New grades (split from Editorial thread)

[Sean Hewitt]

With all due respect Sean, points lost to the system are important. If a players goes from 40 to 100 and then leaves, the points he has gained will have been taken from other players remaining in the system. I am suggesing that new players (U18) would be given a nominal grade of 80 to initiate grading calculations. Foreign players do not have to given a grade of 80 they can simply have a grade calculated from there national/FIDE rating using the formula FIDE = ECF*8 + 600. I am not claiming that this is as mathematically rigorous as the current system, I am just saying it works. It is effectively how the system worked twenty years ago when deflation was not a problem.

The problem here is not the player leaving the system, but the fact that he is a rapidply improving player. Whether he stays in the system or leaves is irrelevant, the damage is done.

Imagine the same 40 graded player stays at 40 strenth and then leaves. He's still taking his points with him, but no damage is done.

[Dr Andrew Cula]

And on the plus side there should be very few people who are not eligble to pay the ECF £5 for these: (http://www.englishchess.org.uk/events/b ... points.htm ).

I'm sure the raised grades, and dumbing down of this system are not related.

Signed Chess "Maestro"

[Roger de Coverly]

I think if the ECF stage-manages this correctly (explains it clearly and simply, with a technical report also available to download) then I see little opposition from regular chess players.

Given the general level of secrecy which has surrounded this project (count the reports on the main ECF website for example), it's likely that relatively few players and organisers are yet aware of what's being done. As they are doing a complete reboot of the system, the level at which they pitch the new grades is arbitrary and therefore IMHO should have been put to the ECF board and council for approval. There may even be October council motions to this effect.

Howard Grist has stated earlier that the problem is one of attenuation - in other words the spread between high grades and low grades increases over time. This will look like deflation at the low end ( where there are more players) and inflation at the high end ( citing the current FIDE ratings of top players). Players in the middle will stay put. For example you can obtain a 150 grade by playing an average field of 150 (+/- 25) and drawing with everyone from 125 to 175. Your grade against the sub 150's is 137.5 and against the over 150s, 162.5. The statistic may only demonstrate that you play the Caro-Kahn

Sean thinks the problem is to do with rapidly improving players. I'd agree but rapidly improving players have been with us for 40 years and in fewer numbers than there have been in the past.

The difference in the past few years in the treatment of new players is that the estimation software may well bring them in at a lower level than the previous approach of grader's guess/estimate thereby acting as a deflation pull in the sub 100 range. I don't think the practice of using the rapid play grade as an estimator helps much either.

The generally stable level of the grades of players in the over 125 area and the general stability in the sum(published grades)/number(published players) statistic suggests to me that adding 15-25 points across the board is an inflationary increase . I would also agree with the blogger that if you going to do a lot of analysis work on the system and introduce a discontinuity in the historic series of grades, then you might as well formulate the necessary rules and calculate an Elo based system at the same time.

[Sean Hewitt]

As they are doing a complete reboot of the system, the level at which they pitch the new grades is arbitrary and therefore IMHO should have been put to the ECF board and council for approval. There may even be October council motions to this effect..

This is complete nonsense. The level for the new grades is far from arbitrary. The Statistics show that players graded more than 215 have not suffered from deflation. To change their grades in anyway would be totally wrong. Therefore, it was decided to use this steady group as the base, and re-grade everyone else relative to this base. How on earth can that be said to be anything other than right and proper??

Howard Grist has stated earlier that the problem is one of attenuation - in other words the spread between high grades and low grades increases over time. This will look like deflation at the low end ( where there are more players) and inflation at the high end ( citing the current FIDE ratings of top players). Players in the middle will stay put.
..

We are not talking about an ELO based system - we are talking about the Clarke system. If this were true of the ECF grading database, perhaps you could explain why there is no inflation (or deflation for that matter) of our highest graded n (215+) players?

Sean thinks the problem is to do with rapidly improving players. I'd agree but rapidly improving players have been with us for 40 years and in fewer numbers than there have been in the past.
.

Absolute numbers are meaningless. Ratios are the important consideration - and 32% of players in the ECF grading database are juniors. I would be amazed (though I dont know) if the ratio has ever been as high as that previously.

The difference in the past few years in the treatment of new players is that the estimation software may well bring them in at a lower level than the previous approach of grader's guess/estimate thereby acting as a deflation pull in the sub 100 range. I don't think the practice of using the rapid play grade as an estimator helps much either. .

