be true of earlier years.

The ECF’s first attempt at a "real" national list, with no lower grading limit, was in 1986. But it was limited to grades A - C (and also, for whatever reason, excluded the NCCU). The 1987 list includes the NCCU but still hardly goes below C grade. Only in 1988 did the list assume its modern form, with grades going all the way down to E.

Anyway, some figures. I give them to the nearest 100 but doubt if my counting really achieved that level of accuracy.
1986........... 5400
1987........... 7900
1988.......... 19300 (edit)
1989.......... 17600 (edit)
1990.......... 18300 (edit)
1991.......... 17100 (edit)
1992.......... 14500 (edit)
1993.......... 15000
1994.......... 14500
1995.......... 15000
1996.......... 15200
1997.......... 14200
1998.......... 12600
1999.......... 12500
So by the end of the nineties the figures are already quite close to their current levels.
2000.......... 12300
2001.......... 12500
2002.......... 12200
2003.......... 12900
2004.......... 12400
And the rest is at http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/grad.htm#stat but, for completeness:
2005.......... 12200
2006.......... 11900
2007.......... 11800
2008.......... 11800
2009.......... 11700
2010.......... 11600
2011.......... 11900

What is the effect of Rapidplay? Rapidplay grades first appear in the 1999 list, where they seem to have little effect on the number of names. All lists since then have included Rapidplay. These days Rapidplay-only accounts for something over 1500 names, and juniors obviously have a lot to do with it. Junior events have featured heavily in grading since 2002 at least, and no doubt earlier.

For what it’s worth: junior halfgames graded went down by one-third, from 96043 in 2004 to 64088 in 2005, after the ECF introduced junior Game Fee at the start of the 2004-5 season. Rapidplay names fell from 4514 to 3677. Beyond that I’ve not attempted separate figures for Standard and Rapid in the period 1999-2004.
Last edited by Richard Haddrell on Sun Aug 28, 2011 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 8806
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Survey: Online Grading Database / Grading Seminar

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Sun Aug 28, 2011 7:46 pm

Is it possible that double-counting was going on in the early lists? Or was there some real decrease? The stability in the numbers over the last decade might suggest that the figures from 1988-1997 are anomalous, but without reliable earlier figures it is difficult to tell.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Survey: Online Grading Database / Grading Seminar

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:08 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Is it possible that double-counting was going on in the early lists? Or was there some real decrease? The stability in the numbers over the last decade might suggest that the figures from 1988-1997 are anomalous, but without reliable earlier figures it is difficult to tell.
Chess declined in the 1990s, alright. The Birmingham League shrunk by about half. The decline is much later than I thought it'd be. Possibly dwindling media interest, the advent of new technologies (computers), and other factors all increased the desire to do something else other than chess.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Survey: Online Grading Database / Grading Seminar

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Aug 28, 2011 9:50 pm

Richard Haddrell wrote:It’s hard to establish figures for the eighties. Only one ECF grading list (1988) actually bears out Roger’s "in excess of 20,000" claim, though his impression may well be true of earlier years.
Which was the list I had looked at.

You can also get a feel for the size of the graded population in the early 80s from the top player lists published in the YearBook and in the magazines. Oddly though, there seem to be more players in the above 175 band, now than then, despite a general perception that numbers have declined. The more stringent rules for inclusion would have something to do with it, as presumably has the number of players 240 and above.

Over time it's become easier to include all players. In the days when methods where mostly manual, was it not the case that lower divisions of leagues or junior competitions wouldn't be graded?

Richard Haddrell

Re: Survey: Online Grading Database / Grading Seminar

Post by Richard Haddrell » Mon Aug 29, 2011 12:01 am

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Is it possible that double-counting was going on in the early lists?
I don’t know about that, but I’m afraid there has been miscounting. By me, through insufficient sampling. My figures for 1988-1992 all seem to have been inflated, somehow, and I can’t even confirm Roger’s "in excess of 20,000" any more. The decline since the late eighties isn’t in doubt.

I’ve edited my figures for those years. Post-1992 I don’t think correction's required, but I wouldn’t advise taking the hundreds digit too seriously.
Last edited by Richard Haddrell on Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Survey: Online Grading Database / Grading Seminar

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Aug 29, 2011 12:30 am

Richard Haddrell wrote: and I can’t even confirm Roger’s "in excess of 20,000" any more.
.
I was working from 211 pages in the 1988 list and 100 names per page.

Richard Haddrell

Re: Survey: Online Grading Database / Grading Seminar

Post by Richard Haddrell » Mon Aug 29, 2011 12:04 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:I was working from 211 pages in the 1988 list and 100 names per page.
My original estimate was similar - 98 names per page - but (much) bigger samples afterwards have given a figure close to 91, and I’m sure that isn’t far out. Similar remarks apply to my working on the next four lists. After 1992 I seem to have woken up, and I think my figures as edited are reasonable.