English Chess Forum

This went live this morning, and contains quite a number of revised grades:

http://www.ecfgrading.org.uk/

_________________
Michael Bennett
Hendon Chess Club: http://www.hendonchessclub.com
Golders Green Rapidplays: http://www.goldersgreenchess.blogspot.com

Will whoever needs to know please note that the results of all the matches in the week 2 rapidplay at this year's British Championship have been included under the standard play list instead of the rapidplay one.

Just an update on my above post ... I have since been in touch with the ECF regarding the games having been put into the wrong sections and received a reply back at 10.30am on Tuesday 28 August from an official who says it HAS been corrected - however, over 24 hours after that reply the grading database still shows the games played in the Week 2 rapidplay (Open section) at this year's British Championships in the standard play section. (I have no problem with genuine errors being made, but for someone to say they have done something and to find out it has not been so does not go down well.)

My original post above was merely trying to assist in pointing out an error which has easily been made considering the amount of work the appropriate officials have to do and that unless it is rectified the players' gradings will be affected as they have been scored at their standard play rate instead of rapidplay - ie: one player's games in that event are shown as him having a grade of 215 (his standard play grade) whereas his actual rapidplay grade is 196; therefore any opponent he played would gain 19 points more than they should.

I have therefore again contacted the official who said that it has been corrected to point out that it had certainly not yet changed on the database on view to the public.

This particular post is just meant as information for forumites as my reply from the ECF official also stated that they had seen my original post but "I don't respond to Forum posts pointing out errors, because the Forum is the wrong person to tell !"

This means that the internal grading system has now corrected the event. So it will appear as Rapidplay in the grading database, and everything is sorted. The error has disappeared.



The online list is not updated at the same time as the internal database. It's updated monthly. There are good reasons for this: For example, Richard and Mike have better things to do with their lives than put grading updates on the website every other day of the year.



They've done what you've asked them to do - turn the event from standardplay to rapidplay in the grading system. They won't put it online until the September update goes live.

_________________
February 16-17: 2013 BUCA Team Championship
April 20: 2013 British Blitz Championship
July 27-August 10: 100th British Chess Championships

If the above had been explained in the reply I got from the official then that would have been fine, but all that was said was that it had been corrected yet to the viewing public nothing had altered !

To be fair, others who played in that event (who don't read the forum) may send in e-mails pointing out the same thing. They likely already have. While I can understand that updates of the entire database would be time-consuming, maybe the grading team could consider maintaining an online list of "corrections received that will appear in the next update"? That may avoid some duplicate answering of e-mails that point out the same errors.

This page shows that the Rapidplay events are Rapidplay graded: http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/events1213.htm

I don't know if it said that prior to the correction being made, but this is usually a good port of call. It does say it was last updated yesterday.

_________________
February 16-17: 2013 BUCA Team Championship
April 20: 2013 British Blitz Championship
July 27-August 10: 100th British Chess Championships

Increasing the frequency of the updates would enhance the grading website towards doubling up, like the FIDE site, as a tournament and league results archive. But if it isn't straightforward, leaving it as a low priority objective or even no objective at all is not an issue provided the periodic nature of the updates is known to those who might otherwise expect it to be nearly instant.