So, you are suggesting that when the ECF, 5 years ago replaced a graders "guessed grade" for new players with an accurate, calculated, grading estimate this somehow caused deflation that we know has been around for at least 12 years and by extrapolation has been around for 30 years?? What utter tosh!!

The generally stable level of the grades of players in the over 125 area and the general stability in the sum(published grades)/number(published players) statistic suggests to me that adding 15-25 points across the board is an inflationary increase . I would also agree with the blogger that if you going to do a lot of analysis work on the system and introduce a discontinuity in the historic series of grades, then you might as well formulate the necessary rules and calculate an Elo based system at the same time.

Roger, Roger, Roger - what is your agenda here? On what basis do you make the completely false claim that grades of players over 125 are generally stable? They aren't - so show us your evidence! And although the mean average is approximately static, this is meaningless and proves nothing (either way). I've already proved that with an ealier post so if you are having to resort to previously discredited claims you must be on shaky ground.

[Howard Grist]

As they are doing a complete reboot of the system, the level at which they pitch the new grades is arbitrary and therefore IMHO should have been put to the ECF board and council for approval. There may even be October council motions to this effect..

This is complete nonsense. The level for the new grades is far from arbitrary. The Statistics show that players graded more than 215 have not suffered from deflation. To change their grades in anyway would be totally wrong. Therefore, it was decided to use this steady group as the base, and re-grade everyone else relative to this base. How on earth can that be said to be anything other than right and proper??

Sean,

I'm afraid it's your comment that is complete nonsense. Roger correctly states that the level at which the new grades are set is arbitrary. You could set it so that the 150 players come out at 150 and then say that the 150 players have not suffered from deflation and so to change their grades would be totally wrong. I'd agree that having the level set so that it is players in the 200-250 region do not change is sensible - you'd get far more objections from people if they believed that their grade is 'going down' even though any absolute comparison between the two grades is meaningless.

32% of players in the ECF grading database are juniors. I would be amazed (though I dont know) if the ratio has ever been as high as that previously.

Prepare to be amazed. Three years ago the figure was 39%.

...caused deflation that we know has been around for at least 12 years and by extrapolation has been around for 30 years??

We know that the problem was present before the current system was introduced in 2003. Unless anyone has a load of results from before then, then anything else is pure speculation. Since no-one else has mentioned it, I will speculate that it could be the system introduced in 1999 that caused the problem.

[E Michael White]

Sean Hewitt wrote:
...caused deflation that we know has been around for at least 12 years and by extrapolation has been around for 30 years?

Howard Grist replied:

We know that the problem was present before the current system was introduced in 2003. Unless anyone has a load of results from before then, then anything else is pure speculation. Since no-one else has mentioned it, I will speculate that it could be the system introduced in 1999 that caused the problem.

In the early 1970s grades were occasionally increased by small amounts, 1 to 2 points as the system was known to be deflationary then. From what I remember 1973 was one of these bonus years. I dont know when these bonus years stopped; maybe it was when junior supplements came in and it was believed the problem would be solved.

Ian Kingston wrote:
.... do you know what's being done to prevent deflation in the future?

Howard Grist replied:

Hopefully it will go away, but we'll certanly be keeping an eye open for it ?

There is clearly more than one cause for deflation and it would be unwise to assume the current changes will fix it.

[Sean Hewitt]

I'm afraid it's your comment that is complete nonsense. Roger correctly states that the level at which the new grades are set is arbitrary. You could set it so that the 150 players come out at 150 and then say that the 150 players have not suffered from deflation and so to change their grades would be totally wrong. I'd agree that having the level set so that it is players in the 200-250 region do not change is sensible - you'd get far more objections from people if they believed that their grade is 'going down' even though any absolute comparison between the two grades is meaningless..

Howard, have you been on the sauce? That's utter garbage, and you know it. The statistical evidence shows that there has been deflation for all sections of the ECF grading system below current 215 - and that the lower the grade the larger the deflation has been. Therefore the only way to "correct" the system is to leave the grades that are ok (215+) alone, and correct the other grades relative to the ok ones.

Whilst you could then add or subtract a fixed adjustment to all grades (for example to ensure that 150 grades stayed static) you would not have "corrected" the system to pre-deflation levels.

Prepare to be amazed. Three years ago the figure was 39%..

