27, 127 of which went to players whose year of birth began with a 2. It would probably be worth investigating that pattern as well.Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑Sun Mar 04, 2018 6:52 pmHowever, what relatively little FIDE-rated chess was played due to the numbers pumped 27 Elo points into the system. My suspicion would be that other FIDE-rated events too around England would achieve similar results, but I've not looked into that at all. It's perhaps an investigation for someone else to perform.
East Devon Open, 23-25 February
-
- Posts: 4841
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
- Location: Bideford
Re: East Devon Open, 23-25 February
-
- Posts: 21355
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: East Devon Open, 23-25 February
Which means -100 to players whose year of birth begins with a 1. Most of these will still be playing in 5 years time, whilst those whose year of birth begins with a 2 are less likely to.IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:15 pm
27, 127 of which went to players whose year of birth began with a 2.
-
- Posts: 3341
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm
Re: East Devon Open, 23-25 February
Every time a new player enters the rating system 1000+ pts are 'pumped' into the system. This will only be inflationary to the existing population if these points are then transferred to them. Under the historic working of the FIDE rating system, and the way people entered it, this was actually arguably the case. People only got into the system if they had a tournament performance (or series of performances) above the 2200 (later 2000) cutoff. So often people of true strength below the cut off would manage to enter the system (due to natural variance) donate their new points, and exit the system again. And the relative high cutoff meant that many of the people entering the system were already at a level of chess maturity such that they wouldn't be routinely underrated on entering the system.
Claiming that a tournament with existing rated players adding points is 'inflationary', is it seems to me, clearly flawed. For a start it only happens if the people with high K-factors are underrated relative to those with lower ones. ie. (mainly) Juniors. And of course juniors are mainly those who are the relatively new players who need to be donating points to the pre-existing population for it to be inflationary. Since they are generally taking points the opposite is obviously the case. That said my sense is that the introduction of the K-40 factor has gone some way to combatting the deflation that seemed to be happening a few years ago. Basically because it has created enormous volatility, to the extent that these days there are far more over-rated juniors about. Which means they're not quite as scary to face, ratings wise. But of course there are new ones entering the system all the time.
Claiming that a tournament with existing rated players adding points is 'inflationary', is it seems to me, clearly flawed. For a start it only happens if the people with high K-factors are underrated relative to those with lower ones. ie. (mainly) Juniors. And of course juniors are mainly those who are the relatively new players who need to be donating points to the pre-existing population for it to be inflationary. Since they are generally taking points the opposite is obviously the case. That said my sense is that the introduction of the K-40 factor has gone some way to combatting the deflation that seemed to be happening a few years ago. Basically because it has created enormous volatility, to the extent that these days there are far more over-rated juniors about. Which means they're not quite as scary to face, ratings wise. But of course there are new ones entering the system all the time.
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: East Devon Open, 23-25 February
If you have a closed population of players, which remains the same, then I still think a tournament like Warwickshire is inflationary. The mean rating of the players in Warwickshire increased relative to the mean rating of the population including everyone outside the system, who didn't play in it.
If you keep taking the population, and running tournaments closed to a few of them, then if the same phenomenon is observed, the mean rating of everyone in each tournament will go up. Eventually, if the players within the population inter-mingle enough, the mean rating of the population will go up. New players coming from outside the system will normally come in at the bottom and reduce it again; so yes, I agree that's a bit that fights against the otherwise inflationary way of working.
Reykjavik might be an interesting test of the underrated/overrated. There are a number of ENG players rated about 2000 in a genuinely international Open tournament. If English players really are underrated relative to the global population, then those players are candidates to gain rating points in Reykjavik; certainly more than their Iceland and international peers.
If you keep taking the population, and running tournaments closed to a few of them, then if the same phenomenon is observed, the mean rating of everyone in each tournament will go up. Eventually, if the players within the population inter-mingle enough, the mean rating of the population will go up. New players coming from outside the system will normally come in at the bottom and reduce it again; so yes, I agree that's a bit that fights against the otherwise inflationary way of working.
