The plans for the Grading System

[NickFaulks]

I'd be interested to hear from the people developing/maintaining these event management systems: would they take advantage of public APIs to submit result for grading automatically if those APIs were available?

I wondered whether that was where this was leading.

"As stated in the specification, the ECF require ownership of the code, of which the preference is for it to be based on open source applications"

This isn't my field and I may have it completely wrong.

[Mick Norris]

I have to admit I did not read the full tender document, but I thought of a slightly different approach to the problem.

The current proposal has an ECF owned event management system linked to the grading database; this has the drawback of upseting users of different event management systems and also frustrating developers of those other tools.

An alternative approach could be for the ECF to upgrade the grading website with public APIs to allow for automatic submission of results from compliant/certified applications. Then the ECF would allow the developers of all existing event management systems to upgrade their tools to use those API. Chances are the developers would include this functionality at no cost for the ECF, similarly to how they developed those systems in the first place. Costs for the ECF would be limited to defining and implementing those open access API, much lower than providing a full system with source code ownership. Chances are some developers of the existing systems will include the functionality, some will not; in any event end users will drive these developments and reward the tools that add the functionality of deemed useful. Users of tools that do not comply will have to submit results manually.

I'd be interested to hear from the people developing/maintaining these event management systems: would they take advantage of public APIs to submit result for grading automatically if those APIs were available?

Paolo

It would be great if you could email the ECF and point this out to them

[Roger de Coverly]

I think you are grossly exaggerating the issue.

I don't think so. This year I played in the Hastings weekender which was Under 2040 with no Open above it. I couldn't enter for certain until after the 1st December FIDE list came out, or that I knew what the 1st November rating list was and the results of my subsequent games in November.

Kidlington last weekend, ran both eligibility and pairings on the 1st July 2015 grades. Or at least I assume they ran eligibility that way. My last round opponent had entered late enough and the grades were early enough that he could have asked about the U-180. It does present a practical problem to players who are on or about a cut off point as to whether they are or will remain eligible for their preferred section.

[Roger de Coverly]

An alternative approach could be for the ECF to upgrade the grading website with public APIs to allow for automatic submission of results from compliant/certified applications.

From a slightly different viewpoint, there is potential for rating or grading fraud, if all and sundry are allowed to upload data to the ECF grading system. The application might be compliant or certified, but the supposed 20-0 match loss by A Sandbagger rather less so. For that reason the concept of a local gatekeeper (local grader) is likely to have to remain.

Your point remains though. If the ECF simplified the data structure required to submit results for grading, the need to rely on ageing programs to get data into the appropriate form is eliminated.

[Brian Towers]

The current proposal has an ECF owned event management system linked to the grading database; this has the drawback of upseting users of different event management systems and also frustrating developers of those other tools.

An alternative approach could be for the ECF to upgrade the grading website with public APIs to allow for automatic submission of results from compliant/certified applications. Then the ECF would allow the developers of all existing event management systems to upgrade their tools to use those API. Chances are the developers would include this functionality at no cost for the ECF, similarly to how they developed those systems in the first place. Costs for the ECF would be limited to defining and implementing those open access API, much lower than providing a full system with source code ownership. Chances are some developers of the existing systems will include the functionality, some will not; in any event end users will drive these developments and reward the tools that add the functionality of deemed useful. Users of tools that do not comply will have to submit results manually.

Spot on! You've hit the nail on the head.

Had the ECF taken this step 10 or 15 years ago this might just have been acceptable (big corporations like MS would still have been slammed for this behaviour) but now they are so far behind the curve that the industry approach outlined by Paolo above is really the only acceptable one.

[Carl Hibbard]

XML against a proper schema that can be consumed isn't hard in this day and age.

[Brian Towers]

An alternative approach could be for the ECF to upgrade the grading website with public APIs to allow for automatic submission of results from compliant/certified applications.

From a slightly different viewpoint, there is potential for rating or grading fraud, if all and sundry are allowed to upload data to the ECF grading system. The application might be compliant or certified, but the supposed 20-0 match loss by A Sandbagger rather less so. For that reason the concept of a local gatekeeper (local grader) is likely to have to remain.