You really have been on the pop!! We're talking about a much longer time scale than 3 years. What was the ratio 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago?

We know that the problem was present before the current system was introduced in 2003. Unless anyone has a load of results from before then, then anything else is pure speculation. Since no-one else has mentioned it, I will speculate that it could be the system introduced in 1999 that caused the problem...

Then how come the problem existed in the 70's, 80's and 90's Howard?

[Roger de Coverly]

Then how come the problem existed in the 70's, 80's and 90's Howard?

Because either it didn't or was balanced by an equal force in the opposite direction. Why not listen to those who were there? You may dismiss the obvious statistic of sum(published grades)/sum(number published) as meaningless(why?) but you'd think that deflation evidence would show up in that statistic over 40 years. Attenuation is plausible because the top of the list used to be at about 240 and it's now 280 (but Adams and Short are "better" than Penrose and Keene). You never saw a grade below 80 and now under that is relatively commonplace.

[Howard Grist]

The statistical evidence shows that there has been deflation for all sections of the ECF grading system below current 215 - and that the lower the grade the larger the deflation has been. Therefore the only way to "correct" the system is to leave the grades that are ok (215+) alone, and correct the other grades relative to the ok ones.

Whilst you could then add or subtract a fixed adjustment to all grades (for example to ensure that 150 grades stayed static) you would not have "corrected" the system to pre-deflation levels.

Sean,
It is not possible to talk about "correcting" the system to "pre-deflation levels" as you do not know what this level is. All you can do is look at the current data, recognise that there is a problem and do something about it. Neither is there any statistical evidence to say that rthere is no problem with players who have grades of 215+. Where is the logic/evidence in saying that everyone else in the system needs a factor of 0.8 or so applied to their grade to bring them back in to line when the top players don't? Their grades are, by and large, calculated as a direct result playing players lower down the pecking order whose grades you've decided to change.

We're talking about a much longer time scale than 3 years. What was the ratio 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago?

Actually Roger mentioned the number of rapidly improving juniors, and your statistic does not address this.

Then how come the problem existed in the 70's, 80's and 90's Howard?

As I said earlier, there is no firm evidence that it did. I'm not saying that it did and I'm not saying that it didn't.

[Sean Hewitt]

It is not possible to talk about "correcting" the system to "pre-deflation levels" as you do not know what this level is. All you can do is look at the current data, recognise that there is a problem and do something about it. Neither is there any statistical evidence to say that rthere is no problem with players who have grades of 215+. Where is the logic/evidence in saying that everyone else in the system needs a factor of 0.8 or so applied to their grade to bring them back in to line when the top players don't? Their grades are, by and large, calculated as a direct result playing players lower down the pecking order whose grades you've decided to change..

Of course it is possible to talk about "correcting" the system to "pre-deflation levels". Thats what the entire debate has been about. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that there is no problem above 215 [see below], and plenty to suggest that there is an issue below that level. The evidence is well documented. If this wasn't the case, the ECF wouldn't be doing be correcting the problem.

Actually Roger mentioned the number of rapidly improving juniors, and your statistic does not address this.

Actually, it was I who spoke about rapidply improving juniors being the source of the deflation problem. My statistic does address this becuase the higher proportion of the players who are juniors, the higher proportion of players are likely to be rapidply improving.

As I said earlier, there is no firm evidence that it did. I'm not saying that it did and I'm not saying that it didn't.

There is very firm evidence. Try looking at players who one would expect to be static in playing strength (ie neither young (improving) nor old (worsening) players). Look at the individuals who were playing some years ago (say 10-15 years) and who are still playing now. Their grades, as a group, have gone down. Not only that, but the lower their initial grade, the more their grade has deflated. This is exactly what we would expect to see if our hypothesis about deflation in the ECF grading system is correct. But the same analysis shows that the strongest players (over 210) have not experienced any deflation whatsoever. This further corroborates the ECFs view on deflation, and shows that the decision to leave such players grades unchanged is anything but arbitrary.

[Sean Hewitt]

Then how come the problem existed in the 70's, 80's and 90's Howard?

Because either it didn't.

It did

or was balanced by an equal force in the opposite direction.
.

Do you have some evidence as to what this equal force is/was? Sounds like you're running the same arguments that those who said the world was flat did in spite of the weight of evidence!

Why not listen to those who were there?
.

Erm... I was there.