Reykjavik might be an interesting test of the underrated/overrated. There are a number of ENG players rated about 2000 in a genuinely international Open tournament. If English players really are underrated relative to the global population, then those players are candidates to gain rating points in Reykjavik; certainly more than their Iceland and international peers.
-
- Posts: 4841
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
- Location: Bideford
Re: East Devon Open, 23-25 February
With respect, Alex, I think you're arguing against a point other than the point that is being made.
(I admit that my own point is difficult to establish either way using the rating system, because it relies on the information for which the rating system is attempting to serve as a proxy.)
(I admit that my own point is difficult to establish either way using the rating system, because it relies on the information for which the rating system is attempting to serve as a proxy.)
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: East Devon Open, 23-25 February
Well, I was replying to this point in particular:IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:16 amWith respect, Alex, I think you're arguing against a point other than the point that is being made.
(I admit that my own point is difficult to establish either way using the rating system, because it relies on the information for which the rating system is attempting to serve as a proxy.)
IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 3:41 pmI suspect part of Richard's point lies in the perception of rating deflation; when you've reached the level where you may get invited to lucrative norm tournaments based on your FIDE rating, the natural thing to do is to play in as many other FIDE-rated events as possible when you think there is inflation, and as few as possible when you think there is deflation.
-
- Posts: 1030
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm
Re: East Devon Open, 23-25 February
Tagging on to add a couple of points:
1. Paignton does now have online entry. I know this because I used the facility last year!
2. If you look at the %s in the various "metallic groups" of ECF membership they are (roughly):
Gold 25%
Silver 25%
Bronze 50%
It would seem that half the tournament playing ECF members are content to play in events which are not FIDE rated. Compared with 10 or more years ago there are more opportunities to play in FIDE rated events but the membership breakdown suggests there is not exactly a headlong rush to play in the FIDE rated events at the expense of those which are not.
3. At my (very average) level there can be very large discrepancies between FIDE rating and ECF grade. There is no great mystery about this as nearly 100% of English events are ECF graded and only a minority are FIDE rated. ECF grades are much more accurate for most English players because they are based on much more data. Thus it would be much fairer (for example) if eligibility for graded sections at the British were based on ECF grades rather than FIDE ratings. Perhaps it is not too late to make this simple change for this year's tournaments?
4. Long term there could be benefits (e.g. in attracting new players and maintaining their interest) if we made more use of the FIDE system, but (as pointed out above) it's really up to FIDE to change the required time limits to make this possible in the English chess scene.
1. Paignton does now have online entry. I know this because I used the facility last year!
2. If you look at the %s in the various "metallic groups" of ECF membership they are (roughly):
Gold 25%
Silver 25%
Bronze 50%
It would seem that half the tournament playing ECF members are content to play in events which are not FIDE rated. Compared with 10 or more years ago there are more opportunities to play in FIDE rated events but the membership breakdown suggests there is not exactly a headlong rush to play in the FIDE rated events at the expense of those which are not.
3. At my (very average) level there can be very large discrepancies between FIDE rating and ECF grade. There is no great mystery about this as nearly 100% of English events are ECF graded and only a minority are FIDE rated. ECF grades are much more accurate for most English players because they are based on much more data. Thus it would be much fairer (for example) if eligibility for graded sections at the British were based on ECF grades rather than FIDE ratings. Perhaps it is not too late to make this simple change for this year's tournaments?
4. Long term there could be benefits (e.g. in attracting new players and maintaining their interest) if we made more use of the FIDE system, but (as pointed out above) it's really up to FIDE to change the required time limits to make this possible in the English chess scene.
-
- Posts: 8484
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: East Devon Open, 23-25 February
For players rated under 2200, representing the vast majority of new players, that has been done.Mike Gunn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:12 pm4. Long term there could be benefits (e.g. in attracting new players and maintaining their interest) if we made more use of the FIDE system, but (as pointed out above) it's really up to FIDE to change the required time limits to make this possible in the English chess scene.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 21355
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: East Devon Open, 23-25 February
Well not really. If you are lucky enough to play or even beat Mark or Keith, or indeed anyone above 2200, your game would not be rated.NickFaulks wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:57 pmFor players rated under 2200, representing the vast majority of new players, that has been done.