You really are still very 20th century, Roger. I was working on similar systems in industry 10 to 15 years ago. Part of the API doubtless envisages involves security and authorization. At one extreme this can mean that only messages received from a whitelisted set of IP addresses are accepted at the other a simple username/password (and in the ECF's document security does get a mention). At the server end it means logging and rollback capability because human beings make mistakes from time to time and these have to be easily correctable. (This looks like an omission in the ECF document)

It is worth reading the ECF's Invitation to Tender document. My impression of it is that it is a wide ranging wish list which could have done with more widespread consultation with developers of such software (which already exists from several different sources) to get a more serviceable product.

One interesting contradiction in the document which demonstrates a lack of knowledge about open source copyrights (or copylefts if you want to be suitably apolitical ) is this

Ownership
The ECF should own the server on which the application is hosted, and also the copyright for the code used to create the system.

Open Source Software
The software when written should not be using proprietary software where possible – if it can be written using open source software, this will be desirable.

Anybody broadly familiar with open source copyright will know that this usually specifies that products generated using open source inherit the copyright conditions that the resulting software also be open source.

[Mike Gunn]

From a slightly different viewpoint, there is potential for rating or grading fraud, if all and sundry are allowed to upload data to the ECF grading system. The application might be compliant or certified, but the supposed 20-0 match loss by A Sandbagger rather less so. For that reason the concept of a local gatekeeper (local grader) is likely to have to remain.

A fair bit of the work of local graders is helping identify new players to a particular club team (often with the assistance of the ECF Grading Checker program) and sorting out results which were not correctly reported - are club captains expected to take on these tasks too?

While I can see the advantages of an Elo type system for new players and congress players or super keen players, it isn't really needed for evening leagues where the Clarke system is just fine. Bearing in mind that this sort of change often comes with teething problems, wouldn't it be a good idea to run both systems in parallel for a few years, before changing over completely? (The data is just the same, of course: you just need to run it through two programs). That would also give some interesting results from the grading theory point of view.

[Roger de Coverly]

Part of the API doubtless envisages involves security and authorization.

It said in Paulo's notes that any compliant system could upload data. Nothing about the user list who could do this being restricted. It's still a 20th century problem, you prepare a file of data and send it to the ECF. The method might be different but the concept isn't different from putting data on a diskette and sending it in the post. The ECF still needs a sign off that the data is valid.

[Mick Norris]

[You really are still very 20th century, Roger

[Paolo Casaschi]

Part of the API doubtless envisages involves security and authorization.

It said in Paulo's notes that any compliant system could upload data. Nothing about the user list who could do this being restricted. It's still a 20th century problem, you prepare a file of data and send it to the ECF. The method might be different but the concept isn't different from putting data on a diskette and sending it in the post. The ECF still needs a sign off that the data is valid.

Some security/authentication/registration is obviously required. My description was not meant as a full specification by any stretch of the imagination.
Certainly it can be solved.
If it's safe to submit your tax return online despite the risk of fraud, I'm sure we can make it safe to submit chess games results for rating.
Also keep in mind, the current system for FIDE rating requires results to be uploaded manually... What we are discussing here is how to make that submission automated but the security risks are the same. And the same risk you have with a grader that decides to send fake results in paper form.

[Roger de Coverly]

Also keep in mind, the current system for FIDE rating requires results to be uploaded manually... What we are discussing here is how to make that submission automated but the security risks are the same. And the same risk you have with a grader that decides to send fake results in paper form.

My understanding of the FIDE process is that every rating submission has to go through a named official or employee of the national Federation ("International Ratings Officer").

As it currently stands for English domestic events, I would not be allowed to play a private match against someone and then submit it personally for ECF grading. It would have to go through the local grader which gets a third party involved. That restriction needs to be maintained, hence the concept of routing all results, virtually if necessary, through the local grader.

[NickFaulks]

XML against a proper schema that can be consumed

and a side order of onion rings with mine.

[Stewart Reuben]

Nick >49 year olds are allowed to play in over 50 events on the grounds that they will be 50 at a defined date in the future. That really is odd!<

And players in events for U20 etc., are allowed to play in FIDE events provided they were U20 on 1 January, even though they may well be 20+ when the event starts in November. That is much more common and thus odder still.

[NickFaulks]

And players in events for U20 etc., are allowed to play in FIDE events provided they were U20 on 1 January, even though they may well be 20+ when the event starts in November. That is much more common and thus odder still.

I have always taken U20, etc, to mean 20 and under. I don't believe it can ever allow players who are past their 21st birthday. I'm happy with over 50 meaning 50 and over, but not 49.