You may dismiss the obvious statistic of sum(published grades)/sum(number published) as meaningless(why?) but you'd think that deflation evidence would show up in that statistic over 40 years.

The evidence has shown up. As Michael White points out, it was even known about in the 1970's. They added a few points to peoples grades every 2/3 years as a result!

Why is the mean average meaningless? For someone with a maths degree I'm surprised you have to ask. But I'm happy to demonstrate.

Lets assume that there are 100 chess players in ChessLand, and that all are graded 100. Even RdC should agree that their mean average grade is 100!

Now, 50 of our players up sticks and move to Moscow, and in return 50 Moscovites move to ChessLand. The Moscovites are stronger players (lets say that they are all players of 150 strength). So when the new ChessLand grading list comes out, the Moscovites are graded 150. The ChessLanders are of course still only graded 100. So we now have 50 players graded 100 and 50 players graded 150 in ChessLand. The mean average of the 100 players is now 125 - an increase of 25 (and 25%).

If the mean average is, as RdC claims, a measure of inflation / deflation then we now have 25% inflation in our grading system.

Is this deduction correct? NO, OF COURSE IT ISNT, BECAUSE THE MEAN AVERAGE IS MEANINGLESS.

Equally, I could give you an example of a sytem suffering deflation but where the mean average stays the same but its more long winded. However, I trust the point is made.

[Sean Hewitt]

Guys,

I'm backing out of this debate at this point. Why? Because it's now pointless. The evidence is there and the vast majority of people get it, which is credit to them. A very small but vocal minority seem to choose not to understand. That's fine too, but there is no point getting further involved with those that dont want to believe. When I post the same example three times, I know I'm wasting my breath!

Finally, I will say this. I have been critical of the ECF on many occassions, with justification. This is one thing that the ECF have recognised as a problem, and sought to solve. Only chessplayers would criticise them for that!

[Roger de Coverly]

Look at the individuals who were playing some years ago (say 10-15 years) and who are still playing now. Their grades, as a group, have gone down.

This is what hasn't been convincingly demonstrated. The sceptics are those active players whose grades today are not greatly different from those of 15 years or more ago. If you suggested that the standard of play has risen for a given grade over 15 years, I could accept this and it's the mature players who haven't done the work to keep up who have suffered. Is this deflation or as Tim S suggested is the revaluation an ego-boost for the lazy?

Why is the mean average meaningless? For someone with a maths degree I'm surprised you have to ask. But I'm happy to demonstrate.

Lets assume that there are 100 chess players in ChessLand, and that all are graded 100. Even RdC should agree that their mean average grade is 100!

Now, 50 of our players up sticks and move to Moscow, and in return 50 Moscovites move to ChessLand. The Moscovites are stronger players (lets say that they are all players of 150 strength). So when the new ChessLand grading list comes out, the Moscovites are graded 150. The ChessLanders are of course still only graded 100. So we now have 50 players graded 100 and 50 players graded 150 in ChessLand. The mean average of the 100 players is now 125 - an increase of 25 (and 25%).

Let's try a somewhat more realistic example which assumes the average strength of players is unchanged and there isn't a major influx of strong players.

Every year 10 players give up and are replaced by 10 new players. All the new players are of 100 strength and are estimated as such. Let's suppose that the estimation process is changed so that they get an estimate of 80 instead of 100 ( remember they are still 100 strength). The average grade goes down because of the estimation process and the estimation has introduced deflation.

[Ben Hague]

I don't really have the expertise to argue with the statistics, but I do wonder why I can't think of any examples if the effect is so major and widespread. I haven't been playing as long as some, but I still have 20 years experience and those players I can think of whose grade has dropped all have simple explanations, generally either loss of interest, or loss of time due to university/work/family commitments. Also a few due to age as mentioned above and a couple due to drink/drugs. But no-one who's kept about the same number of games per year whose grade has dropped significantly.
So can anyone else come up with examples? Is there a particular area where it's more prevalent, or is my memory going?

[Greg Breed]

And on the plus side there should be very few people who are not eligble to pay the ECF £5 for these: (http://www.englishchess.org.uk/events/b ... points.htm ).

I'm sure the raised grades, and dumbing down of this system are not related.

Signed Chess "Maestro"

Excellent. With this new measure I can increase my grade despite performing below my current grade and get an award for it

Signed Team Master (soon to be Club Master)