-
- Posts: 8484
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: East Devon Open, 23-25 February
Newcomers to competitive chess do not rely upon games against GMs, or even >2200 players, to get their first rating.Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:16 pmWell not really. If you are lucky enough to play or even beat Mark or Keith, or indeed anyone above 2200, your game would not be rated.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: East Devon Open, 23-25 February
Fair enough, I'm happy to stand corrected! There was a post on Facebook about it that was talking about it being old-fashioned, where one person to comment said "Where did I put my cheque book?" But I'm glad they've introduced it.
I think you've got cause and effect wrong. I think that people choose their membership based on what their event requires, rather than choose their events based on what level of membership they have.Mike Gunn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:12 pm2. If you look at the %s in the various "metallic groups" of ECF membership they are (roughly):
Gold 25%
Silver 25%
Bronze 50%
It would seem that half the tournament playing ECF members are content to play in events which are not FIDE rated. Compared with 10 or more years ago there are more opportunities to play in FIDE rated events but the membership breakdown suggests there is not exactly a headlong rush to play in the FIDE rated events at the expense of those which are not.
I also think if you broke it down by age group, and I'm thinking juniors in particular, you'd see a very different breakdown.
I'm afraid it is. If it were an English Championship, you might have a point. But it's a British Championship, so there needs to be a common rating that people in Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and beyond use.Mike Gunn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:12 pm3. At my (very average) level there can be very large discrepancies between FIDE rating and ECF grade. There is no great mystery about this as nearly 100% of English events are ECF graded and only a minority are FIDE rated. ECF grades are much more accurate for most English players because they are based on much more data. Thus it would be much fairer (for example) if eligibility for graded sections at the British were based on ECF grades rather than FIDE ratings. Perhaps it is not too late to make this simple change for this year's tournaments?
-
- Posts: 21355
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: East Devon Open, 23-25 February
I would anticipate zero take up in the UK for the notion that you run a FIDE rated event with rules that exclude games against the top seeds from being rated. So from a practical point of view, UK open tournaments with session lengths of three and half hours or less won't be rated.NickFaulks wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:40 pm
Newcomers to competitive chess do not rely upon games against GMs, or even >2200 players, to get their first rating.
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: East Devon Open, 23-25 February
Agreed; or alternatively, a slightly weird situation where the Major (i.e. the second section) was FIDE-rated and the Open section wasn't.Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:31 pmI would anticipate zero take up in the UK for the notion that you run a FIDE rated event with rules that exclude games against the top seeds from being rated. So from a practical point of view, UK open tournaments with session lengths of three and half hours or less won't be rated.
-
- Posts: 8484
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: East Devon Open, 23-25 February
So would I, and nobody outside the UK really cares. The rule was inserted for the benefit of nations looking for ways to get more games rated, not for those looking for reasons not to do so.
I'm not sure that would be weird. It does seem to be the higher rated players who are nervous of putting their valuable FIDE ratings at risk in knockabout games at quickish time controls, while others are not so worried and just want their ratings to be updated.Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:37 pmAgreed; or alternatively, a slightly weird situation where the Major (i.e. the second section) was FIDE-rated and the Open section wasn't.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
Re: East Devon Open, 23-25 February
When these Championships were introduced in the 1990s, they were the British U175 Championship, the British U150 Championship, the British U125 Championship and the British U100 Championship.Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:16 pmI'm afraid it is. If it were an English Championship, you might have a point. But it's a British Championship, so there needs to be a common rating that people in Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and beyond use.Mike Gunn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:12 pm3. At my (very average) level there can be very large discrepancies between FIDE rating and ECF grade. There is no great mystery about this as nearly 100% of English events are ECF graded and only a minority are FIDE rated. ECF grades are much more accurate for most English players because they are based on much more data. Thus it would be much fairer (for example) if eligibility for graded sections at the British were based on ECF grades rather than FIDE ratings. Perhaps it is not too late to make this simple change for this year's tournaments?
They continued along similar lines for about 15 years - until you came along.
How did we manage to do the impossible for a decade and a half?
Last edited by David Sedgwick on Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:53 am, edited 1 time in total.