Roger de Coverly wrote:Rob Thompson wrote:Would it be possible to do the Standard play grades after 6 months, like the rapidplay ones? This is beginning to move towards the idea of monthly grades, but without being a massively drastic change.
This was proposed (and rejected) about eighteen months ago. There would be a problem with this where players didn't play in one of the six month periods. You see this in the rapid grades. In the latest list, I was among a number of players whose grade went up by a decent amount despite not playing a single game in the "most recent" six month period.
I don’t see it as a disadvantage if a players grade increases when he plays zero or very few games; it is a result of early out of date lower rated results dropping out. This can already happen in the current long play grades eg.
A new player in the year 2000 plays 10 games at 70 for a grade of 70) – (2000,10,70, 70) followed by
(2001,20,85,86.6) (2002,7,115,97.2) (2003,8,130,109) (2004,1,140,124.1) so by playing 1 game in 2004 his
grade would have increased by 15 points.
Or this example,
A new player in the year 2000 plays 12 games and is badly treated by the new starter process being given a grade of 40 -(2000,12,40,40) followed by (2001,4,115, 58.8 ) (2002,7,130,80.4) (2003,1,140,125.83) in this case
increasing by 45 points in year 2003
However if he didn’t want to play the game in 2003 but just wanted to remain graded he could just turn up play one move and resign. Whatever his oppos grade the 40 point rule would ensure he got at least -9.57 for that game. (2003,1,-9.57,113.4)
giving an increase of 33 points.
The last example makes me think during the first few years a player plays, games should not go back to 3 years. Maybe that is the new basis for juniors.